An Algebraic View of the Relation between Largest Common Subtrees and Smallest Common Supertrees

The relationship between two important problems in tree pattern matching, the largest common subtree and the smallest common supertree problems, is established by means of simple constructions, which allow one to obtain a largest common subtree of two trees from a smallest common supertree of them, and vice versa. These constructions are the same for isomorphic, homeomorphic, topological, and minor embeddings, they take only time linear in the size of the trees, and they turn out to have a clear algebraic meaning.Comment: 32 page

Reconstructing (super)trees from data sets with missing distances: Not all is lost

The wealth of phylogenetic information accumulated over many decades of biological research, coupled with recent technological advances in molecular sequence generation, present significant opportunities for researchers to investigate relationships across and within the kingdoms of life. However, to make best use of this data wealth, several problems must first be overcome. One key problem is finding effective strategies to deal with missing data. Here, we introduce Lasso, a novel heuristic approach for reconstructing rooted phylogenetic trees from distance matrices with missing values, for datasets where a molecular clock may be assumed. Contrary to other phylogenetic methods on partial datasets, Lasso possesses desirable properties such as its reconstructed trees being both unique and edge-weighted. These properties are achieved by Lasso restricting its leaf set to a large subset of all possible taxa, which in many practical situations is the entire taxa set. Furthermore, the Lasso approach is distance-based, rendering it very fast to run and suitable for datasets of all sizes, including large datasets such as those generated by modern Next Generation Sequencing technologies. To better understand the performance of Lasso, we assessed it by means of artificial and real biological datasets, showing its effectiveness in the presence of missing data. Furthermore, by formulating the supermatrix problem as a particular case of the missing data problem, we assessed Lasso's ability to reconstruct supertrees. We demonstrate that, although not specifically designed for such a purpose, Lasso performs better than or comparably with five leading supertree algorithms on a challenging biological data set. Finally, we make freely available a software implementation of Lasso so that researchers may, for the first time, perform both rooted tree and supertree reconstruction with branch lengths on their own partial datasets

Robinson-Foulds Supertrees

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Supertree methods synthesize collections of small phylogenetic trees with incomplete taxon overlap into comprehensive trees, or supertrees, that include all taxa found in the input trees. Supertree methods based on the well established Robinson-Foulds (RF) distance have the potential to build supertrees that retain much information from the input trees. Specifically, the RF supertree problem seeks a binary supertree that minimizes the sum of the RF distances from the supertree to the input trees. Thus, an RF supertree is a supertree that is consistent with the largest number of clusters (or clades) from the input trees.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We introduce efficient, local search based, hill-climbing heuristics for the intrinsically hard RF supertree problem on rooted trees. These heuristics use novel non-trivial algorithms for the SPR and TBR local search problems which improve on the time complexity of the best known (naïve) solutions by a factor of Θ(<it>n</it>) and Θ(<it>n</it>²) respectively (where <it>n </it>is the number of taxa, or leaves, in the supertree). We use an implementation of our new algorithms to examine the performance of the RF supertree method and compare it to matrix representation with parsimony (MRP) and the triplet supertree method using four supertree data sets. Not only did our RF heuristic provide fast estimates of RF supertrees in all data sets, but the RF supertrees also retained more of the information from the input trees (based on the RF distance) than the other supertree methods.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our heuristics for the RF supertree problem, based on our new local search algorithms, make it possible for the first time to estimate large supertrees by directly optimizing the RF distance from rooted input trees to the supertrees. This provides a new and fast method to build accurate supertrees. RF supertrees may also be useful for estimating majority-rule(-) supertrees, which are a generalization of majority-rule consensus trees.</p

PhySIC_IST: cleaning source trees to infer more informative supertrees

Background: Supertree methods combine phylogenies with overlapping sets of taxa into a larger one. Topological conflicts frequently arise among source trees for methodological or biological reasons, such as long branch attraction, lateral gene transfers, gene duplication/loss or deep gene coalescence. When topological conflicts occur among source trees, liberal methods infer supertrees containing the most frequent alternative, while veto methods infer supertrees not contradicting any source tree, i.e. discard all conflicting resolutions. When the source trees host a significant number of topological conflicts or have a small taxon overlap, supertree methods of both kinds can propose poorly resolved, hence uninformative, supertrees. Results: To overcome this problem, we propose to infer non-plenary supertrees, i.e. supertrees that do not necessarily contain all the taxa present in the source trees, discarding those whose position greatly differs among source trees or for which insufficient information is provided. We detail a variant of the PhySIC veto method called PhySIC IST that can infer non-plenary supertrees. PhySIC IST aims at inferring supertrees that satisfy the same appealing theoretical properties as with PhySIC, while being as informative as possible under this constraint. The informativeness of a supertree is estimated using a variation of the CIC (Cladistic Information Content) criterion, that takes into account both the presence of multifurcations and the absence of some taxa

Inferring Species Trees from Incongruent Multi-Copy Gene Trees Using the Robinson-Foulds Distance

We present a new method for inferring species trees from multi-copy gene trees. Our method is based on a generalization of the Robinson-Foulds (RF) distance to multi-labeled trees (mul-trees), i.e., gene trees in which multiple leaves can have the same label. Unlike most previous phylogenetic methods using gene trees, this method does not assume that gene tree incongruence is caused by a single, specific biological process, such as gene duplication and loss, deep coalescence, or lateral gene transfer. We prove that it is NP-hard to compute the RF distance between two mul-trees, but it is easy to calculate the generalized RF distance between a mul-tree and a singly-labeled tree. Motivated by this observation, we formulate the RF supertree problem for mul-trees (MulRF), which takes a collection of mul-trees and constructs a species tree that minimizes the total RF distance from the input mul-trees. We present a fast heuristic algorithm for the MulRF supertree problem. Simulation experiments demonstrate that the MulRF method produces more accurate species trees than gene tree parsimony methods when incongruence is caused by gene tree error, duplications and losses, and/or lateral gene transfer. Furthermore, the MulRF heuristic runs quickly on data sets containing hundreds of trees with up to a hundred taxa.Comment: 16 pages, 11 figure

Improved Heuristics for Minimum-Flip Supertree Construction

The utility of the matrix representation with flipping (MRF) supertree method has been limited by the speed of its heuristic algorithms. We describe a new heuristic algorithm for MRF supertree construction that improves upon the speed of the previous heuristic by a factor of n (the number of taxa in the supertree). This new heuristic makes MRF tractable for large-scale supertree analyses and allows the first comparisons of MRF with other supertree methods using large empirical data sets. Analyses of three published supertree data sets with between 267 to 571 taxa indicate that MRF supertrees are equally or more similar to the input trees on average than matrix representation with parsimony (MRP) and modified min-cut supertrees. The results also show that large differences may exist between MRF and MRP supertrees and demonstrate that the MRF supertree method is a practical and potentially more accurate alternative to the nearly ubiquitous MRP supertree method

Maximum agreement and compatible supertrees

AbstractGiven a set of leaf-labelled trees with identical leaf sets, the MAST problem, respectively MCT problem, consists of finding a largest subset of leaves such that all input trees restricted to these leaves are isomorphic, respectively compatible. In this paper, we propose extensions of these problems to the context of supertree inference, where input trees have non-identical leaf sets. This situation is of particular interest in phylogenetics. The resulting problems are called SMAST and SMCT.A sufficient condition is given that identifies cases where these problems can be solved by resorting to MAST and MCT as subproblems. This condition is met, for instance, when only two input trees are considered. Then we give algorithms for SMAST and SMCT that benefit from the link with the subtree problems. These algorithms run in time linear to the time needed to solve MAST, respectively MCT, on an instance of the same or smaller size.It is shown that arbitrary instances of SMAST and SMCT can be turned in polynomial time into instances composed of trees with a bounded number of leaves.SMAST is shown to be W[2]-hard when the considered parameter is the number of input leaves that have to be removed to obtain the agreement of the input trees. A similar result holds for SMCT. Moreover, the corresponding optimization problems, that is the complements of SMAST and SMCT, cannot be approximated in polynomial time within any constant factor, unless P=NP. These results also hold when the input trees have a bounded number of leaves.The presented results apply to both collections of rooted and unrooted trees