Sequence length requirement of distance-based phylogeny reconstruction: Breaking the polynomial barrier

Proceedings - Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 729-738

  Roch, Sébastien ^a  

^a MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRANCH LENGTHS; CONVENTIONAL WISDOMS; EVOLUTIONARY DISTANCES; LINEAR COMBINATIONS; MOLECULAR CLOCKS; PARAMETER SPACES; PHYLOGENY RECONSTRUCTIONS; PHYTOGENIES; SEQUENCE LENGTHS;

BIOLOGY; COMPUTERS; DEMODULATION; FIBER OPTIC CHEMICAL SENSORS; PHASE TRANSITIONS; POLYNOMIAL APPROXIMATION; RESTORATION; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

REPAIR;

EID: 57949099456     PISSN: 02725428     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/FOCS.2008.77     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. K Arteson. The performance of neighbor-joining methods of phylogenetic reconstruction. Algorithmica, 25(2-3):251-278, 1999.
2. D. Barry and J. A. Hartigan. Statistical analysis of hominoid molecular evolution. Statist. Sci., 2(2): 191-210, 1987. With comments by Stephen Portnoy and Joseph Felsenstein and a reply by the authors.
3. J. T. Chang. Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: identifiability and consistency. Math. Biosci., 137(1):51-73, 1996.
4. J. T. Chang and J. A. Hartigan. Reconstruction of evolutionary trees from pairwise distributions on current species, 1991.
5. B. Chor and T. Tuller. Finding a maximum likelihood tree is hard. J. ACM, 53(5):722-744, 2006.
6. M. Cryan, L. A. Goldberg, and P. W. Goldberg. Evolutionary trees can be learned in polynomial time. SIAM J. Comput., 31(2):375-397, 2002. short version, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 98), pages 436-445, 1998.
7. M. Csurös. Fast recovery of evolutionary trees with thousands of nodes. J. Comput Biol., 9(2):277-97, 2002.
8. M. Csurös and M.-Y. Kao. Provably fast and accurate recovery of evolutionary trees through harmonic greedy triplets. SIAM Journal on Computing, 31(1):306-322, 2001.
9. C. Daskalakis, C. Hill, A. Jaffe, R. Mihaescu, E. Mossel, and S. Rao. Maximal accurate forests from distance matrices. In RECOMB, pages 281-295, 2006.
10. C. Daskalakis, E. Mossel, and S. Roch. Optimal phylogenetic reconstruction. In STOC'06: Proceedings of the 38th Annual. ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 159-168, New York, 2006. ACM.
11. C. Daskalakis, E. Mossel, and S. Roch. Evolutionaty trees and the Ising model on the Bethe lattice: a proof of Steel's conjecture. Preprint, 2008.
12. C. Daskalakis, E. Mossel, and S. Roch. Phylogenies without branch bounds: Contracting the short, pruning the deep. Preprint, 2008.
13. W. H. E. Day. Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies from dissimilarity matrices. Bull. Math. Biol., 49(4):461-467, 1987.
14. W. H. E. Day and D. Sankoff. Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies by compatibility. Syst. Zool., 35(2):224-229, 1986.
15. P. L. Erdös, M. A. Steel, L. A. Székely, and T. A. Warnow. A few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees (part 1). Random Struct. Algor., 14(2): 153-184, 1999.
16. P. L. Erdös, M. A. Steel, L. A. Székely, and T. A. Warnow. A. few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees (part 2). Theor. Comput Sci., 221:77-118, 1999.
17. W. S. Evans, C. Kenyon, Y. Peres, and L. J. Schulman. Broadcasting on trees and the Ising model. Ann. Appl. Probah., 10(2):410-433, 2000.
18. M. Farach and S. Kannan. Efficient algorithms for inverting evolution. J. ACM, 46(4):437-449, 1999.
19. J. Felsenstein. Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, 2004.
20. O. Gascuel. BIO-NJ: An improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol., 14(7): 685-695, 1997.
21. H. O. Georgii. Gibbs measures and phase transitions, volume 9 of de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1988.
22. R. L. Graham., and L. R. Foulds. Unlikelihood that minimal phylogenies for a realistic biological study can be constructed in reasonable computational time. Math. Biosci., 60:133-142, 1982.
23. I. Gronau, S. Moran, and S. Snir. Fast and reliable reconstruction of phylogenetic trees with very short edges. To appear in SODA, 2008.
24. V. King, L. Zhang, and Y Zhou. On the complexity of distance-based evolutionary tree reconstruction. In SODA '03: Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pages 444-453, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2003. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
25. M. R. Lacey and J. T. Chang. A signal-to-noise analysis of phylogeny estimation by neighbor-joining: insufficiency of polynomial length sequences. Math. Biosci., 199(2):188-215, 2006.
26. J. Lake. Reconstructing Evolutionary Trees from DNA and Protein Sequences: Paralinear Distances. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(4):1455-1459, 1994.
27. T. M. Liggett. Interacting particle systems, volume 276 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.
28. P. Lockhart, M. Steel, M. Hendy, and D. Penny. Recovering Evolutionary Trees under a More Realistic Model of Sequence. Mol Biol Evol, 11(4):605-612, 1994.
29. E. Mossel. On the impossibility of reconstructing ancestral data and phylogenies. J. Comput. Biol., 10(5):669-678, 2003.
30. E. Mossel. Phase transitions in phylogeny. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 356(6):2379-2404, 2004.
31. E. Mossel. Distorted metrics on trees and phylogenetic forests. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput Bio. Bioinform., 4(1): 108-116, 2007.
32. E. Mossel and Y Peres. Information flow on trees. Ann. Appl. Probab., 13(3):817-844, 2003.
33. E. Mossel and S. Roch. Learning nonsingular phylogenies and hidden Markov models. Ann. Appl. Probab., 16(2):583-614, 2006.
34. E. Mossel and E. Vigoda. Phylogenetic MCMC Algorithms Are Misleading on Mixtures of Trees. Science, 309(5744):2207-2209, 2005.
35. S. Roch. A short proof that phylogenetic tree reconstruction by maximum likelihood is hard. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biology Bioinform., 3(1):92-94, 2006.
36. N. Saitou and M. Nei. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol., 4(4):406-425, 1987.
37. S. Sattath and A. Tversky. Additive similarity trees. Psychometrika, 42:319-345,1977.
38. C. Semple and M. Steel. Phylogenetics, volume 22 of Mathematics and its Applications series. Oxford University Press, 2003.
39. M. Steel. Recovering a tree from the leaf colourations it generates under a Markov model. Appl. Math. Lett., 7(2): 19-23, 1994.
40. M. Steel. My Favourite Conjecture. Preprint, 2001.
41. M. A. Steel and L. A. Székely. Inverting random functions. Ann. Comb, 3(1): 103-113, 1999. Combinatorics and biology (Los Alamos, NM, 1998).
42. M. A. Steel and L. A. Székely. Inverting random functions. II. Explicit bounds for discrete maximum likelihood estimation, with applications. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 15(4):562-575 (electronic), 2002.