Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Collienne, L.

Publications and source records attributed to Collienne, L..

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Unifying phylogenetic traversal and deep learning to guide tree exploration

Deep learning offers hope for more efficient phylogenetic inference methods. However, it has yet to have the transformative effect on phylogenetics that it has had in other fields. Here we present a novel approach that combines deep learning with concepts behind current successful phylogenetic algorithms. Specifically, we give the deep learning algorithm access to the output of a phylogenetic dynamic program on the sequence alignment, rather than the raw sequence alignment. The algorithm then learns features based on these phylogenetically processed versions of the sequence data, providing information to guide local tree search. For this paper, our goal is simple: predict for each edge in a tree whether it is in a maximum parsimony tree or not. Our model consists of a recurrent neural network that learns features while traversing the input tree, which are used to classify the edge. The model makes high-quality predictions for this NP-complete problem on simulated and empirical datasets for trees of various sizes. We believe it is a stepping stone towards efficient phylogenetic inference using deep learning.

bioinformatics↗

Ranked Subtree Prune and Regraft

Phylogenetic trees are a mathematical formalisation of evolutionary histories between organisms, species, genes, cancer cells, etc. For many applications, e.g. when analysing virus transmission trees or cancer evolution, (phylogenetic) time trees are of interest, where branch lengths represent times. Computational methods for reconstructing time trees from (typically molecular) sequence data, for example Bayesian phylogenetic inference using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, rely on algorithms that sample the treespace. They employ tree rearrangement operations such as SPR (Subtree Prune and Regraft) and NNI (Nearest Neighbour Interchange) or, in the case of time tree inference, versions of these that take times of internal nodes into account. While the classic SPR tree rearrangement is well-studied, its variants for time trees are less understood, limiting comparative analysis for time tree methods. In this paper we consider a modification of the classical SPR rearrangement on the space of ranked phylogenetic trees, which are trees equipped with a ranking of all internal nodes. This modification results in two novel treespaces, which we propose to study. We begin this study by discussing algorithmic properties of these treespaces, focusing on those relating to the complexity of computing distances under the ranked SPR operations as well as similarities and differences to known tree rearrangement based treespaces. Surprisingly, we show the counterintuitive result that adding leaves to trees can actually decrease their ranked SPR distance, which may have an impact on the results of time tree sampling algorithms given uncertain "rogue taxa".

evolutionary biology↗

Estimating the mean in the space of ranked phylogenetic trees

Reconstructing evolutionary histories of biological entities, such as genes, cells, organisms, populations, and species, from phenotypic and molecular sequencing data is central to many biological, palaeontological, and biomedical disciplines. Typically, due to uncertainties and incompleteness in data, the true evolutionary history (phylogeny) is challenging to estimate. Statistical modelling approaches address this problem by introducing and studying probability distributions over all possible evolutionary histories. In practice, computational methods are deployed to learn those distributions typically by sampling them. This approach, however, is fundamentally challenging as it requires designing and implementing various statistical methods over a space of phylogenetic trees (or treespace). Although the problem of developing statistics over a treespace has received substantial attention in the literature and numerous breakthroughs have been made, it remains largely unsolved. The challenge of solving this problem is two-fold: a treespace has non-trivial often counter-intuitive geometry implying that much of classical Euclidean statistics does not immediately apply; many parametrisations of treespace with promising statistical properties are computationally hard, so they cannot be used in data analyses. As a result, there is no single conventional method for estimating even the most fundamental statistics over any treespace, such as mean and variance, and various heuristics are used in practice. Despite the existence of numerous tree summary methods to approximate means of probability distributions over a treespace based on its geometry, and the theoretical promise of this idea, none of the attempts resulted in a practical method for summarising tree samples. In this paper we present such a method along with useful properties of our chosen treespace while focusing on its impact on phylogenetic analyses of real datasets. We perform an extensive benchmark study and demonstrate that our method outperforms currently most popular methods with respect to a number of important "quality" statistics. Further, we apply our method to three real datasets ranging from cancer evolution to linguistics and find novel insights into corresponding evolutionary problems in all of them. We hence conclude that this treespace is a promising candidate to serve as a foundation for developing statistics over phylogenetic trees analytically, as well as new computational tools for evolutionary data analyses.

bioinformatics↗

Online Bayesian Analysis with BEAST 2

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWThere are a growing number of areas, e.g. epidemiology and within-organism cancer evolution, where re-analysing all available data from scratch every time new data becomes available or old data is refined is no longer feasible. All these and related areas can benefit from online phylogenetic inference that can booster previous data analyses. Here, we make the case that adding/removing taxa from an analysis can have substantial non-local impact on the tree that is inferred, both in a model based setting, as well as for distance based methods. Consequently, online phylogenetic algorithms may require global updates of the trees and other parameters, a task that in general is highly non-trivial. Motivated by this observation, we designed an online algorithm that benefits from a parallelism in a Bayesian setting that is substantially more efficient than re-running the analysis from scratch. Furthermore, our algorithm is not sensitive to the number of sequences added, allowing the sequence data to grow/be refined iteratively. We show how this approach can be used in a maximum likelihood setting, and - apart from adding/removing new sequences - demonstrate a number of practical alternative use cases of our algorithm, including how to break up a single (offline) large analysis to get results faster. An open source implementation is available under GPL3 license as the online package for BEAST 2 at https://github.com/rbouckaert/online and a tutorial at https://github.com/rbouckaert/online-tutorial.

bioinformatics↗

Geometry of Ranked Nearest Neighbour Interchange Space of Phylogenetic Trees

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWIn this paper we study the graph of ranked phylogenetic trees where the adjacency relation is given by a local rearrangement of the tree structure. Our work is motivated by tree inference algorithms, such as maximum likelihood and Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods, where the geometry of the search space plays a central role for efficiency and practicality of optimisation and sampling. We hence focus on understanding the geometry of the space (graph) of ranked trees, the so-called ranked nearest neighbour interchange (RNNI) graph. We find the radius and diameter of the space exactly, improving the best previously known estimates. Since the RNNI graph is a generalisation of the classical nearest neighbour interchange (NNI) graph to ranked phylogenetic trees, we compare geometric and algorithmic properties of the two graphs. Surprisingly, we discover that both geometric and algorithmic properties of RNNI and NNI are quite different. For example, we establish convexity of certain natural subspaces in RNNI which are not convex is NNI. Our results suggest that the complexity of computing distances in the two graphs is different.

bioinformatics↗