Phylogenetic Bootstrapping (BS) is a standard technique for inferring confidence values on phylogenetic trees that is based on reconstructing many trees from minor variations of the input data, trees called replicates. BS is used with all phylogenetic reconstruction approaches, but we focus here on the most popular, Maximum Likelihood (ML). Because ML inference is so computationally demanding, it has proved too expensive to date to assess the impact of the number of replicates used in BS on the quality of the support values. For the same reason, a rather small number (typically 100) of BS replicates are computed in real-world studies. Stamatakis et al. recently introduced a BS algorithm that is 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than previous techniques, while yielding qualitatively comparable support values, making an experimental study possible.In this paper, we propose stopping criteria, that is, thresholds computed at runtime to determine when enough replicates have been generated, and report on the first large-scale experimental study to assess the effect of the number of replicates on the quality of support values, including the performance of our proposed criteria. We run our tests on 17 diverse real-world DNA, single-gene as well as multi-gene, datasets, that include between 125 and 2,554 sequences. We find that our stopping criteria typically stop computations after 100-500 replicates (although the most conservative criterion may continue for several thousand replicates) while producing support values that correlate at better than 99.5% with the reference values on the best ML trees. Significantly, we also find that the stopping criteria can recommend very different numbers of replicates for different datasets of comparable sizes.Our results are thus two-fold: (i) they give the first experimental assessment of the effect of the number of BS replicates on the quality of support values returned through bootstrapping; and (ii) they validate

Phylogenetic bootstrapping (BS) is a standard technique for inferring confidence values on phylogenetic trees that is based on reconstructing many trees from minor variations of the input data, trees called replicates. BS is used with all phylogenetic reconstruction approaches, but we focus here on one of the most popular, maximum likelihood (ML). Because ML inference is so computationally demanding, it has proved too expensive to date to assess the impact of the number of replicates used in BS on the relative accuracy of the support values. For the same reason, a rather small number (typically 100) of BS replicates are computed in real-world studies. Stamatakis et al. recently introduced a BS algorithm that is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude faster than previous techniques, while yielding qualitatively comparable support values, making an experimental study possible. In this article, we propose stopping criteria--that is, thresholds computed at runtime to determine when enough replicates have been generated--and we report on the first large-scale experimental study to assess the effect of the number of replicates on the quality of support values, including the performance of our proposed criteria. We run our tests on 17 diverse real-world DNA--single-gene as well as multi-gene--datasets, which include 125-2,554 taxa. We find that our stopping criteria typically stop computations after 100-500 replicates (although the most conservative criterion may continue for several thousand replicates) while producing support values that correlate at better than 99.5% with the reference values on the best ML trees. Significantly, we also find that the stopping criteria can recommend very different numbers of replicates for different datasets of comparable sizes. Our results are thus twofold: (i) they give the first experimental assessment of the effect of the number of BS replicates on the quality of support values returned through BS, and (ii) they validate our proposals for stopping criteria. Practitioners will no longer have to enter a guess nor worry about the quality of support values; moreover, with most counts of replicates in the 100-500 range, robust BS under ML inference becomes computationally practical for most datasets. The complete test suite is available at http://lcbb.epfl.ch/BS.tar.bz2, and BS with our stopping criteria is included in the latest release of RAxML v7.2.5, available at http://wwwkramer.in.tum.de/exelixis/software.html.

The Robinson-Foulds (RF) metric is the measure most widely used in comparing phylogenetic trees; it can be computed in linear time using Day's algorithm. When faced with the need to compare large numbers of large trees, however, even linear time becomes prohibitive. We present a randomized approximation scheme that provides, in sublinear time and with high probability, a (1 + epsilon) approximation of the true RF metric. Our approach is to use a sublinear-space embedding of the trees, combined with an application of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma to approximate vector norms very rapidly. We complement our algorithm by presenting an efficient embedding procedure, thereby resolving an open issue from the preliminary version of this paper. We have also improved the performance of Day's (exact) algorithm in practice by using techniques discovered while implementing our approximation scheme. Indeed, we give a unified framework for edge-based tree algorithms in which implementation tradeoffs are clear. Finally, we present detailed experimental results illustrating the precision and running-time tradeoffs as well as demonstrating the speed of our approach. Our new implementation, FastRF, is available as an open-source tool for phylogenetic analysis.

Abstract. Many of the steps in phylogenetic reconstruction can be confounded by "rogue" taxa, taxa that cannot be placed with assurance anywhere within the tree-whose location within the tree, in fact, varies with almost any choice of algorithm or parameters. Phylogenetic consensus methods, in particular, are known to suffer from this problem. In this paper we provide a novel framework in which to define and identify rogue taxa. In this framework, we formulate a bicriterion optimization problem that models the net increase in useful information present in the consensus tree when certain taxa are removed from the input data. We also provide an effective greedy heuristic to identify a subset of rogue taxa and use it in a series of experiments, using both pathological examples described in the literature and a collection of large biological datasets. As the presence of rogue taxa in a set of bootstrap replicates can lead to deceivingly poor support values, we propose a procedure to recompute support values in light of the rogue taxa identified by our algorithm; applying this procedure to our biological datasets caused a large number of edges to change from "unsupported" to "supported" status, indicating that many existing phylogenies should be recomputed and reevaluated to reduce any inaccuracies introduced by rogue taxa.

Many of the steps in phylogenetic reconstruction can be confounded by “rogue” taxa—taxa that cannot be placed with assurance anywhere within the tree, indeed, whose location within the tree varies with almost any choice of algorithm or parameters. Phylogenetic consensus methods, in particular, are known to suffer from this problem. In this paper, we provide a novel framework to define and identify rogue taxa. In this framework, we formulate a bicriterion optimization problem, the relative information criterion, that models the net increase in useful information present in the consensus tree when certain taxa are removed from the input data. We also provide an effective greedy heuristic to identify a subset of rogue taxa and use this heuristic in a series of experiments, with both pathological examples from the literature and a collection of large biological data sets. As the presence of rogue taxa in a set of bootstrap replicates can lead to deceivingly poor support values, we propose a procedure to recompute support values in light of the rogue taxa identified by our algorithm; applying this procedure to our biological data sets caused a large number of edges to move from “unsupported” to “supported” status, indicating that many existing phylogenies should be recomputed and reevaluated to reduce any inaccuracies introduced by rogue taxa. We also discuss the implementation issues encountered while integrating our algorithm into RAxML v7.2.7, particularly those dealing with scaling up the analyses. This integration enables practitioners to benefit from our algorithm in the analysis of very large data sets (up to 2,500 taxa and 10,000 trees, although we present the results of even larger analyses).

Abstract.A Maximum Agreement SubTree (MAST) is a largest subtree common to a set of trees and serves as a summary of common substructure in the trees. A single MAST can be misleading, however, since there can be an exponential number of MASTs, and two MASTs for the same tree set do not even necessarily share any leaves. In this paper we introduce the notion of the Kernel Agreement SubTree (KAST), which is the summary of the common substructure in all MASTs, and show that it can be calculated in polynomial time (for trees with bounded degree). Suppose the input trees represent competing hypotheses for a particular phylogeny. We show the utility of the KAST as a method to discern the common structure of confidence, and as a measure of how confident we are in a given tree set.

No abstract

Abstract. Gene rearrangements have successfully been used in phylogenetic reconstruction and comparative genomics, but usually under the assumption that all genomes have the same gene content and that no gene is duplicated. While these assumptions allow one to work with organellar genomes, they are too restrictive when comparing nuclear genomes. The main challenge is how to deal with gene families, specifically, how to identify orthologs. While searching for orthologies is a common task in computational biology, it is usually done using sequence data. We approach that problem using gene rearrangement data, provide an optimization framework in which to phrase the problem, and present some preliminary theoretical results.