Closure operations in phylogenetics

Mathematical Biosciences

Volumn 208, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 521-537

  Grünewald, Stefan ^a   Steel, Mike ^a   Swenson, M Shel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Closure operations; Compatibility; Phylogenetic tree; Supertree

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY;

CLOSURE OPERATIONS; COMPATIBILITY; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; SUPERTREES;

TREES (MATHEMATICS);

BIOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION; CLOSURE; COMPLEXITY; PHYLOGENETICS;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLOSURE OPERATION; DEVICE; GENETIC COMPATIBILITY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PHYLOGENETIC TREE CONSTRUCTION METHOD;

EVOLUTION; MATHEMATICS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 34547119574     PISSN: 00255564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mbs.2006.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Aho A.V., Sagiv Y., Szymanski T.G., and Ullman J.D. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM J. Comput. 10 (1981) 405
2. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P. Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life (2004), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
3. D. Bryant, Building trees, hunting for trees, and comparing trees: theory and methods in phylogenetic analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Canterbury, 1997.
4. Bryant D., and Steel M. Extension operations on sets of leaf-labelled trees. Adv. Appl. Math. 16 (1995) 425
5. Bryant D., Böcker S., Dress A.W.M., and Steel M. Algorithmic aspects of tree amalgamation. J. Algor. 37 (2000) 522
6. P. Daniel, Supertree methods: some new approaches, Masters thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 2003.
7. M.C.H. Dekker, Reconstruction methods for derivation trees, Masters thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1986.
8. Dezulian T., and Steel M. Phylogenetic closure operations and homoplasy-free evolution, In Classification, clustering, and data mining applications. In: Banks D., House L., McMorris F.R., Arabie P., and Gaul W. (Eds). Proceedings of the Meeting of the International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS) 2004 (2004), Springer, Berlin 395
9. Erdös P.L., Steel M.A., Székely L.A., and Warnow T. A few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees (Part 1). Random Struct. Algor. 14 (1999) 153
10. Estabrook G.F., and McMorris F.R. When are two qualitative taxonomic characters compatible?. J. Math. Biol. 4 (1977) 195
11. Golobof P.A., and Pol D. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18 (2002) 514
12. Huber K., Moulton V., Semple C., and Steel M. Recovering a phylogenetic tree using pairwise closure operations. Appl. Math. Lett. 18 (2005) 361
13. Huson D.H., Dezulian T., Kloepper T., and Steel M.A. Phylogenetic super-networks from partial trees. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 1 (2004) 151
14. Meacham C.A. Theoretical and computational considerations of the compatibility of qualitative taxonomic characters. In: Felsenstein J. (Ed). Numerical taxonomy, NATO ASI Series vol. 1 (1983), Springer, Berlin 304
15. Mossel E., and Steel M. A phase transition for a random cluster model on phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 187 (2004) 189
16. Semple C. Reconstructing minimal rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 127 (2003) 489
17. Semple C., and Steel M. Tree reconstruction via a closure operation on partial splits. In: Gascuel O., and Sagot M.-F. (Eds). Proceedings of Journées Ouvertes: Biologie, Informatique et Mathématique, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2001), Springer, Berlin 126
18. Semple C., and Steel M. Phylogenetics (2003), Oxford University, Oxford
19. Steel M. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. J. Classif. 9 (1992) 91
20. Wilkinson M., Cotton J.A., and Thorley J.L. The information content of trees and their matrix representation. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 989