ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Purchase PDF (2416 K)

Article Toolbox
 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(99)00028-6    
How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)

Copyright © 1999 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Contribution

A few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees: Part II

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Péter L. ErdImage sa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Michael A. SteelE-mail The Corresponding Author, b, LászlóA. SzékelyE-mail The Corresponding Author, c and Tandy J. WarnowE-mail The Corresponding Author, d

a Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O.Box 127,1364, Budapest, Hungary

b Biomathematics Research Centre, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

c Department of Mathematics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

d Department of Computer and Information Science University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA


Available online 13 August 1999.

Abstract

Inferring evolutionary trees is an interesting and important problem in biology, but one that is computationally difficult as most associated optimization problems are NP-hard. Although many methods are provably statistically consistent (i.e. the probability of recovering the correct tree converges to 1 as the sequence length increases), the actual rate of convergence for different methods has not been well understood. In a recent paper we introduced a new method for reconstructing evolutionary trees called the dyadic closure method (DCM), and we showed that DCM has a very fast convergence rate. DCM runs in O(n5 log n) time, where n is the number of sequences, and so, although polynomial, the computational requirements are potentially too large to be of use in practice. In this paper we present another tree reconstruction method, the witness-antiwitness method (WAM). WAM is faster than DCM, especially on random trees, and converges to the true tree topology at the same rate as DCM. We also compare WAM to other methods used to reconstruct trees, including Neighbor Joining (possibly the most popular method among molecular biologists), and new methods introduced in the computer science literature.

Author Keywords: Phylogeny; Evolutionary tree reconstruction; Distance-based methods; Quartet methods; Short quartet methods; Dyadic closure method; Witness-antiwitness method

Article Outline

• References

Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author.


 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.