This short note provides a simple formal proof of a folklore result in statistical phylogenetics concerning the convergence of bootstrap support for a tree and its edges.
Many discrete mathematics problems in phylogenetics are defined in terms of the relative labeling of pairs of leaf-labeled trees. These relative labelings are naturally formalized as tanglegrams, which have previously been an object of study in coevolutionary analysis. Although there has been considerable work on planar drawings of tanglegrams, they have not been fully explored as combinatorial objects until recently. In this paper, we describe how many discrete mathematical questions on trees factor through a problem on tanglegrams, and how understanding that factoring can simplify analysis. Depending on the problem, it may be useful to consider a unordered version of tanglegrams, and/or their unrooted counterparts. For all of these definitions, we show how the isomorphism types of tanglegrams can be understood in terms of double cosets of the symmetric group, and we investigate their automorphisms. Understanding tanglegrams better will isolate the distinct problems on leaf-labeled pairs of trees and reveal natural symmetries of spaces associated with such problems.
In phylogenetics it is of interest for rate matrix sets to satisfy closure under matrix multiplication as this makes finding the set of corresponding transition matrices possible without having to compute matrix exponentials. It is also advantageous to have a small number of free parameters as this, in applications, will result in a reduction of computation time. We explore a method of building a rate matrix set from a rooted tree structure by assigning rates to internal tree nodes and states to the leaves, then defining the rate of change between two states as the rate assigned to the most recent common ancestor of those two states. We investigate the properties of these matrix sets from both a linear algebra and a graph theory perspective and show that any rate matrix set generated this way is closed under matrix multiplication. The consequences of setting two rates assigned to internal tree nodes to be equal are then considered. This methodology could be used to develop parameterised models of amino acid substitution which have a small number of parameters but convey biological meaning.
Covarion models of character evolution describe inhomogeneities in substitution processes through time. In phylogenetics, such models are used to describe changing functional constraints or selection regimes during the evolution of biological sequences. In this work the identifiability of such models for generic parameters on a known phylogenetic tree is established, provided the number of covarion classes does not exceed the size of the observable state space. `Generic parameters as used here means all parameters except possibly those in a set of measure zero within the parameter space. Combined with earlier results, this implies both the tree and generic numerical parameters are identifiable if the number of classes is strictly smaller than the number of observable states.
The human microbiome is the ensemble of genes in the microbes that live inside and on the surface of humans. Because microbial sequencing information is now much easier to come by than phenotypic information, there has been an explosion of sequencing and genetic analysis of microbiome samples. Much of the analytical work for these sequences involves phylogenetics, at least indirectly, but methodology has developed in a somewhat different direction than for other applications of phylogenetics. In this paper I review the field and its methods from the perspective of a phylogeneticist, as well as describing current challenges for phylogenetics coming from this type of work.
Tuffley and Steel (1997) proved that Maximum Likelihood and Maximum Parsimony methods in phylogenetics are equivalent for sequences of characters under a simple symmetric model of substitution with no common mechanism. This result has been widely cited ever since. We show that small changes to the model assumptions suffice to make the two methods inequivalent. In particular, we analyze the case of bounded substitution probabilities as well as the molecular clock assumption. We show that in these cases, even under no common mechanism, Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood might make conflicting choices. We also show that if there is an upper bound on the substitution probabilities which is `sufficiently small, every Maximum Likelihood tree is also a Maximum Parsimony tree (but not vice versa).