Abstract
Matrix representation with compatibility (MRC) identifies the largest set of mutually compatible characters (maximum clique) in combined data sets of trees represented by additive binary coding. The supertree can be determined directly from this clique, without recourse to arguments involving parsimony and homoplasy. We compared the powers of MRC and matrix representation with parsimony (MRP) to construct a supertree reliably by simulating sets of consistent and inconsistent sample trees derived from an original model tree. Under stringent definitions of success, MRC and MRP were successful with data sets having larger numbers of trees (>7–10), each with substantial overlap (>50% of all taxa). Overall, MRP was slightly more successful than MRC in recovering the original model tree. Identifying a maximum clique is subject to the NP-hard constraint so that fast computers and efficient software are needed for MRC to be a practical tool in the immediate future. Weakly compatible splits used in the construction of splits graphs might offer an alternative method and warrant further investigation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aho, A. V., Sagiv, Y., Szymanski, T. G., and Ullman, J. D. 1981. Inferring a tree from the lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. Siam Journal of Computing 10:405–421.
Bandelt, H.-J. and Dress, A. W. M. 1992a. A canonical decomposition theory for metrics on a finite set. Advances in Mathematics 92:47–105.
Bandelt, H.-J. and Dress, A. W. M. 1992b. Split decomposition: a new and useful approach to phylogenetic analysis of distance data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:242–252.
Baum, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3–10.
Baum, B. R. and Ragan, M. A. 2004. The MRP method. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 17–34. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. and Bryant, H. N. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Systematic Biology 47:497–508.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L., and Steel, M. A. 2002. The (super) tree of life: procedures, problems, and prospects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:265–289.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. and Sanderson, M. J. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Systematic Biology 50:565–579.
Bron, C. and Kerbosch, J. 1973. Algorithm 457: finding all cliques of an undirected graph. Communications of the Acm 16:575–577.
Burleigh, J. G., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2004. MRF supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 65–85. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Chen, D., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2001. Supertrees by Flipping. Technical Report TR02–01, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, 226 Atanasoff Hall, Ames, Ia 50011–1040, USA.
Cotton, J. A. and Page, R. D. M. 2004. Tangled trees from molecular markers: reconciling conflict between phylogenies to build molecular supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 107–125. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Estabrook, G. F., Johnson, C. S., Jr., and McMorris, F. R. 1976. An algebraic analysis of cladistic characters. Discrete Mathematics 16:141–147.
Estabrook, G. F., Strauch, J. G., Jr., and Fiala, K. L. 1977. An application of compatibility analysis to the Blackiths ’ data on orthopteroid insects. Systematic Zoology 26:269–276.
Felsenstein, J. 1981. A likelihood approach to character weighting and what it tells us about parsimony and compatibility. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 16:183–196.
Felsenstein, J. 1989. Phylip — Phylogeny Inference Package (Version 3.2). Cladistics 5:164–166. (http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/phylip.html)
Garey, M. R. and Johnson, D. S. 1979. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-completeness. Freeman, New York.
Goloboff, P. A. and Pol, D. 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18:514–525.
Gordon, A. D. 1986. Consensus supertrees: the synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. Journal of Classification 3:335–348.
Huson, D. H. 1998. SplitsTree: analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data. Bioinformatics 14:68–73.
Meacham, C. A. and Estabrook, G. F. 1985. Compatibility methods in systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16:431–446.
Ostergard, P. R. J. 2002. A fast algorithm for the maximum clique problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 120:197–207.
Pardalos, P. M. and Xue, J. 1994. The maximum clique problem. Journal of Global Optimization 4:301–328.
Purvis, A. 1995. A modification to Baum and Ragan ’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Systematic Biology 44:251–255.
Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representations of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:53–58.
Rodrigo, A. G. 1993. A comment on Baum ’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Taxon 42:631–636.
Rodrigo, A. G. 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon 45:267–274.
Sanderson, M. J., Purvis, A., and Henze, C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:105–109.
Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 105:147–158.
Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2002. Tree reconstruction from multi-state characters. Advances in Applied Mathematics 28:169–184.
Slowinski, J. B. and Page, R. D. M. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Systematic Biology 48:814–825.
Souris, P. and Souris, D. E. 2001. Molecular systematics: assembling and using the Tree of Life. Taxon 50:663–677.
Stajich, J. E., Block, D., Boulez, K., Brenner, S. E., Chervitz, S. A., Dagdigian, C., Fuellen, G., Gilbert, J. G. R., Korf, I., Lapp, H., Lehväslaiho, H., Matsalla, C., Mungall, C. J., Osborne, B. I., Pocock, M. R., Schattner, P., Senger, C. J., Stein, L. D., Stupka, E., Wilkinson, M. D., and Birney, E. 2002. The BioPerl toolkit: Perl modules for the life sciences. Genome Research 12:1611–1618.
Steel, M., Dress, A. W. M., and Böcker, S. 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Systematic Biology 49:363–368.
Swofford, D. L. 2002. Paup*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods). Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Wilkinson, M. 1994. Common cladistic information and its consensus representation: reduced Adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles. Systematic Biology 43:343–368.
Wilkinson, M., Thorley, J. L., Littlewood, D. T. J. and Bray, R. A. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree of Platyhelminthes? In D. T. J. Littlewood and R. A. Bray (eds), Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes, pp. 292–301. Taylor and Francis, London.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ross, H.A., Rodrigo, A.G. (2004). An Assessment of Matrix Representation with Compatibility in Supertree Construction. In: Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. (eds) Phylogenetic Supertrees. Computational Biology, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2329-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2330-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive