Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T18:49:29.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimizing phylogenetic supertrees using answer set programming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2015

LAURA KOPONEN ,
EMILIA OIKARINEN ,
TOMI JANHUNEN  and
LAURA SÄILÄ
LAURA KOPONEN
Affiliation:
HIIT and Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, P.O. Box 15400, FI-00076 AALTO, Finland (e-mail: Laura.J.Koponen@aalto.fi, Emilia.Oikarinen@aalto.fi, Tomi.Janhunen@aalto.fi)
EMILIA OIKARINEN
Affiliation:
HIIT and Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, P.O. Box 15400, FI-00076 AALTO, Finland (e-mail: Laura.J.Koponen@aalto.fi, Emilia.Oikarinen@aalto.fi, Tomi.Janhunen@aalto.fi)
TOMI JANHUNEN
Affiliation:
HIIT and Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, P.O. Box 15400, FI-00076 AALTO, Finland (e-mail: Laura.J.Koponen@aalto.fi, Emilia.Oikarinen@aalto.fi, Tomi.Janhunen@aalto.fi)
LAURA SÄILÄ
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki P.O. Box 64, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland (e-mail: Laura.Saila@helsinki.fi)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The supertree construction problem is about combining several phylogenetic trees with possibly conflicting information into a single tree that has all the leaves of the source trees as its leaves and the relationships between the leaves are as consistent with the source trees as possible. This leads to an optimization problem that is computationally challenging and typically heuristic methods, such as matrix representation with parsimony (MRP), are used. In this paper we consider the use of answer set programming to solve the supertree construction problem in terms of two alternative encodings. The first is based on an existing encoding of trees using substructures known as quartets, while the other novel encoding captures the relationships present in trees through direct projections. We use these encodings to compute a genus-level supertree for the family of cats (Felidae). Furthermore, we compare our results to recent supertrees obtained by the MRP method.

Keywords

answer set programmingphylogenetic supertreequartetsprojectionsFelidae

Information

Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 15 , Special Issue 4-5: 31st International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2015 , pp. 604 - 619
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aho, A. V., Sagiv, Y., Szymanski, T. G. and Ullman, J. D. 1981. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM Journal on Computing 10, 3, 405–421.Google Scholar
Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Leone, N. and Ricca, F. 2015. Advances in WASP. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LPNMR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9345. Springer.Google Scholar
Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Baum, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41, 1, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. 2004. Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Computational Biology. Springer.Google Scholar
Bomanson, J., Gebser, M. and Janhunen, T. 2014. Improving the normalization of weight rules in answer set programs. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8761. Springer, 166–180.Google Scholar
Brooks, D. R., Erdem, E., Erdoğan, S. T., Minett, J. W. and Ringe, D. 2007. Inferring phylogenetic trees using answer set programming. Journal of Automated Reasoning 39, 4, 471–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, D. 1997. Building trees, hunting for trees, and comparing trees. Ph.D. thesis, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Byrka, J., Guillemot, S. and Jansson, J. 2010. New results on optimizing rooted triplets consistency. Discrete Applied Mathematics 158, 11, 1136–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavalcanti, M. J. 2007. A phylogenetic supertree of the hammerhead sharks (Carcharhiniformes, Sphyrnidae). Zoological Studies 46, 1, 6–11.Google Scholar
Chen, D., Diao, L., Eulenstein, O., Fernández-Baca, D. and Sanderson, M. 2003. Flipping: a supertree construction method. DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science 61, 135–162.Google Scholar
Chimani, M., Rahmann, S. and Böcker, S. 2010. Exact ILP solutions for phylogenetic minimum flip problems. In Proceedings of the First ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, BCB 2010. ACM, 147–153.Google Scholar
Day, W. H., Johnson, D. S. and Sankoff, D. 1986. The computational complexity of inferring rooted phylogenies by parsimony. Mathematical biosciences 81, 1, 33–42.Google Scholar
Erdős, P. L., Steel, M. A., Székely, L. A. and Warnow, T. 1999. A few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees (i). Random Structures and Algorithms 14, 2, 153–184.Google Scholar
Flynn, J. J., Finarelli, J. A., Zehr, S., Hsu, J. and Nedbal, M. A. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships. Systematic Biology 54, 2, 317–337.Google Scholar
Foulds, L. R. and Graham, R. L. 1982. The Steiner problem in phylogeny is NP-complete. Advances in Applied Mathematics 3, 1, 43–49.Google Scholar
Fulton, T. L. and Strobeck, C. 2006. Molecular phylogeny of the Arctoidea (Carnivora): effect of missing data on supertree and supermatrix analyses of multiple gene data sets. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution 41, 1, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebser, M., Janhunen, T. and Rintanen, J. 2014. Answer set programming as SAT modulo acyclicity. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2014. IOS Press, 351–356.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2012. Answer Set Solving in Practice. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., and Thiele, S. 2009. On the input language of ASP grounder Gringo. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LPNMR 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5753. Springer, 502–508.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T. and Schneider, M. T. 2011. Potassco: The Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun. 24, 2, 107–124.Google Scholar
Gent, I. P., Prosser, P., Smith, B. M. and Wei, W. 2003. Supertree construction with constraint programming. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, CP 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2833. Springer, 837–841.Google Scholar
Goloboff, P. A. and Pol, D. 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18, 5, 514–525.Google ScholarPubMed
Kavanagh, J., Mitchell, D. G., Ternovska, E., Manuch, J., Zhao, X. and Gupta, A. 2006. Constructing Camin-Sokal phylogenies via answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, LPAR 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4246. Springer, 452–466.Google Scholar
Le, T., Nguyen, H., Pontelli, E. and Son, T. C. 2012. ASP at work: An ASP implementation of PhyloWS. In Technical Communications of the 28th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2012. LIPIcs, vol. 17. 359–369.Google Scholar
Le Berre, D. and Parrain, A. 2010. The Sat4j library, release 2.2. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 7, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, R., Manquinho, V. and Lynce, I. 2014. Open-WBO: a modular MaxSAT solver. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, SAT 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8561. Springer, 438–445.Google Scholar
Morgado, A. and Marques-Silva, J. 2010. Combinatorial optimization solutions for the maximum quartet consistency problem. Fundam. Inform. 102, 3–4, 363–389.Google Scholar
Nixon, K. C. 1999. The parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 15, 4, 407–414.Google Scholar
Piaggio-Talice, R., Burleigh, J. G. and Eulenstein, O. 2004. Quartet supertrees. In Phylogenetic Supertrees. Springer, 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, A. 1995. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Systematic Biology 44, 2, 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution 1, 1, 53–58.Google Scholar
Säilä, L. K., Fortelius, M., Oikarinen, E., Werdelin, L. and Corfe, I. 2012. Fossil mammals, phylogenies and climate: the effects of phylogenetic relatedness on range sizes and replacement patterns in changing environments. In Proceedings of 60th Annual Symposium of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Comparative anatomy, SVPCA 2012. Poster.Google Scholar
Säilä, L. K., Fortelius, M., Oikarinen, E., Werdelin, L., Corfe, I. and Tuomola, A. 2011. Taxon replacement: Invasion or speciation? First results for a supertree of Neogene mammals. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31, 3, suppl., 184A.Google Scholar
Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 105, 1, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snir, S. and Rao, S. 2012. Quartet MaxCut: a fast algorithm for amalgamating quartet trees. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution 62, 1, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sridhar, S., Lam, F., Blelloch, G. E., Ravi, R. and Schwartz, R. 2008. Mixed integer linear programming for maximum-parsimony phylogeny inference. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 5, 3, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steel, M., Dress, A. W. and Bocker, S. 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Systematic Biology 49, 2, 363–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swenson, M. S., Suri, R., Linder, C. R. and Warnow, T. 2011. An experimental study of Quartets MaxCut and other supertree methods. Algorithms for Molecular Biology 6, 1, 7.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M., Cotton, J. A., Creevey, C., Eulenstein, O., Harris, S. R., Lapointe, F.-J., Levasseur, C., Mcinerney, J. O., Pisani, D. and Thorley, J. L. 2005. The shape of supertrees to come: tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. Systematic biology 54, 3, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, M., Pisani, D., Cotton, J. A. and Corfe, I. 2005. Measuring support and finding unsupported relationships in supertrees. Systematic Biology 54, 5, 823–831.Google Scholar
Wu, G., You, J.-H. and Lin, G. 2007. Quartet-based phylogeny reconstruction with answer set programming. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 4, 1, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Koponen supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Koponen supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 190.2 KB