From SnOwy - Ed's Wiki Notebook
2006
Why phylogenetic networks?
- Why not trees in all cases?
- Evolution is non-tree-like
- Tree-like, but there are inconsistent signals due to...
- Why networks?
- is a sufficient model
- is a more general case
- split networks: a summary argument
- fitness of the model as a network
More reasons for phylogenetic networks
- reticulation (web-like)
- internal nodes reflect hypothetical ancestors
- coalescence (different strain recombination)
- able to deal with phylogenetic trees
Split networks
- useful for summarization and fitness
- internal nodes do not reflect hypothetical ancestors necessarily
- inconsistent data creates split network internal nodes which we infer to be a signal problem
A split network
| |
* |
|\ |
| \|
| *
* | /
\ |\ | /
\ | \|/
\| *
* |
\ |
\|
*
- kinds of Split networks...
- Median
- Split decomposition
- Neighbour networks (from NJ → network instead of tree)
- Concensus net supernetworks
- split - bipartition (non-empty bipartition)
- notation: {A | B} ∈ τ
- Split system - set of splits
- Split graph - graph displaying each split in the split system
- A split graph implies a unique system of splits
- however, a unique system of splits does not guarantee a unique split graph
- keywords: compatible split, conflicting split
- compatible split system: every pair of splits is compatible with all other splits -- produces a tree
- if system is incompatible: produces a network
- Given a set of trees generated elsewhere which all claim to have the same correctness value ...
- get the set of bipartition splits (implying the trivial trees)
- count for each split the number of occurrences in the set of input trees
- The usefulness of this summary method allows us to express concensus
- these splits represent conflicts in the data
-