Kernelizations for the hybridization number problem on multiple nonbinary trees

Given a finite set $X$, a collection $\mathcal{T}$ of rooted phylogenetic trees on $X$ and an integer $k$, the Hybridization Number problem asks if there exists a phylogenetic network on $X$ that displays all trees from $\mathcal{T}$ and has reticulation number at most $k$. We show two kernelization algorithms for Hybridization Number, with kernel sizes $4k(5k)^t$ and $20k^2(\Delta^+-1)$ respectively, with $t$ the number of input trees and $\Delta^+$ their maximum outdegree. Experiments on simulated data demonstrate the practical relevance of these kernelization algorithms. In addition, we present an $n^{f(k)}t$-time algorithm, with $n=|X|$ and $f$ some computable function of $k$

On Computing the Maximum Parsimony Score of a Phylogenetic Network

Phylogenetic networks are used to display the relationship of different species whose evolution is not treelike, which is the case, for instance, in the presence of hybridization events or horizontal gene transfers. Tree inference methods such as Maximum Parsimony need to be modified in order to be applicable to networks. In this paper, we discuss two different definitions of Maximum Parsimony on networks, "hardwired" and "softwired", and examine the complexity of computing them given a network topology and a character. By exploiting a link with the problem Multicut, we show that computing the hardwired parsimony score for 2-state characters is polynomial-time solvable, while for characters with more states this problem becomes NP-hard but is still approximable and fixed parameter tractable in the parsimony score. On the other hand we show that, for the softwired definition, obtaining even weak approximation guarantees is already difficult for binary characters and restricted network topologies, and fixed-parameter tractable algorithms in the parsimony score are unlikely. On the positive side we show that computing the softwired parsimony score is fixed-parameter tractable in the level of the network, a natural parameter describing how tangled reticulate activity is in the network. Finally, we show that both the hardwired and softwired parsimony score can be computed efficiently using Integer Linear Programming. The software has been made freely available

Treewidth of display graphs: bounds, brambles and applications

Phylogenetic trees and networks are leaf-labelled graphs used to model evolution. Display graphs are created by identifying common leaf labels in two or more phylogenetic trees or networks. The treewidth of such graphs is bounded as a function of many common dissimilarity measures between phylogenetic trees and this has been leveraged in fixed parameter tractability results. Here we further elucidate the properties of display graphs and their interaction with treewidth. We show that it is NP-hard to recognize display graphs, but that display graphs of bounded treewidth can be recognized in linear time. Next we show that if a phylogenetic network displays (i.e. topologically embeds) a phylogenetic tree, the treewidth of their display graph is bounded by a function of the treewidth of the original network (and also by various other parameters). In fact, using a bramble argument we show that this treewidth bound is sharp up to an additive term of 1. We leverage this bound to give an FPT algorithm, parameterized by treewidth, for determining whether a network displays a tree, which is an intensively-studied problem in the field. We conclude with a discussion on the future use of display graphs and treewidth in phylogenetics

On unrooted and root-uncertain variants of several well-known phylogenetic network problems

The hybridization number problem requires us to embed a set of binary rooted phylogenetic trees into a binary rooted phylogenetic network such that the number of nodes with indegree two is minimized. However, from a biological point of view accurately inferring the root location in a phylogenetic tree is notoriously difficult and poor root placement can artificially inflate the hybridization number. To this end we study a number of relaxed variants of this problem. We start by showing that the fundamental problem of determining whether an \emph{unrooted} phylogenetic network displays (i.e. embeds) an \emph{unrooted} phylogenetic tree, is NP-hard. On the positive side we show that this problem is FPT in reticulation number. In the rooted case the corresponding FPT result is trivial, but here we require more subtle argumentation. Next we show that the hybridization number problem for unrooted networks (when given two unrooted trees) is equivalent to the problem of computing the Tree Bisection and Reconnect (TBR) distance of the two unrooted trees. In the third part of the paper we consider the "root uncertain" variant of hybridization number. Here we are free to choose the root location in each of a set of unrooted input trees such that the hybridization number of the resulting rooted trees is minimized. On the negative side we show that this problem is APX-hard. On the positive side, we show that the problem is FPT in the hybridization number, via kernelization, for any number of input trees.Comment: 28 pages, 8 Figure

A tight kernel for computing the tree bisection and reconnection distance between two phylogenetic trees

In 2001 Allen and Steel showed that, if subtree and chain reduction rules have been applied to two unrooted phylogenetic trees, the reduced trees will have at most 28k taxa where k is the TBR (Tree Bisection and Reconnection) distance between the two trees. Here we reanalyse Allen and Steel's kernelization algorithm and prove that the reduced instances will in fact have at most 15k-9 taxa. Moreover we show, by describing a family of instances which have exactly 15k-9 taxa after reduction, that this new bound is tight. These instances also have no common clusters, showing that a third commonly-encountered reduction rule, the cluster reduction, cannot further reduce the size of the kernel in the worst case. To achieve these results we introduce and use "unrooted generators" which are analogues of rooted structures that have appeared earlier in the phylogenetic networks literature. Using similar argumentation we show that, for the minimum hybridization problem on two rooted trees, 9k-2 is a tight bound (when subtree and chain reduction rules have been applied) and 9k-4 is a tight bound (when, additionally, the cluster reduction has been applied) on the number of taxa, where k is the hybridization number of the two trees.Comment: One figure added, two small typos fixed. This version to appear in SIDMA (SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics

Efficiency of Algorithms in Phylogenetics

Phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relationships between species. Phylogenetic trees have long been the standard object used in evolutionary biology to illustrate how a given set of species are related. There are some groups (including certain plant and fish species) for which the ancestral history contains reticulation events, caused by processes that include hybridization, lateral gene transfer, and recombination. For such groups of species, it is appropriate to represent their ancestral history by phylogenetic networks: rooted acyclic digraphs, where arcs represent lines of genetic inheritance and vertices of in-degree at least two represent reticulation events. This thesis is concerned with the efficiency, accuracy, and tractability of mathematical models for phylogenetic network methods. Three important and related measures for summarizing the dissimilarity in phylogenetic trees are the minimum number of hybridization events required to fit two phylogenetic trees onto a single phylogenetic network (the hybridization number), the (rooted) subtree prune and regraft distance (the rSPR distance) and the tree bisection and reconnection distance (the TBR distance) between two phylogenetic trees. The respective problems of computing these measures are known to be NP-hard, but also fixed-parameter tractable in their respective natural parameters. This means that, while they are hard to compute in general, for cases in which a parameter (here the hybridization number and rSPR/TBR distance, respectively) is small, the problem can be solved efficiently even for large input trees. Here, we present new analyses showing that the use of the “cluster reduction” rule – already defined for the hybridization number and the rSPR distance and introduced here for the TBR distance – can transform any O(f(p) · n)-time algorithm for any of these problems into an O(f(k) · n)-time one, where n is the number of leaves of the phylogenetic trees, p is the natural parameter and k is a much stronger (that is, smaller) parameter: the minimum level of a phylogenetic network displaying both trees. These results appear in [9]. Traditional “distance based methods” reconstruct a phylogenetic tree from a matrix of pairwise distances between taxa. A phylogenetic network is a generalization of a phylogenetic tree that can describe evolutionary events such as reticulation and hybridization that are not tree-like. Although evolution has been known to be more accurately modelled by a network than a tree for some time, only recently have efforts been made to directly reconstruct a phylogenetic network from sequence data, as opposed to reconstructing several trees first and then trying to combine them into a single coherent network. In this work, we present a generalisation of the UPGMA algorithm for ultrametric tree reconstruction which can accurately reconstruct ultrametric tree-child networks from the set of distinct distances between each pair of taxa. This result will also appear in [15]. Moreover, we analyse the safety radius of the NETWORKUPGMA algorithm and show that it has safety radius 1/2. This means that if we can obtain accurate estimates of the set of distances between each pair of taxa in an ultrametric tree-child network, then NETWORKUPGMA correctly reconstructs the true network

On Unrooted and Root-Uncertain Variants of Several Well-Known Phylogenetic Network Problems

International audienceThe hybridization number problem requires us to embed a set of binary rooted phylogenetic trees into a binary rooted phylogenetic network such that the number of nodes with indegree two is minimized. However, from a biological point of view accurately inferring the root location in a phylogenetic tree is notoriously difficult and poor root placement can artificially inflate the hybridization number. To thisend we study a number of relaxed variants of this problem. We start by showing that the fundamental problem of determining whether an unrooted phylogenetic network displays (i.e. embeds) an unrooted phylogenetic tree, is NP-hard. On the positive side we show that this problem is FPT in reticulation number. In the rooted case the corresponding FPT result is trivial, but here we require more subtle argumentation. Next we show that the hybridization number problem for unrooted networks (when given two unrooted trees) is equivalent to the problem of computing the tree bisection and reconnect distance of the two unrooted trees. In the third part of the paper we consider the “root uncertain” variant of hybridization number. Here we are free to choose the root location in each of a set of unrooted input trees such that the hybridization number of the resulting rooted trees is minimized. On the negative side we show that this problem is APX-hard. On the positive side, we show that the problem is FPT in the hybridization number, via kernelization, for any number of input trees