| 1 | <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> |
|---|
| 2 | <HTML> |
|---|
| 3 | <HEAD> |
|---|
| 4 | <TITLE>dolpenny</TITLE> |
|---|
| 5 | <META NAME="description" CONTENT="dolpenny"> |
|---|
| 6 | <META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="dolpenny"> |
|---|
| 7 | <META NAME="resource-type" CONTENT="document"> |
|---|
| 8 | <META NAME="distribution" CONTENT="global"> |
|---|
| 9 | <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> |
|---|
| 10 | </HEAD> |
|---|
| 11 | <BODY BGCOLOR="#ccffff"> |
|---|
| 12 | <DIV ALIGN=RIGHT> |
|---|
| 13 | version 3.6 |
|---|
| 14 | </DIV> |
|---|
| 15 | <P> |
|---|
| 16 | <DIV ALIGN=CENTER> |
|---|
| 17 | <H1>DOLPENNY - Branch and bound<BR>to find all most parsimonious trees<BR> |
|---|
| 18 | for Dollo, polymorphism parsimony criteria</H1> |
|---|
| 19 | </DIV> |
|---|
| 20 | <P> |
|---|
| 21 | © Copyright 1986-2002 by the University of |
|---|
| 22 | Washington. Written by Joseph Felsenstein. Permission is granted to copy |
|---|
| 23 | this document provided that no fee is charged for it and that this copyright |
|---|
| 24 | notice is not removed. |
|---|
| 25 | <P> |
|---|
| 26 | DOLPENNY is a program that will find all of the most parsimonious trees |
|---|
| 27 | implied by your data when the Dollo or polymorphism parsimony criteria are |
|---|
| 28 | employed. It does so not by examining all possible trees, |
|---|
| 29 | but by using the more sophisticated "branch and bound" algorithm, a |
|---|
| 30 | standard computer science search strategy first applied to |
|---|
| 31 | phylogenetic inference by Hendy and Penny (1982). (J. S. Farris |
|---|
| 32 | [personal communication, 1975] had also suggested that this strategy, |
|---|
| 33 | which is well-known in computer science, might |
|---|
| 34 | be applied to phylogenies, but he did not publish this suggestion). |
|---|
| 35 | <P> |
|---|
| 36 | There is, however, a price to be paid for the certainty that one has |
|---|
| 37 | found all members of the set of most parsimonious trees. The problem of |
|---|
| 38 | finding these has been shown (Graham and Foulds, 1982; Day, 1983) to be |
|---|
| 39 | NP-complete, which is equivalent to saying that there is no |
|---|
| 40 | fast algorithm that is guaranteed to solve the problem in all cases |
|---|
| 41 | (for a discussion of NP-completeness, see the Scientific American |
|---|
| 42 | article by Lewis and Papadimitriou, 1978). The result is that |
|---|
| 43 | this program, despite its algorithmic sophistication, is VERY SLOW. |
|---|
| 44 | <P> |
|---|
| 45 | The program should be slower than the other tree-building programs |
|---|
| 46 | in the package, but useable up to about ten species. Above this it will |
|---|
| 47 | bog down rapidly, but exactly when depends on the data and on how much |
|---|
| 48 | computer time you have (it may be more effective in the hands of someone |
|---|
| 49 | who can let a microcomputer grind all night than for someone who |
|---|
| 50 | has the "benefit" of paying for time on the campus mainframe |
|---|
| 51 | computer). IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW LONG THE |
|---|
| 52 | PROGRAM WILL TAKE ON YOUR DATA. This can be done by running it on subsets |
|---|
| 53 | of the species, increasing the number of species in the run until you |
|---|
| 54 | either are able to treat the full data set or know that the program |
|---|
| 55 | will take unacceptably long on it. (Making a plot of the logarithm of run |
|---|
| 56 | time against species number may help to project run times). |
|---|
| 57 | <P> |
|---|
| 58 | <H2>The Algorithm</H2> |
|---|
| 59 | <P> |
|---|
| 60 | The search strategy used by DOLPENNY starts by making a tree consisting of the |
|---|
| 61 | first two species (the first three if the tree is to be unrooted). Then |
|---|
| 62 | it tries to add the next species in all possible places (there are three |
|---|
| 63 | of these). For each of the resulting trees it evaluates the number of |
|---|
| 64 | losses. It adds the next species to each of these, again in all |
|---|
| 65 | possible spaces. If this process would continue it would simply |
|---|
| 66 | generate all possible trees, of which there are a very large number even |
|---|
| 67 | when the number of species is moderate (34,459,425 with 10 species). Actually |
|---|
| 68 | it does not do this, because the trees are generated in a |
|---|
| 69 | particular order and some of them are never generated. |
|---|
| 70 | <P> |
|---|
| 71 | Actually the order in which trees are generated is not quite as |
|---|
| 72 | implied above, but is a "depth-first search". This means that first |
|---|
| 73 | one adds the third species in the first possible |
|---|
| 74 | place, then the fourth species in its first possible place, then |
|---|
| 75 | the fifth and so on until the first possible tree has been produced. Its |
|---|
| 76 | number of steps is evaluated. Then one "backtracks" by trying the |
|---|
| 77 | alternative placements of the last species. When these are exhausted |
|---|
| 78 | one tries the next placement of the next-to-last species. The order of |
|---|
| 79 | placement in a depth-first search is like this for a |
|---|
| 80 | four-species case (parentheses enclose monophyletic groups): |
|---|
| 81 | <P> |
|---|
| 82 | Make tree of first two species (A,B)<BR> |
|---|
| 83 |   Add C in first place ((A,B),C)<BR> |
|---|
| 84 |     Add D in first place (((A,D),B),C)<BR> |
|---|
| 85 |     Add D in second place ((A,(B,D)),C)<BR> |
|---|
| 86 |     Add D in third place (((A,B),D),C)<BR> |
|---|
| 87 |     Add D in fourth place ((A,B),(C,D))<BR> |
|---|
| 88 |     Add D in fifth place (((A,B),C),D)<BR> |
|---|
| 89 |   Add C in second place: ((A,C),B)<BR> |
|---|
| 90 |     Add D in first place (((A,D),C),B)<BR> |
|---|
| 91 |     Add D in second place ((A,(C,D)),B)<BR> |
|---|
| 92 |     Add D in third place (((A,C),D),B)<BR> |
|---|
| 93 |     Add D in fourth place ((A,C),(B,D))<BR> |
|---|
| 94 |     Add D in fifth place (((A,C),B),D)<BR> |
|---|
| 95 |   Add C in third place (A,(B,C))<BR> |
|---|
| 96 |     Add D in first place ((A,D),(B,C))<BR> |
|---|
| 97 |     Add D in second place (A,((B,D),C))<BR> |
|---|
| 98 |     Add D in third place (A,(B,(C,D)))<BR> |
|---|
| 99 |     Add D in fourth place (A,((B,C),D))<BR> |
|---|
| 100 |     Add D in fifth place ((A,(B,C)),D)<BR> |
|---|
| 101 | <P> |
|---|
| 102 | Among these fifteen trees you will find all of the four-species |
|---|
| 103 | rooted bifurcating trees, each exactly once (the parentheses each enclose |
|---|
| 104 | a monophyletic group). As displayed above, the backtracking |
|---|
| 105 | depth-first search algorithm is just another way of producing all |
|---|
| 106 | possible trees one at a time. The branch and bound algorithm |
|---|
| 107 | consists of this with one change. As each tree is constructed, |
|---|
| 108 | including the partial trees such as (A,(B,C)), its number of losses |
|---|
| 109 | (or retentions of polymorphism) |
|---|
| 110 | is evaluated. |
|---|
| 111 | <P> |
|---|
| 112 | The point of this is that if a previously-found |
|---|
| 113 | tree such as ((A,B),(C,D)) required fewer losses, then we know that |
|---|
| 114 | there is no point in even trying to add D to ((A,C),B). We have |
|---|
| 115 | computed the bound that enables us to cut off a whole line of inquiry |
|---|
| 116 | (in this case five trees) and avoid going down that particular branch |
|---|
| 117 | any farther. |
|---|
| 118 | <P> |
|---|
| 119 | The branch-and-bound algorithm thus allows us to find all most parsimonious |
|---|
| 120 | trees without generating all possible trees. How much of a saving this |
|---|
| 121 | is depends strongly on the data. For very clean (nearly "Hennigian") |
|---|
| 122 | data, it saves much time, but on very messy data it will still take |
|---|
| 123 | a very long time. |
|---|
| 124 | <P> |
|---|
| 125 | The algorithm in the program differs from the one outlined here |
|---|
| 126 | in some essential details: it investigates possibilities in the |
|---|
| 127 | order of their apparent promise. This applies to the order of addition |
|---|
| 128 | of species, and to the places where they are added to the tree. After |
|---|
| 129 | the first two-species tree is constructed, the program tries adding |
|---|
| 130 | each of the remaining species in turn, each in the best possible place it |
|---|
| 131 | can find. Whichever of those species adds (at a minimum) the most |
|---|
| 132 | additional steps is taken to be the one to be added next to the tree. When |
|---|
| 133 | it is added, it is added in turn to places which cause the fewest |
|---|
| 134 | additional steps to be added. This sounds a bit complex, but it is done |
|---|
| 135 | with the intention of eliminating regions of the search of all possible |
|---|
| 136 | trees as soon as possible, and lowering the bound on tree length as quickly |
|---|
| 137 | as possible. |
|---|
| 138 | <P> |
|---|
| 139 | The program keeps a list of all the most parsimonious |
|---|
| 140 | trees found so far. Whenever |
|---|
| 141 | it finds one that has fewer losses than |
|---|
| 142 | these, it clears out the list and |
|---|
| 143 | restarts the list with that tree. In the process the bound tightens and |
|---|
| 144 | fewer possibilities need be investigated. At the end the list contains |
|---|
| 145 | all the shortest trees. These are then printed out. It should be |
|---|
| 146 | mentioned that the program CLIQUE for finding all largest cliques |
|---|
| 147 | also works by branch-and-bound. Both problems are NP-complete but for |
|---|
| 148 | some reason CLIQUE runs far faster. Although their worst-case behavior |
|---|
| 149 | is bad for both programs, those worst cases occur far more frequently |
|---|
| 150 | in parsimony problems than in compatibility problems. |
|---|
| 151 | <P> |
|---|
| 152 | <H2>Controlling Run Times</H2> |
|---|
| 153 | <P> |
|---|
| 154 | Among the quantities available to be set at the |
|---|
| 155 | beginning of a run of DOLPENNY, two (howoften and howmany) are of particular |
|---|
| 156 | importance. As DOLPENNY goes along it will keep count of how many |
|---|
| 157 | trees it has examined. Suppose that howoften is 100 and howmany is 300, |
|---|
| 158 | the default settings. Every time 100 trees have been examined, DOLPENNY |
|---|
| 159 | will print out a line saying how many multiples of 100 trees have now been |
|---|
| 160 | examined, how many steps the most parsimonious tree found so far has, |
|---|
| 161 | how many trees of with that number of steps have been found, and a very |
|---|
| 162 | rough estimate of what fraction of all trees have been looked at so far. |
|---|
| 163 | <P> |
|---|
| 164 | When the number of these multiples printed out reaches the number howmany |
|---|
| 165 | (say 1000), the whole algorithm aborts and prints out that it has not |
|---|
| 166 | found all most parsimonious trees, but prints out what is has got so far |
|---|
| 167 | anyway. These trees need not be any of the most parsimonious trees: they are |
|---|
| 168 | simply the most parsimonious ones found so far. By setting the product |
|---|
| 169 | (howoften X howmany) large you can make |
|---|
| 170 | the algorithm less likely to abort, but then you risk getting bogged |
|---|
| 171 | down in a gigantic computation. You should adjust these constants so that |
|---|
| 172 | the program cannot go beyond examining the number of trees you are reasonably |
|---|
| 173 | willing to pay for (or wait for). In their initial setting the program will |
|---|
| 174 | abort after looking at 100,000 trees. Obviously you may want to adjust |
|---|
| 175 | howoften in order to get more or fewer lines of intermediate notice of how |
|---|
| 176 | many trees have been looked at so far. Of course, in small cases you may |
|---|
| 177 | never even reach the first multiple of howoften and nothing will be printed out |
|---|
| 178 | except some headings and then the final trees. |
|---|
| 179 | <P> |
|---|
| 180 | The indication of the approximate percentage of trees searched so far will |
|---|
| 181 | be helpful in judging how much farther you would have to go to get the full |
|---|
| 182 | search. Actually, since that fraction is the fraction of the set of all |
|---|
| 183 | possible trees searched or ruled out so far, and since the search becomes |
|---|
| 184 | progressively more efficient, the approximate fraction printed out will |
|---|
| 185 | usually be an underestimate of how far along the program is, sometimes a |
|---|
| 186 | serious underestimate. |
|---|
| 187 | <P> |
|---|
| 188 | A constant that affects the result is "maxtrees", |
|---|
| 189 | which controls the maximum number of trees that can be stored. Thus if |
|---|
| 190 | "maxtrees" |
|---|
| 191 | is 25, and 32 most parsimonious trees are found, only the first 25 of these are |
|---|
| 192 | stored and printed out. If "maxtrees" |
|---|
| 193 | is increased, the program does not run any slower but requires a little |
|---|
| 194 | more intermediate storage space. I recommend |
|---|
| 195 | that "maxtrees" |
|---|
| 196 | be kept as large as you can, provided you are willing to |
|---|
| 197 | look at an output with that many trees on it! Initially, |
|---|
| 198 | "maxtrees" is set to 100 in the distribution copy. |
|---|
| 199 | <P> |
|---|
| 200 | <H2>Methods and Options</H2> |
|---|
| 201 | <P> |
|---|
| 202 | The counting of the length of trees is done by an algorithm nearly |
|---|
| 203 | identical to the corresponding algorithms in DOLLOP, and thus the remainder |
|---|
| 204 | of this document will be nearly identical to the DOLLOP document. The |
|---|
| 205 | Dollo parsimony method was |
|---|
| 206 | first suggested in print in verbal form by Le Quesne (1974) and was |
|---|
| 207 | first well-specified by Farris (1977). The method is named after Louis |
|---|
| 208 | Dollo since he was one of the first to assert that in evolution it is |
|---|
| 209 | harder to gain a complex feature than to lose it. The algorithm |
|---|
| 210 | explains the presence of the state 1 by allowing up to one forward |
|---|
| 211 | change 0-->1 and as many reversions 1-->0 as are necessary to explain |
|---|
| 212 | the pattern of states seen. The program attempts to minimize the number |
|---|
| 213 | of 1-->0 reversions necessary. |
|---|
| 214 | <P> |
|---|
| 215 | The assumptions of this method are in effect: |
|---|
| 216 | <OL> |
|---|
| 217 | <LI>We know which state is the ancestral one (state 0). |
|---|
| 218 | <LI>The characters are evolving independently. |
|---|
| 219 | <LI>Different lineages evolve independently. |
|---|
| 220 | <LI>The probability of a forward change (0-->1) is small over the |
|---|
| 221 | evolutionary times involved. |
|---|
| 222 | <LI>The probability of a reversion (1-->0) is also small, but |
|---|
| 223 | still far larger than the probability of a forward change, so |
|---|
| 224 | that many reversions are easier to envisage than even one |
|---|
| 225 | extra forward change. |
|---|
| 226 | <LI>Retention of polymorphism for both states (0 and 1) is highly |
|---|
| 227 | improbable. |
|---|
| 228 | <LI>The lengths of the segments of the true tree are not so |
|---|
| 229 | unequal that two changes in a long segment are as probable as |
|---|
| 230 | one in a short segment. |
|---|
| 231 | </OL> |
|---|
| 232 | <P> |
|---|
| 233 | That these are the assumptions is established in several of my |
|---|
| 234 | papers (1973a, 1978b, 1979, 1981b, 1983). For an opposing view arguing |
|---|
| 235 | that the parsimony methods make no substantive |
|---|
| 236 | assumptions such as these, see the papers by Farris (1983) and Sober (1983a, |
|---|
| 237 | 1983b), but also read the exchange between Felsenstein and Sober (1986). |
|---|
| 238 | <P> |
|---|
| 239 | One problem can arise when using additive binary recoding to |
|---|
| 240 | represent a multistate character as a series of two-state characters. Unlike |
|---|
| 241 | the Camin-Sokal, Wagner, and Polymorphism methods, the Dollo |
|---|
| 242 | method can reconstruct ancestral states which do not exist. An example |
|---|
| 243 | is given in my 1979 paper. It will be necessary to check the output to |
|---|
| 244 | make sure that this has not occurred. |
|---|
| 245 | <P> |
|---|
| 246 | The polymorphism parsimony method was first used by me, |
|---|
| 247 | and the results published |
|---|
| 248 | (without a clear |
|---|
| 249 | specification of the method) by Inger (1967). The method was |
|---|
| 250 | published by Farris (1978a) and by me (1979). The method |
|---|
| 251 | assumes that we can explain the pattern of states by no more than one |
|---|
| 252 | origination (0-->1) of state 1, followed by retention of polymorphism |
|---|
| 253 | along as many segments of the tree as are necessary, followed by loss of |
|---|
| 254 | state 0 or of state 1 where necessary. The program tries to minimize |
|---|
| 255 | the total number of polymorphic characters, where each polymorphism is |
|---|
| 256 | counted once for each segment of the tree in which it is retained. |
|---|
| 257 | <P> |
|---|
| 258 | The assumptions of the polymorphism parsimony method are in effect: |
|---|
| 259 | <OL> |
|---|
| 260 | <LI>The ancestral state (state 0) is known in each character. |
|---|
| 261 | <LI>The characters are evolving independently of each other. |
|---|
| 262 | <LI>Different lineages are evolving independently. |
|---|
| 263 | <LI>Forward change (0-->1) is highly improbable over the length of |
|---|
| 264 | time involved in the evolution of the group. |
|---|
| 265 | <LI>Retention of polymorphism is also improbable, but far more |
|---|
| 266 | probable that forward change, so that we can more easily |
|---|
| 267 | envisage much polymorhism than even one additional forward |
|---|
| 268 | change. |
|---|
| 269 | <LI>Once state 1 is reached, reoccurrence of state 0 is very |
|---|
| 270 | improbable, much less probable than multiple retentions of |
|---|
| 271 | polymorphism. |
|---|
| 272 | <LI>The lengths of segments in the true tree are not so unequal |
|---|
| 273 | that we can more easily envisage retention events occurring in |
|---|
| 274 | both of two long segments than one retention in a short |
|---|
| 275 | segment. |
|---|
| 276 | </OL> |
|---|
| 277 | <P> |
|---|
| 278 | That these are the assumptions of parsimony methods has been documented |
|---|
| 279 | in a series of papers of mine: (1973a, 1978b, 1979, 1981b, |
|---|
| 280 | 1983b, 1988b). For an opposing view arguing that the parsimony methods |
|---|
| 281 | make no substantive |
|---|
| 282 | assumptions such as these, see the papers by Farris (1983) and Sober (1983a, |
|---|
| 283 | 1983b), but also read the exchange between Felsenstein and Sober (1986). |
|---|
| 284 | <P> |
|---|
| 285 | The input format is the standard one, with "?", "P", "B" states |
|---|
| 286 | allowed. Most of the options are selected using a menu: |
|---|
| 287 | <P> |
|---|
| 288 | <TABLE><TR><TD BGCOLOR=white> |
|---|
| 289 | <PRE> |
|---|
| 290 | |
|---|
| 291 | Penny algorithm for Dollo or polymorphism parsimony, version 3.6a3 |
|---|
| 292 | branch-and-bound to find all most parsimonious trees |
|---|
| 293 | |
|---|
| 294 | Settings for this run: |
|---|
| 295 | P Parsimony method? Dollo |
|---|
| 296 | H How many groups of 100 trees: 1000 |
|---|
| 297 | F How often to report, in trees: 100 |
|---|
| 298 | S Branch and bound is simple? Yes |
|---|
| 299 | T Use Threshold parsimony? No, use ordinary parsimony |
|---|
| 300 | A Use ancestral states? No |
|---|
| 301 | W Sites weighted? No |
|---|
| 302 | M Analyze multiple data sets? No |
|---|
| 303 | 0 Terminal type (IBM PC, ANSI, none)? (none) |
|---|
| 304 | 1 Print out the data at start of run No |
|---|
| 305 | 2 Print indications of progress of run Yes |
|---|
| 306 | 3 Print out tree Yes |
|---|
| 307 | 4 Print out steps in each character No |
|---|
| 308 | 5 Print states at all nodes of tree No |
|---|
| 309 | 6 Write out trees onto tree file? Yes |
|---|
| 310 | |
|---|
| 311 | Are these settings correct? (type Y or the letter for one to change) |
|---|
| 312 | </PRE> |
|---|
| 313 | </TD></TR></TABLE> |
|---|
| 314 | <P> |
|---|
| 315 | The P option toggles between the Polymorphism parsimony method and the |
|---|
| 316 | default Dollo parsimony method. |
|---|
| 317 | <P> |
|---|
| 318 | The options T, A, and M are the usual Threshold, Ancestral |
|---|
| 319 | States, and Multiple Data Sets options. They are described in the Main |
|---|
| 320 | documentation file and in the Discrete Characters Programs documentation |
|---|
| 321 | file. |
|---|
| 322 | <P> |
|---|
| 323 | Options F and H reset the |
|---|
| 324 | variables howoften (F) and howmany (H). The user is prompted for the new |
|---|
| 325 | values. By setting these larger the program will report its progress less |
|---|
| 326 | often (howoften) and will run longer (howmany times howoften). These values |
|---|
| 327 | default to 100 and 1000 which |
|---|
| 328 | guarantees a search of 100,000 trees, but these can be changed. Note that |
|---|
| 329 | option F in this program is not the Factors option available in some of |
|---|
| 330 | the other programs in this section of the package. |
|---|
| 331 | <P> |
|---|
| 332 | The use of the A |
|---|
| 333 | option allows implementation of the unordered Dollo parsimony and unordered |
|---|
| 334 | polymorphism parsimony methods which I have |
|---|
| 335 | described elsewhere (1984b). When the A option is used the ancestor is |
|---|
| 336 | not to be counted as one of the species. The O (outgroup) option is not |
|---|
| 337 | available since the tree produced is already rooted. |
|---|
| 338 | <P> |
|---|
| 339 | Setting T at or below |
|---|
| 340 | 1.0 but above 0 causes the criterion to become compatibility rather than |
|---|
| 341 | polymorphism parsimony, although there is no advantage to using this |
|---|
| 342 | program instead of PENNY to do a compatibility method. Setting |
|---|
| 343 | the threshold value higher brings about an intermediate between |
|---|
| 344 | the Dollo or polymorphism parsimony methods and the compatibility method, |
|---|
| 345 | so that there is some rationale for doing that. |
|---|
| 346 | <P> |
|---|
| 347 | Using a threshold value of 1.0 or lower, but above 0, one can |
|---|
| 348 | obtain a rooted (or, if the A option is used with ancestral states of |
|---|
| 349 | "?", unrooted) compatibility criterion, but there is no particular |
|---|
| 350 | advantage to using this program for that instead of MIX. Higher |
|---|
| 351 | threshold values are of course meaningful and provide |
|---|
| 352 | intermediates between Dollo and compatibility methods. |
|---|
| 353 | <P> |
|---|
| 354 | The S (Simple) option alters a step in DOLPENNY which reconsiders the |
|---|
| 355 | order in which species are added to the tree. Normally the decision as to |
|---|
| 356 | what species to add to the tree next is made as the first tree is being |
|---|
| 357 | constructucted; that ordering of species is not altered subsequently. The |
|---|
| 358 | R option causes it to be continually reconsidered. This will probably |
|---|
| 359 | result in a substantial increase in run time, but on some data sets of |
|---|
| 360 | intermediate messiness it may help. It is included in case it might prove |
|---|
| 361 | of use on some data sets. |
|---|
| 362 | <P> |
|---|
| 363 | The Factors |
|---|
| 364 | option is not available in this program, as it would have no effect on |
|---|
| 365 | the result even if that information were provided in the input file. |
|---|
| 366 | <P> |
|---|
| 367 | The output format is also standard. It includes a rooted tree and, |
|---|
| 368 | if the user selects option 4, a table |
|---|
| 369 | of the numbers of reversions or retentions of polymorphism necessary |
|---|
| 370 | in each character. If any of the |
|---|
| 371 | ancestral states has been specified to be unknown, a table of |
|---|
| 372 | reconstructed ancestral states is also provided. When reconstructing |
|---|
| 373 | the placement of forward changes and reversions under the Dollo method, |
|---|
| 374 | keep in mind that each |
|---|
| 375 | polymorphic state in the input data will require one "last minute" |
|---|
| 376 | reversion. This is included in the tabulated counts. Thus if we have |
|---|
| 377 | both states 0 and 1 at a tip of the tree the program will assume that |
|---|
| 378 | the lineage had state 1 up to the last minute, and then state 0 arose in |
|---|
| 379 | that population by reversion, without loss of state 1. |
|---|
| 380 | <P> |
|---|
| 381 | A table is available to be printed out after each tree, showing for each |
|---|
| 382 | branch whether |
|---|
| 383 | there are known to be changes in the branch, and what the states are inferred |
|---|
| 384 | to have been at the top end of the branch. If the inferred state is a "?" |
|---|
| 385 | there will be multiple equally-parsimonious assignments of states; the user |
|---|
| 386 | must work these out for themselves by hand. |
|---|
| 387 | <P> |
|---|
| 388 | If the A option is used, then the program will |
|---|
| 389 | infer, for any character whose ancestral state is unknown ("?") whether the |
|---|
| 390 | ancestral state 0 or 1 will give the best tree. If these are |
|---|
| 391 | tied, then it may not be possible for the program to infer the |
|---|
| 392 | state in the internal nodes, and these will all be printed as ".". If this |
|---|
| 393 | has happened and you want to know more about the states at the internal |
|---|
| 394 | nodes, you will find helpful to use DOLMOVE to display the tree and examine |
|---|
| 395 | its interior states, as the algorithm in DOLMOVE shows all that can be known |
|---|
| 396 | in this case about the interior states, including where there is and is not |
|---|
| 397 | amibiguity. The algorithm in DOLPENNY gives up more easily on displaying these |
|---|
| 398 | states. |
|---|
| 399 | <P> |
|---|
| 400 | At the beginning of the program are a series of constants, |
|---|
| 401 | which can be changed to help adapt the program to different computer systems. |
|---|
| 402 | Two are the initial values of howmany and howoften, |
|---|
| 403 | constants "often" and "many". Constant "maxtrees" |
|---|
| 404 | is the maximum number of tied trees that will |
|---|
| 405 | be stored. |
|---|
| 406 | <P> |
|---|
| 407 | <HR> |
|---|
| 408 | <P> |
|---|
| 409 | <H3>TEST DATA SET</H3> |
|---|
| 410 | <P> |
|---|
| 411 | <TABLE><TR><TD BGCOLOR=white> |
|---|
| 412 | <PRE> |
|---|
| 413 | 7 6 |
|---|
| 414 | Alpha1 110110 |
|---|
| 415 | Alpha2 110110 |
|---|
| 416 | Beta1 110000 |
|---|
| 417 | Beta2 110000 |
|---|
| 418 | Gamma1 100110 |
|---|
| 419 | Delta 001001 |
|---|
| 420 | Epsilon 001110 |
|---|
| 421 | </PRE> |
|---|
| 422 | </TD></TR></TABLE> |
|---|
| 423 | <P> |
|---|
| 424 | <HR> |
|---|
| 425 | <P> |
|---|
| 426 | <H3>TEST SET OUTPUT (with all numerical options turned on)</H3> |
|---|
| 427 | <P> |
|---|
| 428 | <TABLE><TR><TD BGCOLOR=white> |
|---|
| 429 | <PRE> |
|---|
| 430 | |
|---|
| 431 | Penny algorithm for Dollo or polymorphism parsimony, version 3.6a3 |
|---|
| 432 | branch-and-bound to find all most parsimonious trees |
|---|
| 433 | |
|---|
| 434 | 7 species, 6 characters |
|---|
| 435 | Dollo parsimony method |
|---|
| 436 | |
|---|
| 437 | |
|---|
| 438 | Name Characters |
|---|
| 439 | ---- ---------- |
|---|
| 440 | |
|---|
| 441 | Alpha1 11011 0 |
|---|
| 442 | Alpha2 11011 0 |
|---|
| 443 | Beta1 11000 0 |
|---|
| 444 | Beta2 11000 0 |
|---|
| 445 | Gamma1 10011 0 |
|---|
| 446 | Delta 00100 1 |
|---|
| 447 | Epsilon 00111 0 |
|---|
| 448 | |
|---|
| 449 | |
|---|
| 450 | |
|---|
| 451 | requires a total of 3.000 |
|---|
| 452 | |
|---|
| 453 | 3 trees in all found |
|---|
| 454 | |
|---|
| 455 | |
|---|
| 456 | |
|---|
| 457 | |
|---|
| 458 | +-----------------Delta |
|---|
| 459 | ! |
|---|
| 460 | --2 +--------------Epsilon |
|---|
| 461 | ! ! |
|---|
| 462 | +--3 +-----------Gamma1 |
|---|
| 463 | ! ! |
|---|
| 464 | +--6 +--------Alpha2 |
|---|
| 465 | ! ! |
|---|
| 466 | +--1 +--Beta2 |
|---|
| 467 | ! +--5 |
|---|
| 468 | +--4 +--Beta1 |
|---|
| 469 | ! |
|---|
| 470 | +-----Alpha1 |
|---|
| 471 | |
|---|
| 472 | |
|---|
| 473 | reversions in each character: |
|---|
| 474 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|---|
| 475 | *----------------------------------------- |
|---|
| 476 | 0! 0 0 1 1 1 0 |
|---|
| 477 | |
|---|
| 478 | From To Any Steps? State at upper node |
|---|
| 479 | ( . means same as in the node below it on tree) |
|---|
| 480 | |
|---|
| 481 | root 2 yes ..1.. . |
|---|
| 482 | 2 Delta yes ..... 1 |
|---|
| 483 | 2 3 yes ...11 . |
|---|
| 484 | 3 Epsilon no ..... . |
|---|
| 485 | 3 6 yes 1.0.. . |
|---|
| 486 | 6 Gamma1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 487 | 6 1 yes .1... . |
|---|
| 488 | 1 Alpha2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 489 | 1 4 no ..... . |
|---|
| 490 | 4 5 yes ...00 . |
|---|
| 491 | 5 Beta2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 492 | 5 Beta1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 493 | 4 Alpha1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 494 | |
|---|
| 495 | |
|---|
| 496 | |
|---|
| 497 | |
|---|
| 498 | |
|---|
| 499 | +-----------------Delta |
|---|
| 500 | ! |
|---|
| 501 | --2 +--------------Epsilon |
|---|
| 502 | ! ! |
|---|
| 503 | +--3 +-----------Gamma1 |
|---|
| 504 | ! ! |
|---|
| 505 | +--6 +--Beta2 |
|---|
| 506 | ! +-----5 |
|---|
| 507 | ! ! +--Beta1 |
|---|
| 508 | +--4 |
|---|
| 509 | ! +--Alpha2 |
|---|
| 510 | +-----1 |
|---|
| 511 | +--Alpha1 |
|---|
| 512 | |
|---|
| 513 | |
|---|
| 514 | reversions in each character: |
|---|
| 515 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|---|
| 516 | *----------------------------------------- |
|---|
| 517 | 0! 0 0 1 1 1 0 |
|---|
| 518 | |
|---|
| 519 | From To Any Steps? State at upper node |
|---|
| 520 | ( . means same as in the node below it on tree) |
|---|
| 521 | |
|---|
| 522 | root 2 yes ..1.. . |
|---|
| 523 | 2 Delta yes ..... 1 |
|---|
| 524 | 2 3 yes ...11 . |
|---|
| 525 | 3 Epsilon no ..... . |
|---|
| 526 | 3 6 yes 1.0.. . |
|---|
| 527 | 6 Gamma1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 528 | 6 4 yes .1... . |
|---|
| 529 | 4 5 yes ...00 . |
|---|
| 530 | 5 Beta2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 531 | 5 Beta1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 532 | 4 1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 533 | 1 Alpha2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 534 | 1 Alpha1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 535 | |
|---|
| 536 | |
|---|
| 537 | |
|---|
| 538 | |
|---|
| 539 | |
|---|
| 540 | +-----------------Delta |
|---|
| 541 | ! |
|---|
| 542 | --2 +--------------Epsilon |
|---|
| 543 | ! ! |
|---|
| 544 | +--3 +-----------Gamma1 |
|---|
| 545 | ! ! |
|---|
| 546 | ! ! +--Beta2 |
|---|
| 547 | +--6 +--5 |
|---|
| 548 | ! +--4 +--Beta1 |
|---|
| 549 | ! ! ! |
|---|
| 550 | +--1 +-----Alpha2 |
|---|
| 551 | ! |
|---|
| 552 | +--------Alpha1 |
|---|
| 553 | |
|---|
| 554 | |
|---|
| 555 | reversions in each character: |
|---|
| 556 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|---|
| 557 | *----------------------------------------- |
|---|
| 558 | 0! 0 0 1 1 1 0 |
|---|
| 559 | |
|---|
| 560 | From To Any Steps? State at upper node |
|---|
| 561 | ( . means same as in the node below it on tree) |
|---|
| 562 | |
|---|
| 563 | root 2 yes ..1.. . |
|---|
| 564 | 2 Delta yes ..... 1 |
|---|
| 565 | 2 3 yes ...11 . |
|---|
| 566 | 3 Epsilon no ..... . |
|---|
| 567 | 3 6 yes 1.0.. . |
|---|
| 568 | 6 Gamma1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 569 | 6 1 yes .1... . |
|---|
| 570 | 1 4 no ..... . |
|---|
| 571 | 4 5 yes ...00 . |
|---|
| 572 | 5 Beta2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 573 | 5 Beta1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 574 | 4 Alpha2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 575 | 1 Alpha1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 576 | |
|---|
| 577 | |
|---|
| 578 | </PRE> |
|---|
| 579 | </TD></TR></TABLE> |
|---|
| 580 | </BODY> |
|---|
| 581 | </HTML> |
|---|