Bayesian estimation of the number of inversions in the history of two chromosomes

Journal of Computational Biology

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 805-818

  York, Thomas L ^a   Durrett, Richard ^a   Nielsen, Rasmus ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian estimation; Breakpoint graph; Inversions; MCMC

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CHROMOSOME; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC ORGANIZATION; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; HOMOZYGOSITY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; CATTLE; DROSOPHILA; GENETIC MARKERS; HUMANS; INVERSION, CHROMOSOME; MARKOV CHAINS; MONTE CARLO METHOD;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; DROSOPHILA REPLETA; MELANOGASTER;

EID: 0037000637     PISSN: 10665277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/10665270260518281     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bafna, V., and Pevzner, P. 1995. Sorting by reversals: Genome rearrangements in plant organelles and the evolutionary history of X chromosome. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12, 239-246.
2. Band, M.R., Larson, J.H., Rebeiz, M., Green, C.A., Heyen, W., Donovan, J., Windish, R., Steining, C., Mahyuddin, P., Womack, J.E., and Lewin, H.A. 2000. An ordered comparative map of the cattle and human genomes. Genome Res. 10, 1359-1368.
3. Caprara, A. 1997. Sorting by reversals is difficult. Proc. RECOMB 97, 75-83.
4. Caprara, A. 1999. Sorting permutations by reversal and Eulerian cycle decompositions. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 12, 91-110.
5. Caprara, C., and Lancia, G. 2000. Experimental and statistical analysis of sorting by reversals. In Comparative Genomics, D. Sankoff and J.H. Nadeau, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
6. Durrett, R. 2002. Shuffling chromosomes. Preprint.
7. Even, S., and Goldreich, O. 1981. The minimum-length generator sequence problem is NP-hard. J. of Algorithms 2, 311-313.
8. Gelman, A., and Rubin, D.B. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences (with discussion). Statist. Sci. 7, 457-511.
9. Graves, J.A. 1996. Mammals that break the rules: Genetics of marsupials and monotremes. Ann. Rev. Genet. 30, 233-260.
10. Hannenhalli, S., and Pevzner, P.A. 1995a. Transforming cabbage into turnip (polynomial algorithm for sorting signed permutations by reversals). Proc. 27th Ann. ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 178-189. Full version in the J. ACM 46, 1-27.
11. Hannenhalli, S., and Pevzner, P. 1995b. Transforming men into mice (polynomial algorithm for the genomic distance problem. Proc. 36th Ann. IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 581-592.
12. Kececioglu, J., and Sankoff, D. 1995. Exact and approximation algorithms for sorting by reversals, with applications to genome rearrangement. Algorithmica 13, 180-210.
13. Larget, B., Simon, D.L., and Kadane, J.B. 2002. Bayesian phylogenetic inference from animal mitochondrial genome arrangements. J. Royal Stat. Sci. To appear.
14. Palmer, J.D., and Herbon, L.A. 1988. Plant mitochondrial DNA evolves rapidly in structure but slowly in sequence. J. Mol. Evol. 28, 87-97.
15. Pevzner, P. 2000. Computational Molecular Biology: An Algorithmic Approach, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
16. Ranz, J.M., Casals, F., and Ruiz, A. 2001. How malleable is the eukaryotic genome? Extreme rate of chromosomal rearrangement in the Genus Drosophila. Genome Res. 11, 230-239.
17. Simon, D.L., and Larget, B. 2001. Phylogenetic inference from mitochondrial genome arrangement data. Computational Science - ICCS 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.