Advertisement

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 431–451 | Cite as

Identifiability of Phylogenetic Parameters from k-mer Data Under the Coalescent

  • Chris Durden
  • Seth SullivantEmail author
Special Issue: Algebraic Methods in Phylogenetics
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

Distances between sequences based on their k-mer frequency counts can be used to reconstruct phylogenies without first computing a sequence alignment. Past work has shown that effective use of k-mer methods depends on (1) model-based corrections to distances based on k-mers and (2) breaking long sequences into blocks to obtain repeated trials from the sequence-generating process. Good performance of such methods is based on having many high-quality blocks with many homologous sites, which can be problematic to guarantee a priori. Nature provides natural blocks of sequences into homologous regions—namely, the genes. However, directly using past work in this setting is problematic because of possible discordance between different gene trees and the underlying species tree. Using the multispecies coalescent model as a basis, we derive model-based moment formulas that involve the species divergence times and the coalescent parameters. From this setting, we prove identifiability results for the tree and branch length parameters under the Jukes–Cantor model of sequence mutations.

Keywords

k-mer method Coalescent Algebraic geometry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Chris Durden was partially supported by the US National Science Foundation (DMS 1615660). Seth Sullivant was partially supported by the US National Science Foundation (DMS 1615660) and by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

References

  1. Allman ES, Degnan JH, Rhodes JA (2011) Determining species tree topologies from clade probabilities under the coalescent. J Theor Biol 289:96–106MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Allman ES, Rhodes JA, Sullivant S (2017) Statistically consistent k-mer methods for phylogenetic tree reconstruction. J Comput Biol 24(2):153–171MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackshields G, Sievers F, Shi W, Wilm A, Higgins DG (2010) Sequence embedding for fast construction of guide trees for multiple sequence alignment. Algorithms Mol Biol 5:21Google Scholar
  4. Cox DA, Little J, O’Shea D (2015) Ideals, varieties, and algorithms. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, fourth edition, An introduction to computational algebraic geometry and commutative algebraGoogle Scholar
  5. Dasarathy G, Nowak R, Roch S (2015) Data requirement for phylogenetic inference from multiple loci: A new distance method. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinf 12:422–432Google Scholar
  6. Daskalakis C, Roch S (2013) Alignment-free phylogenetic reconstruction: sample complexity via a branching process analysis. Ann Appl Probab 23:693–721MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Edgar RC (2004a) MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinf 5:113Google Scholar
  8. Edgar RC (2004b) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32:1792–1797Google Scholar
  9. Gale D, Nikaido H (1965) The Jacobian matrix and global univalence of mappings. Math Ann 159(2):81–93MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Kingman JFC (1982) The coalescent. Stoch Process Their Appl 13(3):235–248MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Leung D, Drton M, Hara H et al (2016) Identifiability of directed Gaussian graphical models with one latent source. Electron J Stat 10(1):394–422MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. McVean GAT (2002) A genealogical interpretation of linkage disequilibrium. Genetics 162(2):987–991Google Scholar
  13. Pamilo P, Nei M (1988) Relationships between gene trees and species trees. Mol Biol Evol 5(5):568–583Google Scholar
  14. Rannala B, Yang Z (2003) Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using dna sequences from multiple loci. Genetics 164(4):1645–1656Google Scholar
  15. Semple C, Steel M (2003) Phylogenetics, volume 24 of Oxford lecture series in mathematics and its applications. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen DG, Gibson TJ, Karplus K, Li W, Lopez R, McWilliam H, Remmert M, Söding J, Thompson JD, Higgins DG (2011) Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol 7:539Google Scholar
  17. Speyer D, Sturmfels B (2004) The tropical Grassmannian. Adv Geom 4(3):389–411MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Takahata N (1986) An attempt to estimate the effective size of the ancestral species common to two extant species from which homologous genes are sequenced. Genet Res 48(03):187–190Google Scholar
  19. Takahata N, Satta Y, Klein J (1995) Divergence time and population size in the lineage leading to modern humans. Theor Popul Biol 48(2):198–221zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Wakeley J (2009) Coalescent theory: an introduction, vol 1. Roberts & Company Publishers Greenwood Village, ColoradozbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations