Cited by 39Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenome Rearrangement AlgorithmsAlgorithms and Data Compression

The number of recombination events in a sample history: conflict graph and lower bounds

Bafna, V., Bansal, V.·2004·IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics

Abstract

We consider the following problem: Given a set of binary sequences, determine lower bounds on the minimum number of recombinations required to explain the history of the sample, under the infinite-sites model of mutation. The problem has implications for finding recombination hotspots and for the Ancestral Recombination Graph reconstruction problem. Hudson and Kaplan gave a lower bound based on the four-gamete test. In practice, their bound Rm often greatly underestimates the minimum number of recombinations. The problem was recently revisited by Myers and Griffiths, who introduced two new lower bounds Rh and Rs which are provably better, and also yield good bounds in practice. However, the worst-case complexities of their procedures for computing Rh and Rs are exponential and super-exponential, respectively. In this paper, we show that the number of nontrivial connected components, Rc, in the conflict graph for a given set of sequences, computable in time O(nm2), is also a lower bound on the minimum number of recombination events. We show that in many cases, Rc is a better bound than Rh. The conflict graph was used by Gusfield et al. to obtain a polynomial time algorithm for the galled tree problem, which is a special case of the Ancestral Recombination Graph (ARG) reconstruction problem. Our results also offer some insight into the structural properties of this graph and are of interest for the general Ancestral Recombination Graph reconstruction problem.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tcbb.2004.23

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Because the four-gamete test is known to underestimate the true number of ancestral recombination events, SARGE will systematically underestimate the true number of ancestral recombination events in a dataset by design.

    “Because the four-gamete test is known to underestimate the true number of ancestral recombination events (12, 13), SARGE will systematically underestimate the true number of ancestral recombination events in a dataset by design.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bafna, V., & Bansal, V.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
Published
2004-04
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
78-90
ISSN
1545-5963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124253802
Cited by
39
References
1
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Algorithms and Data Compression
Keywords
recombination events, conflict graph, lower bounds, infinite sites model, recombination hotspots, binary sequences, connected components, population genetics
MeSH terms
Alcohol Dehydrogenase, Algorithms, Animals, Drosophila melanogaster, Haplotypes, Models, Genetic, Mutation, Phylogeny, Recombination, Genetic, Evolution, Molecular, Computational Biology

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