Assessing the robustness of parsimonious predictions for gene neighborhoods from reconciled phylogenies

The availability of a large number of assembled genomes opens the way to study the evolution of syntenic character within a phylogenetic context. The DeCo algorithm, recently introduced by B{\'e}rard et al. allows the computation of parsimonious evolutionary scenarios for gene adjacencies, from pairs of reconciled gene trees. Following the approach pioneered by Sturmfels and Pachter, we describe how to modify the DeCo dynamic programming algorithm to identify classes of cost schemes that generates similar parsimonious evolutionary scenarios for gene adjacencies, as well as the robustness to changes to the cost scheme of evolutionary events of the presence or absence of specific ancestral gene adjacencies. We apply our method to six thousands mammalian gene families, and show that computing the robustness to changes to cost schemes provides new and interesting insights on the evolution of gene adjacencies and the DeCo model.Comment: Accepted, to appear in ISBRA - 11th International Symposium on Bioinformatics Research and Applications - 2015, Jun 2015, Norfolk, Virginia, United State

The EM Algorithm and the Rise of Computational Biology

In the past decade computational biology has grown from a cottage industry with a handful of researchers to an attractive interdisciplinary field, catching the attention and imagination of many quantitatively-minded scientists. Of interest to us is the key role played by the EM algorithm during this transformation. We survey the use of the EM algorithm in a few important computational biology problems surrounding the "central dogma"; of molecular biology: from DNA to RNA and then to proteins. Topics of this article include sequence motif discovery, protein sequence alignment, population genetics, evolutionary models and mRNA expression microarray data analysis.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-STS312 the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Formal methods applied to the analysis of phylogenies: Phylogenetic model checking

Los árboles filogenéticos son abstracciones útiles para modelar y caracterizar la evolución de un conjunto de especies o poblaciones respecto del tiempo. La proposición, verificación y generalización de hipótesis sobre un árbol filogenético inferido juegan un papel importante en el estudio y comprensión de las relaciones evolutivas. Actualmente, uno de los principales objetivos científicos es extraer o descubrir los mensajes biológicos implícitos y las propiedades estructurales subyacentes en la filogenia. Por ejemplo, la integración de información genética en una filogenia ayuda al descubrimiento de genes conservados en todo o parte del árbol, la identificación de posiciones covariantes en el ADN o la estimación de las fechas de divergencia entre especies. Consecuentemente, los árboles ayudan a comprender el mecanismo que gobierna la deriva evolutiva. Hoy en día, el amplio espectro de métodos y herramientas heterogéneas para el análisis de filogenias enturbia y dificulta su utilización, además del fuerte acoplamiento entre la especificación de propiedades y los algoritmos utilizados para su evaluación (principalmente scripts ad hoc). Este problema es el punto de arranque de esta tesis, donde se analiza como solución la posibilidad de introducir un entorno formal de verificación de hipótesis que, de manera automática y modular, estudie la veracidad de dichas propiedades definidas en un lenguaje genérico e independiente (en una lógica formal asociada) sobre uno de los múltiples softwares preparados para ello. La contribución principal de la tesis es la propuesta de un marco formal para la descripción, verificación y manipulación de relaciones causales entre especies de forma independiente del código utilizado para su valoración. Para ello, exploramos las características de las técnicas de model checking, un paradigma en el que una especificación expresada en lógica temporal se verifica con respecto a un modelo del sistema que representa una implementación a un cierto nivel de detalle. Se ha aplicado satisfactoriamente en la industria para el modelado de sistemas y su verificación, emergiendo del ámbito de las ciencias de la computación. Las contribuciones concretas de la tesis han sido: A) La identificación e interpretación de los árboles filogeneticos como modelos de la evolución, adaptados al entorno de las técnicas de model checking. B) La definición de una lógica temporal que captura las propiedades filogenéticas habituales junto con un método de construcción de propiedades. C) La clasificación de propiedades filogenéticas, identificando categorías de propiedades según estén centradas en la estructura del árbol, en las secuencias o sean híbridas. D) La extensión de las lógicas y modelos para contemplar propiedades cuantitativas de tiempo, probabilidad y de distancias. E) El desarrollo de un entorno para la verificación de propiedades booleanas, cuantitativas y paramétricas. F) El establecimiento de los principios para la manipulación simbolica de objetos filogenéticos, p. ej., clados. G) La explotación de las herramientas de model checking existentes, detectando sus problemas y carencias en el campo de filogenia y proponiendo mejoras. H) El desarrollo de técnicas "ad hoc" para obtener ganancia de complejidad alrededor de dos frentes: distribución de los cálculos y datos, y el uso de sistemas de información. Los puntos A-F se centran en las aportaciones conceptuales de nuestra aproximación, mientras que los puntos G-H enfatizan la parte de herramientas e implementación. Los contenidos de la tesis están contrastados por la comunidad científica mediante las siguientes publicaciones en conferencias y revistas internacionales. La introducción de model checking como entorno formal para analizar propiedades biológicas (puntos A-C) ha llevado a la publicación de nuestro primer artículo de congreso [1]. En [2], desarrollamos la verificación de hipótesis filogenéticas sobre un árbol de ejemplo construido a partir de las relaciones impuestas por un conjunto de proteínas codificadas por el ADN mitocondrial humano (ADNmt). En ese ejemplo, usamos una herramienta automática y genérica de model checking (punto G). El artículo de revista [7] resume lo básico de los artículos de congreso previos y extiende la aplicación de lógicas temporales a propiedades filogenéticas no consideradas hasta ahora. Los artículos citados aquí engloban los contenidos presentados en las Parte I--II de la tesis. El enorme tamaño de los árboles y la considerable cantidad de información asociada a los estados (p.ej., la cadena de ADN) obligan a la introducción de adaptaciones especiales en las herramientas de model checking para mantener un rendimiento razonable en la verificación de propiedades y aliviar también el problema de la explosión de estados (puntos G-H). El artículo de congreso [3] presenta las ventajas de rebanar el ADN asociado a los estados, la partición de la filogenia en pequeños subárboles y su distribución entre varias máquinas. Además, la idea original del model checking rebanado se complementa con la inclusión de una base de datos externa para el almacenamiento de secuencias. El artículo de revista [4] reúne las nociones introducidas en [3] junto con la implementación y resultados preliminares presentados [5]. Este tema se corresponde con lo presentado en la Parte III de la tesis. Para terminar, la tesis reaprovecha las extensiones de las lógicas temporales con tiempo explícito y probabilidades a fin de manipular e interrogar al árbol sobre información cuantitativa. El artículo de congreso [6] ejemplifica la necesidad de introducir probabilidades y tiempo discreto para el análisis filogenético de un fenotipo real, en este caso, el ratio de distribución de la intolerancia a la lactosa entre diversas poblaciones arraigadas en las hojas de la filogenia. Esto se corresponde con el Capítulo 13, que queda englobado dentro de las Partes IV--V. Las Partes IV--V completan los conceptos presentados en ese artículo de conferencia hacia otros dominios de aplicación, como la puntuación de árboles, y tiempo continuo (puntos E-F). La introducción de parámetros en las hipótesis filogenéticas se plantea como trabajo futuro. Referencias [1] Roberto Blanco, Gregorio de Miguel Casado, José Ignacio Requeno, and José Manuel Colom. Temporal logics for phylogenetic analysis via model checking. In Proceedings IEEE International Workshop on Mining and Management of Biological and Health Data, pages 152-157. IEEE, 2010. [2] José Ignacio Requeno, Roberto Blanco, Gregorio de Miguel Casado, and José Manuel Colom. Phylogenetic analysis using an SMV tool. In Miguel P. Rocha, Juan M. Corchado Rodríguez, Florentino Fdez-Riverola, and Alfonso Valencia, editors, Proceedings 5th International Conference on Practical Applications of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, volume 93 of Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, pages 167-174. Springer, Berlin, 2011. [3] José Ignacio Requeno, Roberto Blanco, Gregorio de Miguel Casado, and José Manuel Colom. Sliced model checking for phylogenetic analysis. In Miguel P. Rocha, Nicholas Luscombe, Florentino Fdez-Riverola, and Juan M. Corchado Rodríguez, editors, Proocedings 6th International Conference on Practical Applications of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, volume 154 of Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, pages 95-103. Springer, Berlin, 2012. [4] José Ignacio Requeno and José Manuel Colom. Model checking software for phylogenetic trees using distribution and database methods. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics, 10(3):229-233, 2013. [5] José Ignacio Requeno and José Manuel Colom. Speeding up phylogenetic model checking. In Mohd Saberi Mohamad, Loris Nanni, Miguel P. Rocha, and Florentino Fdez-Riverola, editors, Proceedings 7th International Conference on Practical Applications of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, volume 222 of Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pages 119-126. Springer, Berlin, 2013. [6] José Ignacio Requeno and José Manuel Colom. Timed and probabilistic model checking over phylogenetic trees. In Miguel P. Rocha et al., editors, Proceedings 8th International Conference on Practical Applications of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing. Springer, Berlin, 2014. [7] José Ignacio Requeno, Gregorio de Miguel Casado, Roberto Blanco, and José Manuel Colom. Temporal logics for phylogenetic analysis via model checking. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 10(4):1058-1070, 2013

Genealogy Reconstruction: Methods and applications in cancer and wild populations

Genealogy reconstruction is widely used in biology when relationships among entities are studied. Phylogenies, or evolutionary trees, show the differences between species. They are of profound importance because they help to obtain better understandings of evolutionary processes. Pedigrees, or family trees, on the other hand visualize the relatedness between individuals in a population. The reconstruction of pedigrees and the inference of parentage in general is now a cornerstone in molecular ecology. Applications include the direct infer- ence of gene flow, estimation of the effective population size and parameters describing the population’s mating behaviour such as rates of inbreeding. In the first part of this thesis, we construct genealogies of various types of cancer. Histopatho- logical classification of human tumors relies in part on the degree of differentiation of the tumor sample. To date, there is no objective systematic method to categorize tumor subtypes by maturation. We introduce a novel algorithm to rank tumor subtypes according to the dis- similarity of their gene expression from that of stem cells and fully differentiated tissue, and thereby construct a phylogenetic tree of cancer. We validate our methodology with expression data of leukemia and liposarcoma subtypes and then apply it to a broader group of sarcomas and of breast cancer subtypes. This ranking of tumor subtypes resulting from the application of our methodology allows the identification of genes correlated with differentiation and may help to identify novel therapeutic targets. Our algorithm represents the first phylogeny-based tool to analyze the differentiation status of human tumors. In contrast to asexually reproducing cancer cell populations, pedigrees of sexually reproduc- ing populations cannot be represented by phylogenetic trees. Pedigrees are directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and therefore resemble more phylogenetic networks where reticulate events are indicated by vertices with two incoming arcs. We present a software package for pedigree reconstruction in natural populations using co-dominant genomic markers such as microsatel- lites and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) in the second part of the thesis. If available, the algorithm makes use of prior information such as known relationships (sub-pedigrees) or the age and sex of individuals. Statistical confidence is estimated by Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling. The accuracy of the algorithm is demonstrated for simulated data as well as an empirical data set with known pedigree. The parentage inference is robust even in the presence of genotyping errors. We further demonstrate the accuracy of the algorithm on simulated clonal populations. We show that the joint estimation of parameters of inter- est such as the rate of self-fertilization or clonality is possible with high accuracy even with marker panels of moderate power. Classical methods can only assign a very limited number of statistically significant parentages in this case and would therefore fail. The method is implemented in a fast and easy to use open source software that scales to large datasets with many thousand individuals.:Abstract v Acknowledgments vii 1 Introduction 1 2 Cancer Phylogenies 7 2.1 Introduction..................................... 7 2.2 Background..................................... 9 2.2.1 PhylogeneticTrees............................. 9 2.2.2 Microarrays................................. 10 2.3 Methods....................................... 11 2.3.1 Datasetcompilation ............................ 11 2.3.2 Statistical Methods and Analysis..................... 13 2.3.3 Comparison of our methodology to other methods . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.4 Results........................................ 16 2.4.1 Phylogenetic tree reconstruction method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.4.2 Comparison of tree reconstruction methods to other algorithms . . . . 28 2.4.3 Systematic analysis of methods and parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.5 Discussion...................................... 32 3 Wild Pedigrees 35 3.1 Introduction..................................... 35 3.2 The molecular ecologist’s tools of the trade ................... 36 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.1 Sibship inference and parental reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.2.2 Parentage and paternity inference .................... 39 3.2.3 Multigenerational pedigree reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.3 Background..................................... 40 3.3.1 Pedigrees .................................. 40 3.3.2 Genotypes.................................. 41 3.3.3 Mendelian segregation probability .................... 41 3.3.4 LOD Scores................................. 43 3.3.5 Genotyping Errors ............................. 43 3.3.6 IBD coefficients............................... 45 3.3.7 Bayesian MCMC.............................. 46 3.4 Methods....................................... 47 3.4.1 Likelihood Model.............................. 47 3.4.2 Efficient Likelihood Calculation...................... 49 3.4.3 Maximum Likelihood Pedigree ...................... 51 3.4.4 Full siblings................................. 52 3.4.5 Algorithm.................................. 53 3.4.6 Missing Values ............................... 56 3.4.7 Allelefrequencies.............................. 58 3.4.8 Rates of Self-fertilization.......................... 60 3.4.9 Rates of Clonality ............................. 60 3.5 Results........................................ 61 3.5.1 Real Microsatellite Data.......................... 61 3.5.2 Simulated Human Population....................... 62 3.5.3 SimulatedClonalPlantPopulation.................... 64 3.6 Discussion...................................... 71 4 Conclusions 77 A FRANz 79 A.1 Availability ..................................... 79 A.2 Input files...................................... 79 A.2.1 Maininputfile ............................... 79 A.2.2 Knownrelationships ............................ 80 A.2.3 Allele frequencies.............................. 81 A.2.4 Sampling locations............................. 82 A.3 Output files..................................... 83 A.4 Web 2.0 Interface.................................. 86 List of Figures 87 List of Tables 88 List Abbreviations 90 Bibliography 92 Curriculum Vitae

Comparison of eukaryotic phylogenetic profiling approaches using species tree aware methods

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Phylogenetic profiling encompasses an important set of methodologies for <it>in silico </it>high throughput inference of functional relationships between genes. The simplest profiles represent the distribution of gene presence-absence in a set of species as a sequence of 0's and 1's, and it is assumed that functionally related genes will have more similar profiles. The methodology has been successfully used in numerous studies of prokaryotic genomes, although its application in eukaryotes appears problematic, with reported low accuracy due to the complex genomic organization within this domain of life. Recently some groups have proposed an alternative approach based on the correlation of homologous gene group sizes, taking into account all potentially informative genetic events leading to a change in group size, regardless of whether they result in a <it>de novo </it>group gain or total gene group loss.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We have compared the performance of classical presence-absence and group size based approaches using a large, diverse set of eukaryotic species. In contrast to most previous comparisons in Eukarya, we take into account the species phylogeny. We also compare the approaches using two different group categories, based on orthology and on domain-sharing. Our results confirm a limited overall performance of phylogenetic profiling in eukaryotes. Although group size based approaches initially showed an increase in performance for the domain-sharing based groups, this seems to be an overestimation due to a simplistic negative control dataset and the choice of null hypothesis rejection criteria.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Presence-absence profiling represents a more accurate classifier of related versus non-related profile pairs, when the profiles under consideration have enough information content. Group size based approaches provide a complementary means of detecting domain or family level co-evolution between groups that may be elusive to presence-absence profiling. Moreover positive correlation between co-evolution scores and functional links imply that these methods could be used to estimate functional distances between gene groups and to cluster them based on their functional relatedness. This study should have important implications for the future development and application of phylogenetic profiling methods, not only in eukaryotic, but also in prokaryotic datasets.</p

The evolution of methods for establishing evolutionary timescales

The fossil record is well known to be incomplete. Read literally, it provides a distorted view of the history of species divergence and extinction, because different species have different propensities to fossilize, the amount of rock fluctuates over geological timescales, as does the nature of the environments that it preserves. Even so, patterns in the fossil evidence allow us to assess the incompleteness of the fossil record. While the molecular clock can be used to extend the time estimates from fossil species to lineages not represented in the fossil record, fossils are the only source of information concerning absolute (geological) times in molecular dating analysis. We review different ways of incorporating fossil evidence in modern clock dating analyses, including node-calibrations where lineage divergence times are constrained using probability densities and tip-calibrations where fossil species at the tips of the tree are assigned dates from dated rock strata. While node-calibrations are often constructed by a crude assessment of the fossil evidence and thus involves arbitrariness, tip-calibrations may be too sensitive to the prior on divergence times or the branching process and influenced unduly affected by well-known problems of morphological character evolution, such as environmental influence on morphological phenotypes, correlation among traits, and convergent evolution in disparate species. We discuss the utility of time information from fossils in phylogeny estimation and the search for ancestors in the fossil record. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Dating species divergences using rocks and clocks’