Cited by 13Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFractal and DNA sequence analysisMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

Phylogenetic tree reconstruction via graph cut presented using a quantum-inspired computer

Open access
Onodera, Wataru, Hara, Nobuyuki, Aoki, Shiho, Asahi, Toru, Sawamura, Naoya·2023·Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Abstract

Phylogenetic trees are essential tools in evolutionary biology that present information on evolutionary events among organisms and molecules. From a dataset of n sequences, a phylogenetic tree of (2n-5)!! possible topologies exists, and determining the optimum topology using brute force is infeasible. Recently, a recursive graph cut on a graph-represented-similarity matrix has proven accurate in reconstructing a phylogenetic tree containing distantly related sequences. However, identifying the optimum graph cut is challenging, and approximate solutions are currently utilized. Here, a phylogenetic tree was reconstructed with an improved graph cut using a quantum-inspired computer, the Fujitsu Digital Annealer (DA), and the algorithm was named the "Normalized-Minimum cut by Digital Annealer (NMcutDA) method". First, a criterion for the graph cut, the normalized cut value, was compared with existing clustering methods. Based on the cut, we verified that the simulated phylogenetic tree could be reconstructed with the highest accuracy when sequences were diverged. Moreover, for some actual data from the structure-based protein classification database, only NMcutDA could cluster sequences into correct superfamilies. Conclusively, NMcutDA reconstructed better phylogenetic trees than those using other methods by optimizing the graph cut. We anticipate that when the diversity of sequences is sufficiently high, NMcutDA can be utilized with high efficiency.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107636

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Onodera, W., Hara, N., Aoki, S., Asahi, T., & Sawamura, N.
Affiliations
  • Waseda University (JP)
  • Fujitsu (Japan) (JP)
Corresponding author
Sawamura, Naoya
Venue
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-01
Volume
178
Pages
107636
ISSN
1055-7903 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4302024111
Cited by
13
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Fujitsu
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
phylogenetic inference, graph cuts, normalized cut, quantum-inspired computing, combinatorial optimization, protein superfamilies, sequence clustering, similarity matrix
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Computers, Phylogeny, Cluster Analysis, Databases, Protein

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review