Trinets encode tree-child and level-2 phylogenetic networks

Phylogenetic networks generalize evolutionary trees, and are commonly used to represent evolutionary histories of species that undergo reticulate evolutionary processes such as hybridization, recombination and lateral gene transfer. Recently, there has been great interest in trying to develop methods to construct rooted phylogenetic networks from triplets, that is rooted trees on three species. However, although triplets determine or encode rooted phylogenetic trees, they do not in general encode rooted phylogenetic networks, which is a potential issue for any such method. Motivated by this fact, Huber and Moulton recently introduced trinets as a natural extension of rooted triplets to networks. In particular, they showed that $\text{ level-1 }$ phylogenetic networks are encoded by their trinets, and also conjectured that all “recoverable” rooted phylogenetic networks are encoded by their trinets. Here we prove that recoverable binary level-2 networks and binary tree-child networks are also encoded by their trinets. To do this we prove two decomposition theorems based on trinets which hold for all recoverable binary rooted phylogenetic networks. Our results provide some additional evidence in support of the conjecture that trinets encode all recoverable rooted phylogenetic networks, and could also lead to new approaches to construct phylogenetic networks from trinets.     

Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies

The evolutionary history of a set of taxa is usually represented by a phylogenetic tree, and this model has greatly facilitated the discussion and testing of hypotheses. However, it is well known that more complex evolutionary scenarios are poorly described by such models. Further, even when evolution proceeds in a tree-like manner, analysis of the data may not be best served by using methods that enforce a tree structure but rather by a richer visualization of the data to evaluate its properties, at least as an essential first step. Thus, phylogenetic networks should be employed when reticulate events such as hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, recombination, or gene duplication and loss are believed to be involved, and, even in the absence of such events, phylogenetic networks have a useful role to play. This article reviews the terminology used for phylogenetic networks and covers both split networks and reticulate networks, how they are defined, and how they can be interpreted. Additionally, the article outlines the beginnings of a comprehensive statistical framework for applying split network methods. We show how split networks can represent confidence sets of trees and introduce a conservative statistical test for whether the conflicting signal in a network is treelike. Finally, this article describes a new program, SplitsTree4, an interactive and comprehensive tool for inferring different types of phylogenetic networks from sequences, distances, and trees.     

Exploring the Tiers of Rooted Phylogenetic Network Space Using Tail Moves

Popular methods for exploring the space of rooted phylogenetic trees use rearrangement moves such as rooted Nearest Neighbour Interchange (rNNI) and rooted Subtree Prune and Regraft (rSPR). Recently, these moves were generalized to rooted phylogenetic networks, which are a more suitable representation of reticulate evolutionary histories, and it was shown that any two rooted phylogenetic networks of the same complexity are connected by a sequence of either rSPR or rNNI moves. Here, we show that this is possible using only tail moves, which are a restricted version of rSPR moves on networks that are more closely related to rSPR moves on trees. The connectedness still holds even when we restrict to distance-1 tail moves (a localized version of tail moves). Moreover, we give bounds on the number of (distance-1) tail moves necessary to turn one network into another, which in turn yield new bounds for rSPR, rNNI and SPR (i.e. the equivalent of rSPR on unrooted networks). The upper bounds are constructive, meaning that we can actually find a sequence with at most this length for any pair of networks. Finally, we show that finding a shortest sequence of tail or rSPR moves is NP-hard.     

MC-Net: a method for the construction of phylogenetic networks based on the Monte-Carlo method

Background  

A phylogenetic network is a generalization of phylogenetic trees that allows the representation of conflicting signals or alternative evolutionary histories in a single diagram. There are several methods for constructing these networks. Some of these methods are based on distances among taxa. In practice, the methods which are based on distance perform faster in comparison with other methods. The Neighbor-Net (N-Net) is a distance-based method. The N-Net produces a circular ordering from a distance matrix, then constructs a collection of weighted splits using circular ordering. The SplitsTree which is a program using these weighted splits makes a phylogenetic network. In general, finding an optimal circular ordering is an NP-hard problem. The N-Net is a heuristic algorithm to find the optimal circular ordering which is based on neighbor-joining algorithm.     

A Survey of Methods for Constructing Rooted Phylogenetic Networks

Rooted phylogenetic networks are primarily used to represent conflicting evolutionary information and describe the reticulate evolutionary events in phylogeny. So far a lot of methods have been presented for constructing rooted phylogenetic networks, of which the methods based on the decomposition property of networks and by means of the incompatible graph (such as the CASS, the LNETWORK and the BIMLR) are more efficient than other available methods. The paper will discuss and compare these methods by both the practical and artificial datasets, in the aspect of the running time of the methods and the effective of constructed phylogenetic networks. The results show that the LNETWORK can construct much simper networks than the others.     

Tree-Based Unrooted Phylogenetic Networks

Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees that are used to represent non-tree-like evolutionary histories that arise in organisms such as plants and bacteria, or uncertainty in evolutionary histories. An unrooted phylogenetic network on a non-empty, finite set X of taxa, or network, is a connected, simple graph in which every vertex has degree 1 or 3 and whose leaf set is X. It is called a phylogenetic tree if the underlying graph is a tree. In this paper we consider properties of tree-based networks, that is, networks that can be constructed by adding edges into a phylogenetic tree. We show that although they have some properties in common with their rooted analogues which have recently drawn much attention in the literature, they have some striking differences in terms of both their structural and computational properties. We expect that our results could eventually have applications to, for example, detecting horizontal gene transfer or hybridization which are important factors in the evolution of many organisms.     

Uprooted Phylogenetic Networks

The need for structures capable of accommodating complex evolutionary signals such as those found in, for example, wheat has fueled research into phylogenetic networks. Such structures generalize the standard model of a phylogenetic tree by also allowing for cycles and have been introduced in rooted and unrooted form. In contrast to phylogenetic trees or their unrooted versions, rooted phylogenetic networks are notoriously difficult to understand. To help alleviate this, recent work on them has also centered on their “uprooted” versions. By focusing on such graphs and the combinatorial concept of a split system which underpins an unrooted phylogenetic network, we show that not only can a so-called (uprooted) 1-nested network N be obtained from the Buneman graph (sometimes also called a median network) associated with the split system \(\Sigma (N)\) induced on the set of leaves of N but also that that graph is, in a well-defined sense, optimal. Along the way, we establish the 1-nested analogue of the fundamental “splits equivalence theorem” for phylogenetic trees and characterize maximal circular split systems.     

Inferring phylogenetic relationships avoiding forbidden rooted triplets

To construct a phylogenetic tree or phylogenetic network for describing the evolutionary history of a set of species is a well-studied problem in computational biology. One previously proposed method to infer a phylogenetic tree/network for a large set of species is by merging a collection of known smaller phylogenetic trees on overlapping sets of species so that no (or as little as possible) branching information is lost. However, little work has been done so far on inferring a phylogenetic tree/network from a specified set of trees when in addition, certain evolutionary relationships among the species are known to be highly unlikely. In this paper, we consider the problem of constructing a phylogenetic tree/network which is consistent with all of the rooted triplets in a given set C and none of the rooted triplets in another given set F. Although NP-hard in the general case, we provide some efficient exact and approximation algorithms for a number of biologically meaningful variants of the problem.     

Constructing circular phylogenetic networks from weighted quartets using simulated annealing

In this paper, we present a heuristic algorithm based on the simulated annealing, SAQ-Net, as a method for constructing phylogenetic networks from weighted quartets. Similar to QNet algorithm, SAQ-Net constructs a collection of circular weighted splits of the taxa set. This collection is represented by a split network. In order to show that SAQ-Net performs better than QNet, we apply these algorithm to both the simulated and actual data sets containing salmonella, Bees, Primates and Rubber data sets. Then we draw phylogenetic networks corresponding to outputs of these algorithms using SplitsTree4 and compare the results. We find that SAQ-Net produces a better circular ordering and phylogenetic networks than QNet in most cases. SAQ-Net has been implemented in Matlab and is available for download at http://bioinf.cs.ipm.ac.ir/softwares/saq.net.     

SplitsTree: analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data

MOTIVATION: Real evolutionary data often contain a number of different and sometimes conflicting phylogenetic signals, and thus do not always clearly support a unique tree. To address this problem, Bandelt and Dress (Adv. Math., 92, 47-05, 1992) developed the method of split decomposition. For ideal data, this method gives rise to a tree, whereas less ideal data are represented by a tree-like network that may indicate evidence for different and conflicting phylogenies. RESULTS: SplitsTree is an interactive program, for analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data, that implements this approach. It also supports a number of distances transformations, the computation of parsimony splits, spectral analysis and bootstrapping.      

Tree-based networks: characterisations,metrics, and support trees

Phylogenetic networks generalise phylogenetic trees and allow for the accurate representation of the evolutionary history of a set of present-day species whose past includes reticulate events such as hybridisation and lateral gene transfer. One way to obtain such a network is by starting with a (rooted) phylogenetic tree T, called a base tree, and adding arcs between arcs of T. The class of phylogenetic networks that can be obtained in this way is called tree-based networks and includes the prominent classes of tree-child and reticulation-visible networks. Initially defined for binary phylogenetic networks, tree-based networks naturally extend to arbitrary phylogenetic networks. In this paper, we generalise recent tree-based characterisations and associated proximity measures for binary phylogenetic networks to arbitrary phylogenetic networks. These characterisations are in terms of matchings in bipartite graphs, path partitions, and antichains. Some of the generalisations are straightforward to establish using the original approach, while others require a very different approach. Furthermore, for an arbitrary tree-based network N, we characterise the support trees of N, that is, the tree-based embeddings of N. We use this characterisation to give an explicit formula for the number of support trees of N when N is binary. This formula is written in terms of the components of a bipartite graph.

     

Characterization of reticulate networks based on the coalescent with recombination

Phylogenetic networks aim to represent the evolutionary history of taxa. Within these, reticulate networks are explicitly able to accommodate evolutionary events like recombination, hybridization, or lateral gene transfer. Although several metrics exist to compare phylogenetic networks, they make several assumptions regarding the nature of the networks that are not likely to be fulfilled by the evolutionary process. In order to characterize the potential disagreement between the algorithms and the biology, we have used the coalescent with recombination to build the type of networks produced by reticulate evolution and classified them as regular, tree sibling, tree child, or galled trees. We show that, as expected, the complexity of these reticulate networks is a function of the population recombination rate. At small recombination rates, most of the networks produced are already more complex than regular or tree sibling networks, whereas with moderate and large recombination rates, no network fit into any of the standard classes. We conclude that new metrics still need to be devised in order to properly compare two phylogenetic networks that have arisen from reticulating evolutionary process.     

Genealogies: Pedigrees and Phylogenies are Reticulating Networks Not Just Divergent Trees

Pedigrees illustrate the genealogical relationships among individuals, and phylogenies do the same for groups of organisms (such as species, genera, etc.). Here, I provide a brief survey of current concepts and methods for calculating and displaying genealogical relationships. These relationships have long been recognized to be reticulating, rather than strictly divergent, and so both pedigrees and phylogenies are correctly treated as networks rather than trees. However, currently most pedigrees are instead presented as “family trees”, and most phylogenies are presented as phylogenetic trees. Nevertheless, the historical development of concepts shows that networks pre-dated trees in most fields of biology, including the study of pedigrees, biology theory, and biology practice, as well as in historical linguistics in the social sciences. Trees were actually introduced in order to provide a simpler conceptual model for historical relationships, since trees are a specific type of simple network. Computationally, trees and networks are a part of graph theory, consisting of nodes connected by edges. In this mathematical context they differ solely in the absence or presence of reticulation nodes, respectively. There are two types of graphs that can be called phylogenetic networks: (1) rooted evolutionary networks, and (2) unrooted affinity networks. There are quite a few computational methods for unrooted networks, which have two main roles in phylogenetics: (a) they act as a generic form of multivariate data display; and (b) they are used specifically to represent haplotype networks. Evolutionary networks are more difficult to infer and analyse, as there is no mathematical algorithm for reconstructing unique historical events. There is thus currently no coherent analytical framework for computing such networks.     

BIMLR: A method for constructing rooted phylogenetic networks from rooted phylogenetic trees

Rooted phylogenetic trees constructed from different datasets (e.g. from different genes) are often conflicting with one another, i.e. they cannot be integrated into a single phylogenetic tree. Phylogenetic networks have become an important tool in molecular evolution, and rooted phylogenetic networks are able to represent conflicting rooted phylogenetic trees. Hence, the development of appropriate methods to compute rooted phylogenetic networks from rooted phylogenetic trees has attracted considerable research interest of late. The C_ASS algorithm proposed by van Iersel et al. is able to construct much simpler networks than other available methods, but it is extremely slow, and the networks it constructs are dependent on the order of the input data. Here, we introduce an improved C_ASS algorithm, BIMLR. We show that BIMLR is faster than C_ASS and less dependent on the input data order. Moreover, BIMLR is able to construct much simpler networks than almost all other methods. BIMLR is available at http://nclab.hit.edu.cn/wangjuan/BIMLR/.     

All galls are divided into three or more parts: recursive enumeration of labeled histories for galled trees

Objective

In mathematical phylogenetics, a labeled rooted binary tree topology can possess any of a number of labeled histories, each of which represents a possible temporal ordering of its coalescences. Labeled histories appear frequently in calculations that describe the combinatorics of phylogenetic trees. Here, we generalize the concept of labeled histories from rooted phylogenetic trees to rooted phylogenetic networks, specifically for the class of rooted phylogenetic networks known as rooted galled trees.

Results

Extending a recursive algorithm for enumerating the labeled histories of a labeled tree topology, we present a method to enumerate the labeled histories associated with a labeled rooted galled tree. The method relies on a recursive decomposition by which each gall in a galled tree possesses three or more descendant subtrees. We exhaustively provide the numbers of labeled histories for all small galled trees, finding that each gall reduces the number of labeled histories relative to a specified galled tree that does not contain it.

Conclusion

The results expand the set of structures for which labeled histories can be enumerated, extending a well-known calculation for phylogenetic trees to a class of phylogenetic networks.

     

Exploring phylogenetic hypotheses via Gibbs sampling on evolutionary networks

Background

Phylogenetic networks are leaf-labeled graphs used to model and display complex evolutionary relationships that do not fit a single tree. There are two classes of phylogenetic networks: Data-display networks and evolutionary networks. While data-display networks are very commonly used to explore data, they are not amenable to incorporating probabilistic models of gene and genome evolution. Evolutionary networks, on the other hand, can accommodate such probabilistic models, but they are not commonly used for exploration.

Results

In this work, we show how to turn evolutionary networks into a tool for statistical exploration of phylogenetic hypotheses via a novel application of Gibbs sampling. We demonstrate the utility of our work on two recently available genomic data sets, one from a group of mosquitos and the other from a group of modern birds. We demonstrate that our method allows the use of evolutionary networks not only for explicit modeling of reticulate evolutionary histories, but also for exploring conflicting treelike hypotheses. We further demonstrate the performance of the method on simulated data sets, where the true evolutionary histories are known.

Conclusion

We introduce an approach to explore phylogenetic hypotheses over evolutionary phylogenetic networks using Gibbs sampling. The hypotheses could involve reticulate and non-reticulate evolutionary processes simultaneously as we illustrate on mosquito and modern bird genomic data sets.

     

Neighbor-net: an agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks

We present Neighbor-Net, a distance based method for constructing phylogenetic networks that is based on the Neighbor-Joining (NJ) algorithm of Saitou and Nei. Neighbor-Net provides a snapshot of the data that can guide more detailed analysis. Unlike split decomposition, Neighbor-Net scales well and can quickly produce detailed and informative networks for several hundred taxa. We illustrate the method by reanalyzing three published data sets: a collection of 110 highly recombinant Salmonella multi-locus sequence typing sequences, the 135 "African Eve" human mitochondrial sequences published by Vigilant et al., and a collection of 12 Archeal chaperonin sequences demonstrating strong evidence for gene conversion. Neighbor-Net is available as part of the SplitsTree4 software package.     

TripNet: A Method for Constructing Rooted Phylogenetic Networks from Rooted Triplets

The problem of constructing an optimal rooted phylogenetic network from an arbitrary set of rooted triplets is an NP-hard problem. In this paper, we present a heuristic algorithm called TripNet, which tries to construct a rooted phylogenetic network with the minimum number of reticulation nodes from an arbitrary set of rooted triplets. Despite of current methods that work for dense set of rooted triplets, a key innovation is the applicability of TripNet to non-dense set of rooted triplets. We prove some theorems to clarify the performance of the algorithm. To demonstrate the efficiency of TripNet, we compared TripNet with SIMPLISTIC. It is the only available software which has the ability to return some rooted phylogenetic network consistent with a given dense set of rooted triplets. But the results show that for complex networks with high levels, the SIMPLISTIC running time increased abruptly. However in all cases TripNet outputs an appropriate rooted phylogenetic network in an acceptable time. Also we tetsed TripNet on the Yeast data. The results show that Both TripNet and optimal networks have the same clustering and TripNet produced a level-3 network which contains only one more reticulation node than the optimal network.     

Improved layout of phylogenetic networks

Split networks are increasingly being used in phylogenetic analysis. Usually, a simple equal angle algorithm is used to draw such networks, producing layouts that leave much room for improvement. Addressing the problem of producing better layouts of split networks, this paper presents an algorithm for maximizing the area covered by the network, describes an extension of the equal-daylight algorithm to networks, looks into using a spring embedder and discusses how to construct rooted split networks.     

Tripartitions do not always discriminate phylogenetic networks

Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees that allow for the representation of non-treelike evolutionary events, like recombination, hybridization, or lateral gene transfer. In a recent series of papers devoted to the study of reconstructibility of phylogenetic networks, Moret, Nakhleh, Warnow and collaborators introduced the so-called tripartition metric for phylogenetic networks. In this paper we show that, in fact, this tripartition metric does not satisfy the separation axiom of distances (zero distance means isomorphism, or, in a more relaxed version, zero distance means indistinguishability in some specific sense) in any of the subclasses of phylogenetic networks where it is claimed to do so. We also present a subclass of phylogenetic networks whose members can be singled out by means of their sets of tripartitions (or even clusters), and hence where the latter can be used to define a meaningful metric.