Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userCombinatorial properties of phylogenetic diversity indices
91
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Phylogenetic diversity indices provide a formal way to apportion evolutionary heritage across species. Two natural diversity indices are Fair Proportion (FP) and Equal Splits (ES). FP is also called evolutionary distinctiveness and, for rooted trees, is identical to the Shapley Value (SV), which arises from cooperative game theory. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which FP and ES can differ, characterise tree shapes on which the indices are identical, and study the equivalence of FP and SV and its implications in more detail. We also define and investigate analogues of these indices on unrooted trees (where SV was originally defined), including an index that is closely related to the Pauplin representation of phylogenetic diversity.
rate research
Read More
Phylogenetic Diversity (PD) is a prominent quantitative measure of the biodiversity of a collection of present-day species (taxa). This measure is based on the evolutionary distance among the species in the collection. Loosely speaking, if $mathcal{T}$ is a rooted phylogenetic tree whose leaf set $X$ represents a set of species and whose edges have real-valued lengths (weights), then the PD score of a subset $S$ of $X$ is the sum of the weights of the edges of the minimal subtree of $mathcal{T}$ connecting the species in $S$. In this paper, we define several natural variants of the PD score for a subset of taxa which are related by a known rooted phylogenetic network. Under these variants, we explore, for a positive integer $k$, the computational complexity of determining the maximum PD score over all subsets of taxa of size $k$ when the input is restricted to different classes of rooted phylogenetic networks
Planning for the protection of species often involves difficult choices about which species to prioritize, given constrained resources. One way of prioritizing species is to consider their evolutionary distinctiveness, i.e. their relative evolutionary isolation on a phylogenetic tree. Several evolutionary isolation metrics or phylogenetic diversity indices have been introduced in the literature, among them the so-called Fair Proportion index (also known as the evolutionary distinctiveness score). This index apportions the total diversity of a tree among all leaves, thereby providing a simple prioritization criterion for conservation. Here, we focus on the prioritization order obtained from the Fair Proportion index and analyze the effects of species extinction on this ranking. More precisely, we analyze the extent to which the ranking order may change when some species go extinct and the Fair Proportion index is re-computed for the remaining taxa. We show that for each phylogenetic tree, there are edge lengths such that the extinction of one leaf per cherry completely reverses the ranking. Moreover, we show that even if only the lowest ranked species goes extinct, the ranking order may drastically change. We end by analyzing the effects of these two extinction scenarios (extinction of the lowest ranked species and extinction of one leaf per cherry) for a collection of empirical and simulated trees. In both cases, we can observe significant changes in the prioritization orders, highlighting the empirical relevance of our theoretical findings.
We derive an invertible transform linking two widely used measures of species diversity: phylogenetic diversity and the expected proportions of segregating (non-constant) sites. We assume a bi-allelic, symmetric, finite site model of substitution. Like the Hadamard transform of Hendy and Penny, the transform can be expressed completely independent of the underlying phylogeny. Our results bridge work on diversity from two quite distinct scientific communities.
Phylogenetic networks are generalizations of phylogenetic trees that allow the representation of reticulation events such as horizontal gene transfer or hybridization, and can also represent uncertainty in inference. A subclass of these, tree-based phylogenetic networks, have been introduced to capture the extent to which reticulate evolution nevertheless broadly follows tree-like patterns. Several important operations that change a general phylogenetic network have been developed in recent years, and are important for allowing algorithms to move around spaces of networks; a vital ingredient in finding an optimal network given some biological data. A key such operation is the Nearest Neighbor Interchange, or NNI. While it is already known that the space of unrooted phylogenetic networks is connected under NNI, it has been unclear whether this also holds for the subspace of tree-based networks. In this paper we show that the space of unrooted tree-based phylogenetic networks is indeed connected under the NNI operation. We do so by explicitly showing how to get from one such network to another one without losing tree-basedness along the way. Moreover, we introduce some new concepts, for instance ``shoat networks, and derive some interesting aspects concerning tree-basedness. Last, we use our results to derive an upper bound on the size of the space of tree-based networks.
Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees allowing for the representation of non-treelike evolutionary events such as hybridization. Typically, such networks have been analyzed based on their `level, i.e. based on the complexity of their 2-edge-connected components. However, recently the question of how `treelike a phylogenetic network is has become the center of attention in various studies. This led to the introduction of emph{tree-based networks}, i.e. networks that can be constructed from a phylogenetic tree, called the emph{base tree}, by adding additional edges. While the concept of tree-basedness was originally introduced for rooted phylogenetic networks, it has recently also been considered for unrooted networks. In the present study, we compare and contrast findings obtained for unrooted emph{binary} tree-based networks to unrooted emph{non-binary} networks. In particular, while it is known that up to level 4 all unrooted binary networks are tree-based, we show that in the case of non-binary networks, this result only holds up to level 3.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
