AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (270.3 KB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Open Access

Distances Between Phylogenetic Trees: A Survey

School of Information Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-3112, USA
Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Phylogenetic trees have been widely used in the study of evolutionary biology for representing the tree-like evolution of a collection of species. However, different data sets and different methods often lead to the construction of different phylogenetic trees for the same set of species. Therefore, comparing these trees to determine similarities or, equivalently, dissimilarities, becomes the fundamental issue. Typically, Tree Bisection and Reconnection (TBR) and Subtree Prune and Regraft (SPR) distances have been proposed to facilitate the comparison between different phylogenetic trees. In this paper, we give a survey on the aspects of computational complexity, fixed-parameter algorithms, and approximation algorithms for computing the TBR and SPR distances of phylogenetic trees.

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Tsinghua Science and Technology
Pages 490-499

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Shi F, Feng Q, Chen J, et al. Distances Between Phylogenetic Trees: A Survey. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 2013, 18(5): 490-499. https://doi.org/10.1109/TST.2013.6616522

1048

Views

48

Downloads

4

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

5

Scopus

0

CSCD

Received: 06 August 2013
Revised: 15 August 2013
Accepted: 20 August 2013
Published: 03 October 2013
© The author(s) 2013