Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A robust model for finding optimal evolutionary trees

  • Published:
Algorithmica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Constructing evolutionary trees for species sets is a fundamental problem in computational biology. One of the standard models assumes the ability to compute distances between every pair of species, and seeks to find an edge-weighted treeT in which the distanced T ij in the tree between the leaves ofT corresponding to the speciesi andj exactly equals the observed distance,d ij . When such a tree exists, this is expressed in the biological literature by saying that the distance function or matrix isadditive, and trees can be constructed from additive distance matrices in0(n 2) time. Real distance data is hardly ever additive, and we therefore need ways of modeling the problem of finding the best-fit tree as an optimization problem.

In this paper we present several natural and realistic ways of modeling the inaccuracies in the distance data. In one model we assume that we have upper and lower bounds for the distances between pairs of species and try to find an additive distance matrix between these bounds. In a second model we are given a partial matrix and asked to find if we can fill in the unspecified entries in order to make the entire matrix additive. For both of these models we also consider a more restrictive problem of finding a matrix that fits a tree which is not only additive but alsoultrametric. Ultrametric matrices correspond to trees which can be rooted so that the distance from the root to any leaf is the same. Ultrametric matrices are desirable in biology since the edge weights then indicate evolutionary time. We give polynomial-time algorithms for some of the problems while showing others to be NP-complete. We also consider various ways of “fitting” a given distance matrix (or a pair of upper- and lower-bound matrices) to a tree in order to minimize various criteria of error in the fit. For most criteria this optimization problem turns out to be NP-hard, while we do get polynomial-time algorithms for some.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. V. Aho, Y. Sagiv, T. G. Szymanski, and J. D. Ullman, Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions,SIAM J. Comput., 10(3):405–421, 1981.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. S. F. Altschul, Amino acid substitution matrices from an information theoretic perspective,J. Mol. Biol., 219:555–565, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. W. Beyer, M. Stein, T. Smith, and S. Ulam, A molecular sequence metric and evolutionary trees,Math. Biosci., 19:9–25, 1974.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. H. Bodlaender, M. Fellows, and T. Warnow, Two strikes against perfect phylogeny,Proceedings, International Congress on Automata and Language Processing (ICALP), Vienna, July 1992.

  5. P. Buneman,Mathematics in the Archeological and Historical Sciences F. R. Hobson, D. G. Kendall, and P. Tautu, eds., University Press, Edinburgh, p. 387.

  6. L. Cavalli-Sforza and A. Edwards, Phylogenetic analysis models and estimation procedures,Evolution, 32:550–570, 1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. T. Cormen, C. Leiserson, and R. Rivest,Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Culberson and P. Rudnicki, A fast algorithm for constructing trees from distance matrices,Inform. Process. Lett., 30:215–220, 1989.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. W. H. E. Day, Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies from dissimilarity matrices,Bull, of Math. Biol., 49(4):461–467, 1987.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Dayhoff and R. Eck,Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure 1967–68, National Biomedical Research Foundation, Silver Spring, MD.

  11. J. S. Farris, Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices,Amer. Natur., 106:645–668, 1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. J. Felsenstein, Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability,Annual Rev. Genet., 22:521–565, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. W. M. Fitch and E. Margoliash, The construction of phylogenetic trees,Science, 155:29–94, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson,Computers and Intractability, Freeman, New York, 1979.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. G. H. Gonnet, M. A. Cohen, and S. A. Benner, Exhaustive matching of the entire protein sequence database,Science, 256:1443–1445, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. D. Harel and R. Tarjan, Fast algorithm for finding nearest common ancestors,SIAM J. Comput., 13(2):338–355, 1984.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. C. J. Jardine, N. Jardine, and R. Sibson, The structure and construction of taxonomic hierarchies, Math. Biosci., 1:173–179, 1967.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. S. Kannan, E. Lawler, and T. Warnow, Determining the evolutionary tree,Proceedings of the First Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 475–484, San Francisco, CA, Jan. 1990.

  19. M. Křivanek, The complexity of ultrametric partitions on graphs,Inform. Process. Lett., 27(5):265–270, 1988.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. W.-H. Li, Simple method for constructing phylogenetic trees from distance matrices,Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 78:1085–89.

  21. C. Lund and M. Yannakakis, On the hardness of approximating minimization problems, Manuscript.

  22. W. Miller and E. W. Myers, Sequence comparison with concave weighting functions,Bull. Math. Biol., 50(2):97–120, 1988.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. N. Saitou and M. Nei, The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees,Mol. Biol Evol., 4:406–25, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. Sokal and P. Sneath,Numerical Taxonomy, Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. A. Steel, The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees,J. Classification, 9:91–116, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. E. Sweedyk and T. Warnow, The optimal tree alignment problem is hard, Manuscript.

  27. R. E. Tarjan, Sensitivity analysis of minimum spanning trees and shortest path trees,Inform. Process. Lett., 14(1):30–33, 1982.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Y. Tateno, M. Nei, and F. Tajima, Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. I: Distantly related trees,J. Mol. Evol., 18:387–404.

  29. M. S. Waterman, T. F. Smith, M. Singh, and W. A. Beyer, Additive evolutionary trees,J. Theoret. Biol., 64:199–213, 1977.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. W. J. Wilbur, On the PAM matrix model of protein evolution,Mol Biol. Evol, 2:434–447, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DIMACS, Rutgers University, Box 1179, 08855, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    M. Farach

  2. Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 19104, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    S. Kannan

  3. Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 19104, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    T. Warnow

Authors
  1. M. Farach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Kannan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Warnow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Communicated by E. W. Myers.

Supported by DIMACS under NSF Contract STC-88-09648.

Supported by NSF Grant CCR-9108969.

This work was begun while this author was visiting DIMACS in July and August 1992, and was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farach, M., Kannan, S. & Warnow, T. A robust model for finding optimal evolutionary trees. Algorithmica 13, 155–179 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01188585

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01188585

Key words

Search

Navigation