BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Leo van Iersel

Leo van Iersel contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.CODiscrete Mathematics

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

A Unifying Characterization of Tree-based Networks and Orchard Networks using Cherry Covers

Phylogenetic networks are used to study evolutionary relationships between species in biology. Such networks are often categorized into classes by their topological features, which stem from both biological and computational motivations. We study two network classes in this paper: tree-based networks and orchard networks. Tree-based networks are those that can be obtained by inserting edges between the edges of an underlying tree. Orchard networks are a recently introduced generalization of the class of tree-child networks. Structural characterizations have already been discovered for tree-based networks; this is not the case for orchard networks. In this paper, we introduce cherry covers---a unifying characterization of both network classes---in which we decompose the edges of the networks into so-called cherry shapes and reticulated cherry shapes. We show that cherry covers can be used to characterize the class of tree-based networks as well as the class of orchard networks. Moreover, we also generalize these results to non-binary networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Reconstructibility of unrooted level-$k$ phylogenetic networks from distances

A phylogenetic network is a graph-theoretical tool that is used by biologists to represent the evolutionary history of a collection of species. One potential way of constructing such networks is via a distance-based approach, where one is asked to find a phylogenetic network that in some way represents a given distance matrix, which gives information on the evolutionary distances between present-day taxa. Here, we consider the following question. For which~$k$ are unrooted level-$k$ networks uniquely determined by their distance matrices? We consider this question for shortest distances as well as for the case that the multisets of all distances is given. We prove that level-$1$ networks and level-$2$ networks are reconstructible from their shortest distances and multisets of distances, respectively. Furthermore we show that, in general, networks of level higher than~$1$ are not reconstructible from shortest distances and that networks of level higher than~$2$ are not reconstructible from their multisets of distances.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Not all phylogenetic networks are leaf-reconstructible

Unrooted phylogenetic networks are graphs used to represent evolutionary relationships. Accurately reconstructing such networks is of great relevance for evolutionary biology. It has recently been conjectured that all phylogenetic networks with at least five leaves can be uniquely reconstructed from their subnetworks obtained by deleting a single leaf and suppressing degree-2 vertices. Here, we show that this conjecture is false, by presenting a counter example for each possible number of leaves that is at least~4. Moreover, we show that the conjecture is still false when restricted to binary networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2017arXiv

Exploring the tiers of rooted phylogenetic network space using tail moves

Popular methods for exploring the space of rooted phylogenetic trees use rearrangement moves such as rNNI (rooted Nearest Neighbour Interchange) and rSPR (rooted Subtree Prune and Regraft). Recently, these moves were generalized to rooted phylogenetic networks, which are a more suitable representation of reticulate evolutionary histories, and it was shown that any two rooted phylogenetic networks of the same complexity are connected by a sequence of either rSPR or rNNI moves. Here, we show that this is possible using only tail moves, which are a restricted version of rSPR moves on networks that are more closely related to rSPR moves on trees. The connectedness still holds even when we restrict to distance-1 tail moves (a localized version of tail-moves). Moreover, we give bounds on the number of (distance-1) tail moves necessary to turn one network into another, which in turn yield new bounds for rSPR, rNNI and SPR (i.e. the equivalent of rSPR on unrooted networks). The upper bounds are constructive, meaning that we can actually find a sequence with at most this length for any pair of networks. Finally, we show that finding a shortest sequence of tail or rSPR moves is NP-hard.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access