A General Framework for Gene Tree Correction Based on Duplication-Loss Reconciliation

Authors Nadia El-Mabrouk, Aïda Ouangraoua

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.64 MB
  • 14 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Nadia El-Mabrouk
Aïda Ouangraoua

Cite AsGet BibTex

Nadia El-Mabrouk and Aïda Ouangraoua. A General Framework for Gene Tree Correction Based on Duplication-Loss Reconciliation. In 17th International Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics (WABI 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 88, pp. 8:1-8:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)


Due to the key role played by gene trees and species phylogenies in biological studies, it is essential to have as much confidence as possible on the available trees. As phylogenetic tools are error-prone, it is a common task to use a correction method for improving an initial tree. Various correction methods exist. In this paper we focus on those based on the Duplication-Loss reconciliation model. The polytomy resolution approach consists in contracting weakly supported branches and then refining the obtained non-binary tree in a way minimizing a reconciliation distance with the given species tree. On the other hand, the supertree approach takes as input a set of separated subtrees, either obtained for separared orthology groups or by removing the upper branches of an initial tree to a certain level, and amalgamating them in an optimal way preserving the topology of the initial trees. The two classes of problems have always been considered as two separate fields, based on apparently different models. In this paper we give a unifying view showing that these two classes of problems are in fact special cases of a more general problem that we call LabelGTC, whose input includes a 0-1 edge-labelled gene tree to be corrected. Considering a tree as a set of triplets, we also formulate the TripletGTC Problem whose input includes a set of gene triplets that should be preserved in the corrected tree. These two general models allow to unify, understand and compare the principles of the duplication-loss reconciliation-based tree correction approaches. We show that LabelGTC is a special case of TripletGTC. We then develop appropriate algorithms allowing to handle these two general correction problems.
  • Gene tree correction
  • Supertree
  • Polytomy
  • Reconciliation
  • Phylogeny


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. B. Boussau, G.J. Szöllősi, L. Duret, M. Gouy, E. Tannier., and V. Daubin. Genome-scale coestimation of species and gene trees. Genome Research, 23:323330, 2013. Google Scholar
  2. K. Chen, D. Durand, and M. Farach-Colton. Notung: Dating gene duplications using gene family trees. Journal of Computational Biology, 7:429-447, 2000. Google Scholar
  3. J. Felsenstein. Phylogenies from molecular sequences: Inference and reliability. Ann. Review Genet., 22:521-565, 1988. Google Scholar
  4. E. Jacox, C. Chauve, G.J. Szollosi, Y. Ponty, and C. Scornavacca. ecceTERA: comprehensive gene tree-species tree reconciliation using parsimony. Bioinformatics, 32(13):2056 2058, 2016. Google Scholar
  5. M. Lafond, E. Noutahi, and N. El-Mabrouk. Efficient non-binary gene tree resolution with weighted reconciliation cost. In Combinatorial Pattern Matching, LIPIcs-Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, volume 54. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2016. Google Scholar
  6. M. Lafond, A. Ouangraoua, and N. El-Mabrouk. Reconstructing a supergenetree minimizing reconciliation. BMC-Genomics, 16:S4, 2015. Special issue of RECOMB-CG 2015. Google Scholar
  7. N. El-Mabrouk M. Lafond, C. Chauve and A. Ouangraoua. Gene tree construction and correction using supertree and reconciliation. In Asia Pacific Bioinformatics Conference, 2017. soon in IEEE/ACM TCBB. Google Scholar
  8. N. Nguyen, S. Mirarab, and T. Warnow. MRL and SuperFine+MRL: new supertree methods. J. Algo. for Mol. Biol., 7(3), 2012. Google Scholar
  9. Thi Hau Nguyen, Vincent Ranwez, Stéphanie Pointet, Anne-Muriel Arigon Chifolleau, Jean-Philippe Doyon, and Vincent Berry. Reconciliation and local gene tree rearrangement can be of mutual profit. Algorithms Mol Biol, 8(1):12, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-7188-8-12.
  10. E. Noutahi, M. Semeria, M. Lafond, J. Seguin, L. Gueguen, N. El-Mabrouk, and E. Tannier. Efficient gene tree correction guided by genome evolution. Plos.One, 11(8), 2016. Google Scholar
  11. M. D. Rasmussen and M. Kellis. A bayesian approach for fast and accurate gene tree reconstruction. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 28(1):273 290, 2011. Google Scholar
  12. Jamal S. M. Sabir, Robert K. Jansen, Dhivya Arasappan, Virginie Calderon, Emmanuel Noutahi, Chunfang Zheng, Seongjun Park, Meshaal J. Sabir, Mohammed N. Baeshen, Nahid H. Hajrah, Mohammad A. Khiyami, Nabih A. Baeshen, Abdullah Y. Obaid, Abdulrahman L. Al-Malki, David Sankoff, Nadia El-Mabrouk, and Tracey A. Ruhlman. The nuclear genome of Rhazya stricta and the evolution of alkaloid diversity in a medically relevant clade of apocynaceae. Nature Scientific Reports, 6(33782), 2016. Google Scholar
  13. F. Schreiber, M. Patricio, M. Muffato, M. Pignatelli, and A. Bateman. Treefam v9: a new website, more species and orthology-on-the-fly. Nucleic Acids Research, 2013. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1055. Google Scholar
  14. C. Scornavacca, L. van Iersel, S. Kelk, and D. Bryant. The agreement problem for unrooted phylogenetic trees is FPT. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 18(3):385 392, 2014. Google Scholar
  15. A. J. Vilella, J. Severin, A. Ureta-Vidal, L. Heng, R. Durbin, and E. Birney. EnsemblCompara gene trees: Complete, duplication-aware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates. Genome Research, 19:327335, 2009. Google Scholar
  16. Y. C. Wu, M. D. Rasmussen, M. S. Bansal, and M. Kellis. TreeFix: Statistically informed gene tree error correction using species trees. Systematic Biology, 62(1):110 120, 2013. Google Scholar
  17. Y. Zheng and L. Zhang. Reconciliation with non-binary gene trees revisited. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 8394, pages 418432, 2014. Proceedings of RECOMB. Google Scholar