Advertisement

Minimizing phylogenetic number to find good evolutionary trees

  • Leslie Ann Goldberg
  • Paul W. Goldberg
  • Cynthia A. Phillips
  • Elizabeth Sweedyk
  • Tandy Warnow
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 937)

Abstract

Inferring phylogenetic trees is a fundamental problem in computational-biology. We present a new objective criterion, the phylogenetic number, for evaluating evolutionary trees for species defined by biomolecular sequences or other qualitative characters. The phylogenetic number of a tree T is the maximum number of times that any given character state arises in T. By contrast, the classical parsimony criterion measures the total number of times that different character states arise in T. We consider the following related problems: finding the tree with minimum phylogenetic number, and computing the phylogenetic number of a given topology in which only the leaves are labeled by species. When the number of states is bounded (as is the case for biomolecular sequence characters), we can solve the second problem in polynomial time. We can also compute a fixed-topology 2-phylogeny (when one exists) for an arbitrary number of states. This algorithm can be used to further distinguish trees that are equal under parsimony. We also consider a number of other related problems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Agarwala and D. Fernandez-Baca, “Fast and Simple Algorithms for Perfect Phylogeny and Triangulating Colored Graphs”, DIMACS TR#94-51, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Agarwala, D. Fernández-Baca, “A Polynomial-Time Algorithm for the Perfect Phylogeny Problem when the Number of Character States is Fixed”, procs. of the 34th annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Bodlaender, M. Fellows, T. Warnow, “Two Strikes Against Perfect Phylogeny”, procs. of the 19th International Congress on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), pp. 273–287, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.H.E. Day, “Computationally difficult parsimony problems in phylogenetic systematics,” Journal of theoretical biology, 103: 429–438.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.H.E. Day and D. Sankoff, “Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies by compatibility”, Systematic Zoology, 35(2): 224–229, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Wm. Fitch, “Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specified tree topology”, Syst. Zool., 20:406–416, 1971.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    D.R. Fulkerson, D.A. Gross, “Incidence matrices and interval graphs”, Pacific J. Math., 15 (3), 1965.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    P.W. Goldberg, M.C. Golumbic, H. Kaplan, R. Shamir, “Four Strikes Against Physical Mapping of DNA”, Tech. Rept. 287/93, Tel Aviv University, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    S. Kannan and T. Warnow, “Inferring Evolutionary History from DNA Sequences”, SIAM J. on Computing, Vol. 23, No. 4, August 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    S. Kannan and T. Warnow, “A fast algorithm for the computation and enumeration of perfect phylogenies”, to appear, ACM/SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    F.R. McMorris, T. Warnow, T. Wimer, “Triangulating Colored Graphs”, SIAM J. on Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 296–306, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    R.C. Prim, “Shortest Connection Networks and Some Generalisations”, Bell System Tech. J., 36 1389–1401, 1957.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    M.A. Steel, “The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees”, Journal of Classification, 9 91–116, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    T. Warnow, “Efficient Algorithms for The Character Compatibility Problem”, New Zealand Journal of Botany, Vol. 31, (1993), pp. 239–248.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Ann Goldberg
    • 1
  • Paul W. Goldberg
    • 1
  • Cynthia A. Phillips
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Sweedyk
    • 2
  • Tandy Warnow
    • 3
  1. 1.Sandia National Laboratories, MS 1110AlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations