A new support measure to quantify the impact of local optima in phylogenetic analyses.

Phylogentic analyses are often incorrectly assumed to have stabilized to a single optimum. However, a set of trees from a phylogenetic analysis may contain multiple distinct local optima with each optimum providing different levels of support for each clade. For situations with multiple local optima, we propose p-support which is a clade support measure that shows the impact optima have on a final consensus tree. Our p-support measure is implemented in our PeakMapper software package. We study our approach on two published, large-scale biological tree collections. PeakMapper shows that each data set contains multiple local optima. p-support shows that both datasets contain clades in the majority consensus tree that are only supported by a subset of the local optima. Clades with low p-support are most likely to benefit from further investigation. These tools provide researchers with new information regarding phylogenetic analyses beyond what is provided by other support measures alone.

Big cat phylogenies, consensus trees, and computational thinking.

Phylogenetics seeks to deduce the pattern of relatedness between organisms by using a phylogeny or evolutionary tree. For a given set of organisms or taxa, there may be many evolutionary trees depicting how these organisms evolved from a common ancestor. As a result, consensus trees are a popular approach for summarizing the shared evolutionary relationships in a group of trees. We examine these consensus techniques by studying how the pantherine lineage of cats (clouded leopard, jaguar, leopard, lion, snow leopard, and tiger) evolved, which is hotly debated. While there are many phylogenetic resources that describe consensus trees, there is very little information, written for biologists, regarding the underlying computational techniques for building them. The pantherine cats provide us with a small, relevant example to explore the computational techniques (such as sorting numbers, hashing functions, and traversing trees) for constructing consensus trees. Our hope is that life scientists enjoy peeking under the computational hood of consensus tree construction and share their positive experiences with others in their community.

Large-scale analysis of phylogenetic search behavior.

Phylogenetic analysis is used in all branches of biology with applications ranging from studies on the origin of human populations to investigations of the transmission patterns of HIV. Most phylogenetic analyses rely on effective heuristics for obtaining accurate trees. However, relatively little work has been done to analyze quantitatively the behavior of phylogenetic heuristics in tree space. A better understanding of local search behavior can facilitate the design of better heuristics, which ultimately lead to more accurate depictions of the true evolutionary relationships. In this paper, we present new and novel insights into local search behavior for maximum parsimony on three biological datasets consisting of 44, 60, and 174 taxa. By analyzing all trees from search, we find that, as the search algorithm climbs the hill to local optima, the trees in the neighborhood surrounding the current solution improve as well. Furthermore, the search is quite robust to a small number of randomly selected neighbors. Thus, our work shows how to gain insights into the behavior of local search algorithm by exploring a large diverse collection of trees.

Using tree diversity to compare phylogenetic heuristics.

BACKGROUND: Evolutionary trees are family trees that represent the relationships between a group of organisms. Phylogenetic heuristics are used to search stochastically for the best-scoring trees in tree space. Given that better tree scores are believed to be better approximations of the true phylogeny, traditional evaluation techniques have used tree scores to determine the heuristics that find the best scores in the fastest time. We develop new techniques to evaluate phylogenetic heuristics based on both tree scores and topologies to compare Pauprat and Rec-I-DCM3, two popular Maximum Parsimony search algorithms. RESULTS: Our results show that although Pauprat and Rec-I-DCM3 find the trees with the same best scores, topologically these trees are quite different. Furthermore, the Rec-I-DCM3 trees cluster distinctly from the Pauprat trees. In addition to our heatmap visualizations of using parsimony scores and the Robinson-Foulds distance to compare best-scoring trees found by the two heuristics, we also develop entropy-based methods to show the diversity of the trees found. Overall, Pauprat identifies more diverse trees than Rec-I-DCM3. CONCLUSION: Overall, our work shows that there is value to comparing heuristics beyond the parsimony scores that they find. Pauprat is a slower heuristic than Rec-I-DCM3. However, our work shows that there is tremendous value in using Pauprat to reconstruct trees-especially since it finds identical scoring but topologically distinct trees. Hence, instead of discounting Pauprat, effort should go in improving its implementation. Ultimately, improved performance measures lead to better phylogenetic heuristics and will result in better approximations of the true evolutionary history of the organisms of interest.