Reconstructing recombination network from sequence data: the small parsimony problem

Improved Maximum Parsimony Models for Phylogenetic Networks

Phylogenetic networks are well suited to represent evolutionary histories comprising reticulate evolution. Several methods aiming at reconstructing explicit phylogenetic networks have been developed in the last two decades. In this article, we propose a new definition of maximum parsimony for phylogenetic networks that permits to model biological scenarios that cannot be modeled by the definitions currently present in the literature (namely, the "hardwired" and "softwired" parsimony). Building on this new definition, we provide several algorithmic results that lay the foundations for new parsimony-based methods for phylogenetic network reconstruction.

On the quirks of maximum parsimony and likelihood on phylogenetic networks

Maximum parsimony is one of the most frequently-discussed tree reconstruction methods in phylogenetic estimation. However, in recent years it has become more and more apparent that phylogenetic trees are often not sufficient to describe evolution accurately. For instance, processes like hybridization or lateral gene transfer that are commonplace in many groups of organisms and result in mosaic patterns of relationships cannot be represented by a single phylogenetic tree. This is why phylogenetic networks, which can display such events, are becoming of more and more interest in phylogenetic research. It is therefore necessary to extend concepts like maximum parsimony from phylogenetic trees to networks. Several suggestions for possible extensions can be found in recent literature, for instance the softwired and the hardwired parsimony concepts. In this paper, we analyze the so-called big parsimony problem under these two concepts, i.e. we investigate maximum parsimonious networks and analyze their properties. In particular, we show that finding a softwired maximum parsimony network is possible in polynomial time. We also show that the set of maximum parsimony networks for the hardwired definition always contains at least one phylogenetic tree. Lastly, we investigate some parallels of parsimony to different likelihood concepts on phylogenetic networks.

Maximum Parsimony on Phylogenetic networks

BACKGROUND

Phylogenetic networks are generalizations of phylogenetic trees, that are used to model evolutionary events in various contexts. Several different methods and criteria have been introduced for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Maximum Parsimony is a character-based approach that infers a phylogenetic tree by minimizing the total number of evolutionary steps required to explain a given set of data assigned on the leaves. Exact solutions for optimizing parsimony scores on phylogenetic trees have been introduced in the past.

RESULTS

In this paper, we define the parsimony score on networks as the sum of the substitution costs along all the edges of the network; and show that certain well-known algorithms that calculate the optimum parsimony score on trees, such as Sankoff and Fitch algorithms extend naturally for networks, barring conflicting assignments at the reticulate vertices. We provide heuristics for finding the optimum parsimony scores on networks. Our algorithms can be applied for any cost matrix that may contain unequal substitution costs of transforming between different characters along different edges of the network. We analyzed this for experimental data on 10 leaves or fewer with at most 2 reticulations and found that for almost all networks, the bounds returned by the heuristics matched with the exhaustively determined optimum parsimony scores.

CONCLUSION

The parsimony score we define here does not directly reflect the cost of the best tree in the network that displays the evolution of the character. However, when searching for the most parsimonious network that describes a collection of characters, it becomes necessary to add additional cost considerations to prefer simpler structures, such as trees over networks. The parsimony score on a network that we describe here takes into account the substitution costs along the additional edges incident on each reticulate vertex, in addition to the substitution costs along the other edges which are common to all the branching patterns introduced by the reticulate vertices. Thus the score contains an in-built cost for the number of reticulate vertices in the network, and would provide a criterion that is comparable among all networks. Although the problem of finding the parsimony score on the network is believed to be computationally hard to solve, heuristics such as the ones described here would be beneficial in our efforts to find a most parsimonious network.

Parsimony score of phylogenetic networks: hardness results and a linear-time heuristic

Phylogenies-the evolutionary histories of groups of organisms-play a major role in representing the interrelationships among biological entities. Many methods for reconstructing and studying such phylogenies have been proposed, almost all of which assume that the underlying history of a given set of species can be represented by a binary tree. Although many biological processes can be effectively modeled and summarized in this fashion, others cannot: recombination, hybrid speciation, and horizontal gene transfer result in networks of relationships rather than trees of relationships. In previous works, we formulated a maximum parsimony (MP) criterion for reconstructing and evaluating phylogenetic networks, and demonstrated its quality on biological as well as synthetic data sets. In this paper, we provide further theoretical results as well as a very fast heuristic algorithm for the MP criterion of phylogenetic networks. In particular, we provide a novel combinatorial definition of phylogenetic networks in terms of "forbidden cycles," and provide detailed hardness and hardness of approximation proofs for the "small" MP problem. We demonstrate the performance of our heuristic in terms of time and accuracy on both biological and synthetic data sets. Finally, we explain the difference between our model and a similar one formulated by Nguyen et al., and describe the implications of this difference on the hardness and approximation results.