Source author record

Philippe Gambette

Philippe Gambette appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Populations and Evolution math.CO Data Structures and Algorithms Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science Digital Libraries

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works

5topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

preprint2020arXiv

Counting Phylogenetic Networks of level 1 and 2

Phylogenetic networks generalize phylogenetic trees, and have been introduced in order to describe evolution in the case of transfer of genetic material between coexisting species. There are many classes of phylogenetic networks, which can all be modeled as families of graphs with labeled leaves. In this paper, we focus on rooted and unrooted level-k networks and provide enumeration formulas (exact and asymptotic) for rooted and unrooted level-1 and level-2 phylogenetic networks with a given number of leaves. We also prove that the distribution of some parameters of these networks (such as their number of cycles) are asymptotically normally distributed. These results are obtained by first providing a recursive description (also called combinatorial specification) of our networks, and by next applying classical methods of enumerative, symbolic and analytic combinatorics.

preprint2016arXiv

Do branch lengths help to locate a tree in a phylogenetic network?

Phylogenetic networks are increasingly used in evolutionary biology to represent the history of species that have undergone reticulate events such as horizontal gene transfer, hybrid speciation and recombination. One of the most fundamental questions that arise in this context is whether the evolution of a gene with one copy in all species can be explained by a given network. In mathematical terms, this is often translated in the following way: is a given phylogenetic tree contained in a given phylogenetic network? Recently this tree containment problem has been widely investigated from a computational perspective, but most studies have only focused on the topology of the phylo- genies, ignoring a piece of information that, in the case of phylogenetic trees, is routinely inferred by evolutionary analyses: branch lengths. These measure the amount of change (e.g., nucleotide substitutions) that has occurred along each branch of the phylogeny. Here, we study a number of versions of the tree containment problem that explicitly account for branch lengths. We show that, although length information has the potential to locate more precisely a tree within a network, the problem is computationally hard in its most general form. On a positive note, for a number of special cases of biological relevance, we provide algorithms that solve this problem efficiently. This includes the case of networks of limited complexity, for which it is possible to recover, among the trees contained by the network with the same topology as the input tree, the closest one in terms of branch lengths.

preprint2016arXiv

Who is Who in Phylogenetic Networks: Articles, Authors and Programs

The phylogenetic network emerged in the 1990s as a new model to represent the evolution of species in the case where coexisting species transfer genetic information through hybridization, recombination, lateral gene transfer, etc. As is true for many rapidly evolving fields, there is considerable fragmentation and diversity in methodologies, standards and vocabulary in phylogenetic network research, thus creating the need for an integrated database of articles, authors, techniques, keywords and software. We describe such a database, "Who is Who in Phylogenetic Networks", available at http://phylnet.univ-mlv.fr. "Who is Who in Phylogenetic Networks" comprises more than 600 publications and 500 authors interlinked with a rich set of more than 200 keywords related to phylogenetic networks. The database is integrated with web-based tools to visualize authorship and collaboration networks and analyze these networks using common graph and social network metrics such as centrality (betweenness, eigenvector, degree and closeness) and clustering. We provide downloads of raw information about entries in the database, and a facility to suggest modifications and contribute new information to the database. We also present in this article common use cases of the database and identify trends in the research on phylogenetic networks using the information in the database and textual analysis.

preprint2015arXiv

Bridging the gap between rooted and unrooted phylogenetic networks

The need for structures capable of accommodating complex evolutionary signals such as those found in, for example, wheat has fueled research into phylogenetic networks. Such structures generalize the standard phylogenetic tree model by also allowing cycles and have been introduced in rooted and unrooted form. In contrast to phylogenetic trees, however, surprisingly little is known about the interplay between both types thus hampering our ability to make much needed progress for rooted phylogenetic networks by drawing on insights from their much better understood unrooted counterparts. Unrooted phylogenetic networks are underpinned by split systems and by focusing on them we establish a first link between both types. More precisely, we develop a link between 1-nested phylogenetic networks which are examples of rooted phylogenetic networks and the well-studied median networks (aka Buneman graph) which are examples of unrooted phylogenetic networks. In particular, we show that not only can a 1-nested network be obtained from a median network but also that that network is, in a well-defined sense, optimal. Along the way, we characterize circular split systems in terms of the novel $\mathcal I$-intersection closure of a split system and establish the 1-nested analogue of the fundamental "Splits Equivalence Theorem" for phylogenetic trees.

preprint2015arXiv

Locating a Tree in a Phylogenetic Network in Quadratic Time

A fundamental problem in the study of phylogenetic networks is to determine whether or not a given phylogenetic network contains a given phylogenetic tree. We develop a quadratic-time algorithm for this problem for binary nearly-stable phylogenetic networks. We also show that the number of reticulations in a reticulation visible or nearly stable phylogenetic network is bounded from above by a function linear in the number of taxa.

preprint2009arXiv

A Note on Encodings of Phylogenetic Networks of Bounded Level

Driven by the need for better models that allow one to shed light into the question how life's diversity has evolved, phylogenetic networks have now joined phylogenetic trees in the center of phylogenetics research. Like phylogenetic trees, such networks canonically induce collections of phylogenetic trees, clusters, and triplets, respectively. Thus it is not surprising that many network approaches aim to reconstruct a phylogenetic network from such collections. Related to the well-studied perfect phylogeny problem, the following question is of fundamental importance in this context: When does one of the above collections encode (i.e. uniquely describe) the network that induces it? In this note, we present a complete answer to this question for the special case of a level-1 (phylogenetic) network by characterizing those level-1 networks for which an encoding in terms of one (or equivalently all) of the above collections exists. Given that this type of network forms the first layer of the rich hierarchy of level-k networks, k a non-negative integer, it is natural to wonder whether our arguments could be extended to members of that hierarchy for higher values for k. By giving examples, we show that this is not the case.