Abstract
Supertree methods allow to reconstruct large phylogenetic trees by combining smaller trees with overlapping leaf sets, into one, more comprehensive supertree. The most commonly used supertree method, matrix representation with parsimony (MRP), produces accurate supertrees but is rather slow due to the underlying hard optimization problem. In this paper, we present an extensive simulation study comparing the performance of MRP and the polynomial supertree methods MinCut Supertree, Modified MinCut Supertree, Build-with-distances, PhySIC, and PhySIC_IST. We consider both quality and resolution of the reconstructed supertrees. Our findings illustrate the trade-off between accuracy and running time in supertree construction, as well as the pros and cons of voting- and veto-based supertree approaches.
Chapter PDF
References
Gordon, A.D.: Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labelled leaves. J. Classif. 3, 335–348 (1986)
Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. (ed.): Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Computational Biology Book Series, vol. 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2004)
Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P.: Supertree construction in the genomic age. Methods Enzymol. 395, 745–757 (2005)
Roch, S.: A short proof that phylogenetic tree reconstruction by maximum likelihood is hard. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 3(1), 92–94 (2006)
Foulds, L.R., Graham, R.L.: The Steiner problem in phylogeny is NP-complete. Adv. Appl. Math. 3, 43–49 (1982)
Baum, B.R.: Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41(1), 3–10 (1992)
Ragan, M.A.: Matrix representation in reconstructing phylogenetic relationships among the eukaryotes. Biosystems 28(1-3), 47–55 (1992)
Chen, D., Eulenstein, O., Fernández-Baca, D., Sanderson, M.: Minimum-flip supertrees: complexity and algorithms. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 3(2), 165–173 (2006)
Ross, H.A., Rodrigo, A.G.: An assessment of matrix representation with compatibility in supertree construction. In: Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. (ed.) Phylogenetic Supertrees (combining information to reveal the tree of life), vol. 3, pp. 35–63. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)
Semple, C., Steel, M.: A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105(1-3), 147–158 (2000)
Page, R.D.M.: Modified mincut supertrees. In: Guigó, R., Gusfield, D. (eds.) WABI 2002. LNCS, vol. 2452, pp. 537–552. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Willson, S.J.: Constructing rooted supertrees using distances. Bull. Math. Biol. 66(6), 1755–1783 (2004)
Ranwez, V., Berry, V., Criscuolo, A., Fabre, P.-H., Guillemot, S., Scornavacca, C., Douzery, E.J.P.: PhySIC: a veto supertree method with desirable properties. Syst. Biol. 56(5), 798–817 (2007)
Scornavacca, C., Berry, V., Lefort, V., Douzery, E.J.P., Ranwez, V.: PhySIC_IST: cleaning source trees to infer more informative supertrees. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 413 (2008)
Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Sanderson, M.J.: Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 50(4), 565–579 (2001)
Levasseur, C., Lapointe, F.-J.: Total evidence, average consensus and matrix representation with parsimony: What a difference distances make. Evol. Bioinform. 2, 249–253 (2006)
Aho, A.V., Sagiv, Y., Szymanski, T.G., Ullman, J.D.: Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM J. Comput. 10(3), 405–421 (1981)
Thorley, J.L., Wilkinson, M.: A view of supertree methods. In: Jannowitz, M.F., Lapointe, F.J., McMorris, F.R., Roberts, F.S. (eds.) Bioconsensus, vol. 61. The American Mathematical Society, Providence (2003)
Goloboff, P.A., Pol, D.: Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18(5), 514–525 (2002)
Sanderson, M.J.: r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics 19(2), 301–302 (2003)
Rambaut, A., Grassly, N.C.: Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13(3), 235–238 (1997)
Yang, Z.: Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 39(3), 306–314 (1994)
Higdon, J.W., Bininda-Emonds, O.P., Beck, R.M.D., Ferguson, S.H.: Phylogeny and divergence of the pinnipeds (carnivora: Mammalia) assessed using a multigene dataset. BMC Evol. Biol. 7, 216 (2007)
Stamatakis, A.: RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22(21), 2688–2690 (2006)
Swafford, D.: Paup*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), Version 4 (2002)
Robinson, D.F., Foulds, L.R.: Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53(1-2), 131–147 (1981)
Gordon, A.D.: On the assessment and comparison of classifications. In: Tomassine, R. (ed.) Analyse de Données et Informatique, Le Chesnay, INRIA, France, pp. 149–160 (1980)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Brinkmeyer, M., Griebel, T., Böcker, S. (2010). Polynomial Supertree Methods Revisited. In: Dijkstra, T.M.H., Tsivtsivadze, E., Marchiori, E., Heskes, T. (eds) Pattern Recognition in Bioinformatics. PRIB 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6282. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16001-1_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16001-1_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-16000-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-16001-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)