This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Using Max Cut to Enhance Rooted Trees Consistency
October-December 2006 (vol. 3 no. 4)
pp. 323-333
Supertree methods are used to construct a large tree over a large set of taxa from a set of small trees over overlapping subsets of the complete taxa set. Since accurate reconstruction methods are currently limited to a maximum of a few dozen taxa, the use of a supertree method in order to construct the tree of life is inevitable. Supertree methods are broadly divided according to the input trees: When the input trees are unrooted, the basic reconstruction unit is a quartet tree. In this case, the basic decision problem of whether there exists a tree that agrees with all quartets is NP-complete. On the other hand, when the input trees are rooted, the basic reconstruction unit is a rooted triplet and the above decision problem has a polynomial time algorithm. However, when there is no tree which agrees with all triplets, it would be desirable to find the tree that agrees with the maximum number of triplets. However, this optimization problem was shown to be NP-hard. Current heuristic approaches perform min cut on a graph representing the triplets inconsistency and return a tree that is guaranteed to satisfy some required properties. In this work, we present a different heuristic approach that guarantees the properties provided by the current methods and give experimental evidence that it significantly outperforms currently used methods. This method is based on a divide and conquer approach, where the min cut in the divide step is replaced by a max cut in a variant of the same graph. The latter is achieved by a lightweight semidefinite programming-like heuristic that leads to very fast running times.

[1] S. Arora, S. Rao, and U. Vazirani, “Expander Flows, Geometric Embeddings and Graph Partitioning,” Proc. Symp. Foundations of Computer Science, 2004.
[2] A.V. Aho, Y. Sagiv, T.G. Szymanski, and J.D. Ullman, “Inferring a Tree from Lowest Common Ancestors with an Application to the Optimization of Relational Expressions,” SIAM J. Computing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 405-421, 1981.
[3] B.R. Baum, “Combining Trees as a Way of Combining Data Sets for Phylogenetic Inference,” Taxon, vol. 41 pp. 3-10, 1992.
[4] A. Ben-Dor, B. Chor, D. Graur, R. Ophir, and D. Pelleg, “Constructing Phylogenies from Quartets: Elucidation of Eutherian Superordinal Relationships,” J. Computational Biology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 377-390, 1998.
[5] D. Bryant, “Hunting for Trees, Building Trees and Comparing Trees: Theory and Method in Phylogenetic Analysis,” PhD thesis, Dept. of Math., Univ. of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1997.
[6] D.J. Bryant and M.A. Steel, “Extension Operations on Sets of Leaf-Labelled Trees,” Advances in Applied Math., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 425-453, 2000.
[7] M. Cardillo, O.R.P. Bininda-Emonds, E. Boakes, and A. Purvis, “A Species-Level Phylogenetic Supertree of Marsupials,” J. Zoology, vol. 264, no. 1, pp. 11-31, 2004.
[8] D. Chen, O. Eulenstein, D. Fernandez-Baca, and M. Sanderson, “Supertrees by Flipping,” Proc. Int'l Computing and Combinatorics Conf. (COCOON), 2002.
[9] O. Eulenstein, D. Chen, J.G. Burleigh, D. Fernandez-Baca, and M.J. Sanderson, “Performance of Flip Supertrees with a Heuristic Algorithm,” Systematic Biology, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 299-308, 2004.
[10] P. Erdos, M. Steel, L. Szekely, and T. Warnow, “A Few Logs Suffice to Build (Almost) All Trees (I),” Random Structures and Algorithms, vol. 14, pp. 153-184, 1999.
[11] C.M. Fiduccia and R.M. Mattheyses, “A Linear Time Heuristic for Improving Network Partitions,” Proc. Design Automation Conf., pp.175-181, 1982.
[12] M.X. Goemans and D.P. Williamson, “Improved Approximation Algorithms for Maximum Cut and Satisfiability Problems Using Semidefinite Programming,” J. ACM, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1115-1145, Nov. 1995.
[13] M.R. Henzinger, V. King, and T. Warnow, “Constructing a Tree from Homeomorphic Subtrees, with Applications to Computational Evolutionary Biology,” Proc. ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 333-340, 1996.
[14] D. Huson, S. Nettles, and T. Warnow, “Disk-Covering, a Fast Converging Method for Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction,” J.Computational Biology, no. 6, pp. 369-386, 1999.
[15] B.W. Kernighan and S. Lin, “An Encient Heuristic Procedure for Partitioning Graphs,” The Bell Systems Technical J., vo. 29, no. 2, pp.291-307, 1970.
[16] E. Mossel, “Distorted Metrics on Trees and Phylogenetic Forests,” submitted, 2005.
[17] S. Moran, S. Rao, and S. Snir, “Using Semi-Definite Programming to Enhance Supertree Resolvability,” Proc. Fifth Int'l Workshop Algorithms in Bioinformatics (WABI), pp. 89-103, Oct. 2005.
[18] S. Moran and S. Snir, “Convex Recoloring of Strings and Trees: Definitions, Hardness Results and Algorithms,” J. Computer and System Sciences, 2005.
[19] R.D.M. Page, “Modified Mincut Supertrees,” Proc. Int'l Workshop Algorithms in Bioinformatics (WABI), R. Guigo and D. Gusfield, eds., 2002.
[20] W. Piel, M. Donoghue, and M. Sanderson, “TreeBASE: A Database of Phylogenetic Knowledge,” Nat'l Inst. for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan, 2002, http:/www.treebase.org.
[21] M.A. Ragan, “Matrix Representation in Reconstructing Phylogenetic-Relationships among the Eukaryotes,“ Biosystems, vol. 28, pp. 47-55, 1992.
[22] K. Rice, M. Donoghue, and R. Olmstead, “Analyzing Large Datasets: rbcl 500 Revisited,” Systematic Biology, vol. 46, no. 4, pp.554-563, 1997.
[23] M. Steel, A. Dress, and S. Boker, “Simple but Fundamental Limitations on Supertree and Consensus Tree Methods,” Systematic Biology, vol. 49, pp. 363-368, 2000.
[24] C. Semple and M. Steel, “A Supertree Method for Rooted Trees,” Discrete Applied Math., vol. 103, pp. 147-158, 2000.
[25] M. Steel, “The Complexity of Reconstructing Trees from Qualitative Characters and Subtress,” J. Classification, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 91-116, 1992.
[26] M. Stoer and F. Wagner, “A Simple Min-Cut Algorithm,” J. ACM, vol. 44, pp. 585-591, 1997.
[27] L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, “Semidefinite Programming,” SIAM Rev., vol 38, no. 1, pp. 49-95, 1996.

Index Terms:
Phylogenetic trees, supertrees, rooted triplets, semidefinite programming.
Citation:
Sagi Snir, Satish Rao, "Using Max Cut to Enhance Rooted Trees Consistency," IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 323-333, Oct.-Dec. 2006, doi:10.1109/TCBB.2006.58
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.