Advertisement

Using Semi-definite Programming to Enhance Supertree Resolvability

  • Shlomo Moran
  • Satish Rao
  • Sagi Snir
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3692)

Abstract

Supertree methods are used to construct a large tree over a large set of taxa, from a set of small trees over overlapping subsets of the complete taxa set. Since accurate reconstruction methods are currently limited to a maximum of few dozens of taxa, the use of a supertree method in order to construct the tree of life is inevitable.

Supertree methods are broadly divided according to the input trees: When the input trees are unrooted, the basic reconstruction unit is a quartet tree. In this case, the basic decision problem of whether there exists a tree that agrees with all quartets is NP-complete. On the other hand, when the input trees are rooted, the basic reconstruction unit is a rooted triplet, and the above decision problem has a polynomial time algorithm. However, when there is no tree which agrees with all triplets, it would be desirable to find the tree that agrees with the maximum number of triplets. However, this optimization problem was shown to be NP-hard. Current heuristic approaches perform mincut on a graph representing the triplets inconsistency and return a tree that is guaranteed to satisfy some required properties.

In this work we present a different heuristic approach that guarantees the properties provided by the current methods and give experimental evidence that it significantly outperforms currently used methods. This method is based on divide and conquer where we use a semi-definite programming approach in the divide step.

Keywords

Connectivity Graph Internal Vertex Input Tree Good Edge Parsimony Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ARV04]
    Arora, S., Rao, S., Vazirani, U.: Expander flows, geometric embeddings and graph partitioning. In: Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (2004)Google Scholar
  2. [ASSU81]
    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 Journal of Computing 10(3), 405–421 (1981)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [Bau92]
    Baum, B.R.: Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference. Taxon 41, 3–10 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [BDCG+98]
    Ben-Dor, A., Chor, B., Graur, D., Ophir, R., Pelleg, D.: Constructing phylogenies from quarbcgoptets: Elucidation of eutherian superordinal relationships. Jour. of Comput. Biology 5(3), 377–390 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [BS00]
    Bryant, D.J., Steel, M.A.: Extension operations on sets of leaf-labelled trees. Advances in Applied Mathematics 16(4), 425–453 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [CBEBP04]
    Cardillo, M., Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Boakes, E., Purvis, A.: A species-level phylogenetic supertree of marsupials. Journal of Zoology 264(1), 11–31 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [CEFBS02]
    Chen, D., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., Sanderson, M.: Supertrees by flipping. In: Ibarra, O.H., Zhang, L. (eds.) COCOON 2002. LNCS, vol. 2387, p. 391. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [CT05]
    Chor, B., Tuller, T.: Maximum likelihood of evolutionary trees is hard. In: RECOMB (2005)Google Scholar
  9. [ECB+04]
    Eulenstein, O., Chen, D., Burleigh, J.G., Fernandez-Baca, D., Sanderson, M.J.: Performance of flip supertrees with a heuristic algorithm. Systematic Biology 53(2), 299–308 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Fel81]
    Felsenstein, J.: Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17, 368–376 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [FG82]
    Foulds, L.R., Graham, R.L.: The steiner problem in phylogeny is NP-complete. Advances in Applied Mathematics 3, 43–49 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [Fit81]
    Fitch, W.M.: A non-sequential method for constructing trees and hierarchical classifications. Journal of Molecular Evolution 18(1), 30–37 (1981)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [FM82]
    Fiduccia, C.M., Mattheyses, R.M.: A linear time heuristic for improving network partitions. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 175–181 (1982)Google Scholar
  14. [GW95]
    Goemans, M.X., Williamson, D.P.: Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 42(6), 1115–1145 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [HKW96]
    Henzinger, M.R., King, V., Warnow, T.: Constructing a tree from homeomorphic subtrees, with applications to computational evolutionary biology. In: SODA, pp. 333–340 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. [KL70]
    Kernighan, B.W., Lin, S.: An ecient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. The Bell System Technical Journal 29(2), 291–307 (1970)Google Scholar
  17. [MS04]
    Moran, S., Snir, S.: Convex recoloring of strings and trees: Definitions, hardness results and algorithms. submitted (2004)Google Scholar
  18. [Pag02]
    Page, R.D.M.: Modified mincut supertrees. In: Guigó, R., Gusfield, D. (eds.) WABI 2002. LNCS, vol. 2452, p. 537. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [PSDW]
    Piel, W., Sanderson, M., Donoghue, M., Walsh, M.: Treebase, http://www.treebase.org
  20. [Rag92]
    Ragan, M.A.: Matrix representation in reconstructing phylogenetic-relationships among the eukaryotes. Biosystems 28, 47–55 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [RF81]
    Robinson, D.R., Foulds, L.R.: Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Mathematical Biosciences 53, 131–147 (1981)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. [SDB00]
    Steel, M., Dress, A., Boker, S.: Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Systematic Biology 49, 363–368 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [SN87]
    Saitou, N., Nei, M.: The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4 (1987)Google Scholar
  24. [SS00]
    Semple, C., Steel, M.: A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 103, 147–158 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. [Ste92]
    Steel, M.: The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtress. Journal of Classification 9(1), 91–116 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shlomo Moran
    • 1
  • Satish Rao
    • 2
  • Sagi Snir
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science dept.TechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Computer Science dept.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Mathematics dept.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations