4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

In the light of deep coalescence: revisiting trees within networks

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-1269-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of the United States of America [CCF-1302179]
  2. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  3. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations [1302179] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Phylogenetic networks model reticulate evolutionary histories. The last two decades have seen an increased interest in establishing mathematical results and developing computational methods for inferring and analyzing these networks. A salient concept underlying a great majority of these developments has been the notion that a network displays a set of trees and those trees can be used to infer, analyze, and study the network. Results: In this paper, we show that in the presence of coalescence effects, the set of displayed trees is not sufficient to capture the network. We formally define the set of parental trees of a network and make three contributions based on this definition. First, we extend the notion of anomaly zone to phylogenetic networks and report on anomaly results for different networks. Second, we demonstrate how coalescence events could negatively affect the ability to infer a species tree that could be augmented into the correct network. Third, we demonstrate how a phylogenetic network can be viewed as a mixture model that lends itself to a novel inference approach via gene tree clustering. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the limitations of focusing on the set of trees displayed by a network when analyzing and inferring the network. Our findings can form the basis for achieving higher accuracy when inferring phylogenetic networks and open up new venues for research in this area, including new problem formulations based on the notion of a network's parental trees.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据