2018
DOI: 10.1186/s13015-017-0120-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gene tree parsimony for incomplete gene trees: addressing true biological loss

Abstract: Motivation Species tree estimation from gene trees can be complicated by gene duplication and loss, and “gene tree parsimony” (GTP) is one approach for estimating species trees from multiple gene trees. In its standard formulation, the objective is to find a species tree that minimizes the total number of gene duplications and losses with respect to the input set of gene trees. Although much is known about GTP, little is known about how to treat inputs containing some incomplete gene trees (i.e., gene trees la… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Gene‐tree inference uncertainty and hybridization (including subsequent introgression and homoploid or polyploid speciation) are two additional possible sources of gene‐tree and gene‐species tree discordance that our methods do not take into account. Gene‐tree estimation error is also likely to occur with most biological data sets, but may be more challenging for multi‐copy genes spanning a large number of species (Bayzid and Warnow, ), and so may be a more minor source of discordance in our pilot 38‐taxon LSCN gene set. Hybridization is generally not well characterized for the lineages sampled here, except for the putative hybrid D .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gene‐tree inference uncertainty and hybridization (including subsequent introgression and homoploid or polyploid speciation) are two additional possible sources of gene‐tree and gene‐species tree discordance that our methods do not take into account. Gene‐tree estimation error is also likely to occur with most biological data sets, but may be more challenging for multi‐copy genes spanning a large number of species (Bayzid and Warnow, ), and so may be a more minor source of discordance in our pilot 38‐taxon LSCN gene set. Hybridization is generally not well characterized for the lineages sampled here, except for the putative hybrid D .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also note the surprising accuracy of both DupTree and MulRF, methods that, like ASTRAL, are not based on likelihood under a GDL model. Therefore, DynaDup [22,4] is also of potential interest, as it is similar to DupTree in seeking a tree that minimizes the duploss score (though the score is modified to reflect true biological loss), but has the potential to scale to larger datasets via its use of dynamic programming to solve the optimization problem in polynomial time within a constrained search space. In addition, other methods could also be explored, including more computationally intensive methods such as InferNetwork ML and InferNetwork MPL (maximum likelihood and maximum pseudo-likelihood methods in PhyloNet [32,36]) restricted so that they produce trees rather than reticulate phylogenies, or PHYLDOG [5], a Bayesian method for co-estimation of gene trees and the species tree under a GDL model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The algorithmic design (and corresponding theoretical results) in STELAR is structurally similar to ASTRAL. This sort of DP-based approach, which implicitly finds a maximum or minimum clique in a graph modelled from the input gene trees, was first used by [39] and later was used in Phylonet [40,41], DynaDup [35,42] and AS-TRAL. The key idea in STELAR is to find an equation for computing the number of triplets in the gene trees that agree with a given subtree in the species tree, which ultimately enables us to design a dynamic programming algorithm for estimating a species tree by maximizing the triplet agreement.…”
Section: Algorithmic Design Of Stelarmentioning
confidence: 99%