Phylogenetic combinatorics is a branch of discrete applied mathematics concerned with the combinatorial description and analysis of phylogenetic trees and related mathematical structures such as phylogenetic networks and tight spans. Based on a natural conceptual framework, the book focuses on the interrelationship between the principal options for encoding phylogenetic trees: split systems, quartet systems and metrics. Such encodings provide useful options for analyzing and manipulating phylogenetic trees and networks, and are at the basis of much of phylogenetic data processing. This book highlights how each one provides a unique perspective for viewing and perceiving the combinatorial structure of a phylogenetic tree and is, simultaneously, a rich source for combinatorial analysis and theory building. Graduate students and researchers in mathematics and computer science will enjoy exploring this fascinating new area and learn how mathematics may be used to help solve topical problems arising in evolutionary biology.

In the face of inevitable future losses to biodiversity, ranking species by conservation priority seems more than prudent. Setting conservation priorities within species (i.e., at the population level) may be critical as species ranges become fragmented and connectivity declines. However, existing approaches to prioritization (e.g., scoring organisms by their expected genetic contribution) are based on phylogenetic trees, which may be poor representations of differentiation below the species level. In this paper we extend evolutionary isolation indices used in conservation planning from phylogenetic trees to phylogenetic networks. Such networks better represent population differentiation, and our extension allows populations to be ranked in order of their expected contribution to the set. We illustrate the approach using data from two imperiled species: the spotted owl Strix occidentalis in North America and the mountain pygmy-possum Burramys parvus in Australia. Using previously published mitochondrial and microsatellite data, we construct phylogenetic networks and score each population by its relative genetic distinctiveness. In both cases, our phylogenetic networks capture the geographic structure of each species: geographically peripheral populations harbor less-redundant genetic information, increasing their conservation rankings. We note that our approach can be used with all conservation-relevant distances (e.g., those based on whole-genome, ecological, or adaptive variation) and suggest it be added to the assortment of tools available to wildlife managers for allocating effort among threatened populations.

Supertrees are a commonly used tool in phylogenetics to summarize collections of partial phylogenetic trees. As a generalization of supertrees, phylogenetic supernetworks allow, in addition, the visual representation of conflict between the trees that is not possible to observe with a single tree. Here, we introduce SuperQ, a new method for constructing such supernetworks (SuperQ is freely available at >www.uea.ac.uk/computing/superq.). It works by first breaking the input trees into quartet trees, and then stitching these together to form a special kind of phylogenetic network, called a split network. This stitching process is performed using an adaptation of the QNet method for split network reconstruction employing a novel approach to use the branch lengths from the input trees to estimate the branch lengths in the resulting network. Compared with previous supernetwork methods, SuperQ has the advantage of producing a planar network. We compare the performance of SuperQ to the Z-closure and Q-imputation supernetwork methods, and also present an analysis of some published data sets as an illustration of its applicability.

Background: Gene trees that arise in the context of reconstructing the evolutionary history of polyploid species are often multiply-labeled, that is, the same leaf label can occur several times in a single tree. This property considerably complicates the task of forming a consensus of a collection of such trees compared to usual phylogenetic trees.

Background: Neighbor-Net is a novel method for phylogenetic analysis that is currently being widely used in areas such as virology, bacteriology, and plant evolution. Given an input distance matrix, Neighbor-Net produces a phylogenetic network, a generalization of an evolutionary or phylogenetic tree which allows the graphical representation of conflicting phylogenetic signals.

A straight-line drawing $\delta$ of a planar graph $G$ need not be plane, but can be made so by \emph{untangling} it, that is, by moving some of the vertices of $G$. Let shift$(G,\delta)$ denote the minimum number of vertices that need to be moved to untangle $\delta$. We show that shift$(G,\delta)$ is NP-hard to compute and to approximate. Our hardness results extend to a version of \textsc{1BendPointSetEmbeddability}, a well-known graph-drawing problem. Further we define fix$(G,\delta)=n-shift(G,\delta)$ to be the maximum number of vertices of a planar $n$-vertex graph $G$ that can be fixed when untangling $\delta$. We give an algorithm that fixes at least $\sqrt{((\log n)-1)/\log \log n}$ vertices when untangling a drawing of an $n$-vertex graph $G$. If $G$ is outerplanar, the same algorithm fixes at least $\sqrt{n/2}$ vertices. On the other hand we construct, for arbitrarily large $n$, an $n$-vertex planar graph $G$ and a drawing $\delta_G$ of $G$ with fix$(G,\delta_G) \le \sqrt{n-2}+1$ and an $n$-vertex outerplanar graph $H$ and a drawing $\delta_H$ of $H$ with fix$(H,\delta_H) \le 2 \sqrt{n-1}+1$. Thus our algorithm is asymptotically worst-case optimal for outerplanar graphs.Comment: (v5) Minor, mostly linguistic change

PADRE is an open-source Java program freely available from http://www.uea.ac.uk/cmp/research/cmpbio/PADRE.

Recently, multi-labeled trees have been used to help unravel the evolutionary origins of polyploid species. A multi-labeled tree is the same as a phylogenetic tree except that more than one leaf may be labeled by a single species, so that the leaf set of a multi-labeled tree can be regarded as a multiset. In contrast to phylogenetic trees, which can be efficiently encoded in terms of certain bipartitions of their leaf sets, we show that it is NP-hard to decide whether a collection of bipartitions of a multiset can be represented by a multi-labeled tree. Even so, we also show that it is possible to generalize to multi-labeled trees a well-known condition that characterizes when a collection of bipartitions encodes a phylogenetic tree. Using this generalization, we obtain a fixed-parameter algorithm for the above decision problem in terms of a parameter associated to the given multiset.