-
Non-binary universal tree-based networks
Authors:
Mareike Fischer,
Michelle Galla,
Kristina Wicke
Abstract:
A tree-based network $N$ on $X$ is called universal if every phylogenetic tree on $X$ is a base tree for $N$. Recently, binary universal tree-based networks have attracted great attention in the literature and their existence has been analyzed in various studies. In this note, we extend the analysis to non-binary networks and show that there exist both a rooted and an unrooted non-binary universal…
▽ More
A tree-based network $N$ on $X$ is called universal if every phylogenetic tree on $X$ is a base tree for $N$. Recently, binary universal tree-based networks have attracted great attention in the literature and their existence has been analyzed in various studies. In this note, we extend the analysis to non-binary networks and show that there exist both a rooted and an unrooted non-binary universal tree-based network with $n$ leaves for all positive integers $n$.
△ Less
Submitted 14 January, 2020;
originally announced January 2020.
-
Unrooted non-binary tree-based phylogenetic networks
Authors:
Mareike Fischer,
Michelle Galla,
Lina Herbst,
Yangjing Long,
Kristina Wicke
Abstract:
Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees allowing for the representation of non-treelike evolutionary events such as hybridization. Typically, such networks have been analyzed based on their `level', i.e. based on the complexity of their 2-edge-connected components. However, recently the question of how `treelike' a phylogenetic network is has become the center of attention…
▽ More
Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees allowing for the representation of non-treelike evolutionary events such as hybridization. Typically, such networks have been analyzed based on their `level', i.e. based on the complexity of their 2-edge-connected components. However, recently the question of how `treelike' a phylogenetic network is has become the center of attention in various studies. This led to the introduction of \emph{tree-based networks}, i.e. networks that can be constructed from a phylogenetic tree, called the \emph{base tree}, by adding additional edges. While the concept of tree-basedness was originally introduced for rooted phylogenetic networks, it has recently also been considered for unrooted networks. In the present study, we compare and contrast findings obtained for unrooted \emph{binary} tree-based networks to unrooted \emph{non-binary} networks. In particular, while it is known that up to level 4 all unrooted binary networks are tree-based, we show that in the case of non-binary networks, this result only holds up to level 3.
△ Less
Submitted 7 May, 2020; v1 submitted 16 October, 2018;
originally announced October 2018.
-
Classes of treebased networks
Authors:
Mareike Fischer,
Michelle Galla,
Lina Herbst,
Yangjing Long,
Kristina Wicke
Abstract:
Recently, so-called treebased phylogenetic networks have gained considerable interest in the literature, where a treebased network is a network that can be constructed from a phylogenetic tree, called the base tree, by adding additional edges. The main aim of this manuscript is to provide some sufficient criteria for treebasedness by reducing phylogenetic networks to related graph structures. Whil…
▽ More
Recently, so-called treebased phylogenetic networks have gained considerable interest in the literature, where a treebased network is a network that can be constructed from a phylogenetic tree, called the base tree, by adding additional edges. The main aim of this manuscript is to provide some sufficient criteria for treebasedness by reducing phylogenetic networks to related graph structures. While it is generally known that deciding whether a network is treebased is NP-complete, one of these criteria, namely edgebasedness, can be verified in linear time. Surprisingly, the class of edgebased networks is closely related to a well-known family of graphs, namely the class of generalized series parallel graphs, and we will explore this relationship in full detail. Additionally, we introduce further classes of treebased networks and analyze their relationships.
△ Less
Submitted 27 November, 2019; v1 submitted 16 October, 2018;
originally announced October 2018.
-
On the statistical inconsistency of Maximum Parsimony for $k$-tuple-site data
Authors:
Michelle Galla,
Kristina Wicke,
Mareike Fischer
Abstract:
One of the main aims of phylogenetics is to reconstruct the \enquote{Tree of Life}. In this respect, different methods and criteria are used to analyze DNA sequences of different species and to compare them in order to derive the evolutionary relationships of these species. Maximum Parsimony is one such criterion for tree reconstruction and, it is the one which we will use in this paper. However,…
▽ More
One of the main aims of phylogenetics is to reconstruct the \enquote{Tree of Life}. In this respect, different methods and criteria are used to analyze DNA sequences of different species and to compare them in order to derive the evolutionary relationships of these species. Maximum Parsimony is one such criterion for tree reconstruction and, it is the one which we will use in this paper. However, it is well-known that tree reconstruction methods can lead to wrong relationship estimates. One typical problem of Maximum Parsimony is long branch attraction, which can lead to statistical inconsistency. In this work, we will consider a blockwise approach to alignment analysis, namely so-called $k$-tuple analyses. For four taxa it has already been shown that $k$-tuple-based analyses are statistically inconsistent if and only if the standard character-based (site-based) analyses are statistically inconsistent. So, in the four-taxon case, going from individual sites to $k$-tuples does not lead to any improvement. However, real biological analyses often consider more than only four taxa. Therefore, we analyze the case of five taxa for $2$- and $3$-tuple-site data and consider alphabets with two and four elements. We show that the equivalence of single-site data and $k$-tuple-site data then no longer holds. Even so, we can show that Maximum Parsimony is statistically inconsistent for $k$-tuple site data and five taxa.
△ Less
Submitted 4 October, 2018; v1 submitted 17 June, 2017;
originally announced June 2017.
-
The most parsimonious tree for random data
Authors:
Mareike Fischer,
Michelle Galla,
Lina Herbst,
Mike Steel
Abstract:
Applying a method to reconstruct a phylogenetic tree from random data provides a way to detect whether that method has an inherent bias towards certain tree `shapes'. For maximum parsimony, applied to a sequence of random 2-state data, each possible binary phylogenetic tree has exactly the same distribution for its parsimony score. Despite this pleasing and slightly surprising symmetry, some binar…
▽ More
Applying a method to reconstruct a phylogenetic tree from random data provides a way to detect whether that method has an inherent bias towards certain tree `shapes'. For maximum parsimony, applied to a sequence of random 2-state data, each possible binary phylogenetic tree has exactly the same distribution for its parsimony score. Despite this pleasing and slightly surprising symmetry, some binary phylogenetic trees are more likely than others to be a most parsimonious (MP) tree for a sequence of $k$ such characters, as we show. For $k=2$, and unrooted binary trees on six taxa, any tree with a caterpillar shape has a higher chance of being an MP tree than any tree with a symmetric shape. On the other hand, if we take any two binary trees, on any number of taxa, we prove that this bias between the two trees vanishes as the number of characters grows. However, again there is a twist: MP trees on six taxa are more likely to have certain shapes than a uniform distribution on binary phylogenetic trees predicts, and this difference does not appear to dissipate as $k$ grows.
△ Less
Submitted 1 June, 2014;
originally announced June 2014.
