Galtier [1] introduces “Aphid,” a new statistical method that estimates the contributions of gene flow (GF) and incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) to phylogenetic conflict.  Aphid is based on the observation that GF tends to make gene genealogies shorter, whereas ILS makes them longer.  Rather than fitting the full likelihood, it models the distribution of gene genealogies as a mixture of several canonical gene genealogies in which coalescence times are set equal to their expectations under different models. This simplification makes Aphid far faster than competing methods. In addition, it deals gracefully with bidirectional gene flow—an impossibility under competing models. Because of these advantages, Aphid represents an important addition to the toolkit of evolutionary genetics.

In the interest of speed, Aphid makes several simplifying assumptions. Yet even when these were violated, Aphid did well at estimating parameters from simulated data. It seems to be reasonably robust.

Aphid studies phylogenetic conflict, which occurs when some loci imply one phylogenetic tree and other loci imply another. This happens when the interval between successive speciation events is fairly short. If this interval is too short,  however,  Aphid’s approximations break down, and its estimates are biased. Galtier suggests caution when the fraction of discordant phylogenetic trees exceeds 50–55%. Thus, Aphids will be most useful when the interval between speciation events is short, but not too short.

Galtier applies the new method to three sets of primate data. In two of these data sets  (baboons and African apes), Aphid detects gene flow that would likely be missed by competing methods. These competing methods are primarily sensitive to gene flow that is asymmetric in two senses: (1) greater flow in one direction than the other, and (2) unequal gene flow connecting an outgroup to two sister species.  Aphid finds evidence of symmetric gene flow in the ancestry of baboons and also in that of African apes. The data suggest that ancestral humans and chimpanzees both interbred with ancestral gorillas, and at about the same rate.  Aphid’s ability to detect this signature sets it apart from competing methods.

References

[1]   Nicolas Galtier (2023) “An approximate likelihood method reveals ancient gene flow between human, chimpanzee and gorilla”. bioRxiv, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Mathematical and Computational Biology.  https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.06.547897

Reconstructing a phylogenetic network for a set of conflicting phylogenetic trees on the same set of leaves remains an active strand of research in mathematical and computational phylogenetic since 2005, when Baroni et al. [1] showed that the minimum number of reticulations h(T,T') needed to simultaneously embed two rooted binary phylogenetic trees T and T' into a rooted binary phylogenetic network is one less than the size of a maximum acyclic agreement forest for T and T'. In the same paper, the authors showed that h(T,T') is bounded from above by n-2, where n is the number of leaves of T and T' and that this bound is sharp. That is, for a fixed n, there exist two rooted binary phylogenetic trees T and T' such that h(T,T')=n-2.

Since 2005, many papers have been published that develop exact algorithms and heuristics to solve the above NP-hard minimisation problem in practice, which is often referred to as Minimum Hybridisation in the literature, and that further investigate the mathematical underpinnings of Minimum Hybridisation and related problems. However, many such studies are restricted to two trees and much less is known about Minimum Hybridisation for when the input consists of more than two phylogenetic trees, which is the more relevant cases from a biological point of view. 

In [2], van Iersel, Jones, and Weller establish the first lower bound for the minimum reticulation number for more than two rooted binary phylogenetic trees, with a focus on exactly three trees. The above-mentioned connection between the minimum number of reticulations and maximum acyclic agreement forests does not extend to three (or more) trees. Instead, to establish their result, the authors use multi-labelled trees as an intermediate structure between phylogenetic trees and phylogenetic networks to show that, for each ε>0, there exist three caterpillar trees on n leaves such that any phylogenetic network that simultaneously embeds these three trees has at least (3/2 - ε)n reticulations. Perhaps unsurprising, caterpillar trees were also used by Baroni et al. [1] to establish that their upper bound on h(T,T') is sharp. Structurally, these trees have the property that each internal vertex is adjacent to a leaf. Each caterpillar tree can therefore be viewed as a sequence of characters, and it is exactly this viewpoint that is heavily used in [2]. More specifically, sequences with short common subsequences correspond to caterpillar trees that need many reticulations when embedded in a phylogenetic network. It would consequently be interesting to further investigate connections between caterpillar trees and certain types of sequences. Can they be used to shed more light on bounds for the minimum reticulation number?

References

[1] Baroni, M., Grünewald, S., Moulton, V., and Semple, C. (2005) "Bounding the number of hybridisation events for a consistent evolutionary history". J. Math. Biol. 51, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-005-0315-9
  
[2] van Iersel, L., Jones, M., and Weller, M. (2023) “When three trees go to war”. HAL, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community In Mathematical and Computational Biology. https://hal.science/hal-04013152/

We often use genetic data from a single site, or even a single individual, to estimate the history of effective population size, Ne, over time scales in excess of a million years. Mazet and Noûs [2] emphasize that such estimates may not mean what they seem to mean.  The ups and downs of Ne may reflect changes in gene flow or selection, rather than changes in census population size. In fact, gene flow may cause Ne to decline even if the rate of gene flow has remained constant.

Consider for example the estimates of archaic population size in Fig. 1, which show an apparent decline in population size between roughly 700 kya and 300 kya. It is tempting to interpret this as evidence of a declining number of individuals, but that is not the only plausible interpretation.

Each of these estimates is based on the genome of a single diploid individual. As we trace the ancestry of that individual backwards into the past, the ancestors are likely to remain in the same locale for at least a generation or two. Being neighbors, there’s a chance they will mate. This implies that in the recent past, the ancestors of a sampled individual lived in a population of small effective size.

As we continue backwards into the past, there is more and more time for the ancestors to move around on the landscape. The farther back we go, the less likely they are to be neighbors, and the less likely they are to mate. In this more remote past, the ancestors of our sample lived in a population of larger effective size, even if neither the number of individuals nor the rate of gene flow has changed.

For awhile then, Ne should increase as we move backwards into the past. This process does not continue forever, because eventually the ancestors will be randomly distributed across the population as a whole. We therefore expect Ne to increase towards an asymptote, which represents the effective size of the entire population.

This simple story gets more complex if there is change in either the census size or the rate of gene flow.  Mazet and Noûs [2] have shown that one can mimic real estimates of population history using models in which the rate of gene flow varies, but census size does not. This implies that the curves in Fig. 1 are ambiguous. The observed changes in Ne could reflect changes in census size, gene flow, or both.

For  this  reason,  Mazet  and  Noûs [2]  would  like  to  replace  the  term  “effective  population size” with an alternative, the “inverse instantaneous coalescent rate,” or IIRC. I don’t share this preference, because the same critique could be made of all definitions of Ne. For example, Wright [3, p. 108] showed in 1931 that Ne varies in response to the sex ratio, and this implies that changes in Ne need not involve any change in census size. This is also true when populations are geographically structured, as Mazet and Noûs [2] have emphasized, but this does not seem to require a new vocabulary.

Figure 1: PSMC estimates of the history of population size based on three archaic genomes: two Neanderthals and a Denisovan [1].

Mazet  and  Noûs  [2]  also  show  that  estimates  of  Ne  can  vary  in  response  to  selection.   It is not hard to see why such an effect might exist. In genomic regions affected by directional or purifying selection, heterozygosity is low, and common ancestors tend to be recent. Such regions may contribute to small estimates of recent Ne. In regions under balancing selection, heterozygosity is high, and common ancestors tend to be ancient. Such regions may contribute to large estimates of ancient Ne. The magnitude of this effect presumably depends on the fraction of the genome under selection and the rate of recombination.

In summary, this article describes several processes that can affect estimates of the history of effective population size. This makes existing estimates ambiguous. For example, should we interpret Fig. 1 as evidence of a declining number of archaic individuals, or in terms of gene flow among archaic subpopulations? But these questions also present research opportunities. If the observed decline reflects gene flow, what does this imply about the geographic structure of archaic populations? Can we resolve the ambiguity by integrating samples from different locales, or using archaeological estimates of population density or interregional trade?

REFERENCES

[1] Fabrizio Mafessoni et al. “A high-coverage Neandertal genome from Chagyrskaya Cave”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA  117.26 (2020), pp. 15132–15136. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004944117.

[2] Olivier Mazet and Camille Noûs. “Population genetics: coalescence rate and demographic parameters inference”. arXiv, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community In Mathematical and Computational Biology (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2207.02111.

[3] Sewall Wright. “Evolution in mendelian populations”. Genetics 16 (1931), pp. 97–159. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2207.0211110.1093/genetics/16.2.97.

Reprogramming of cellular networks is a well known challenge in computational biology consisting first of all in properly representing an ensemble of networks having a role in a phenomenon of interest, and secondly in designing strategies to alter the functioning of this ensemble in the desired direction.  Important applications involve disease study: a therapy can be seen as a reprogramming strategy, and the disease itself can be considered a result of a series of adversarial reprogramming actions.  The origins of this domain go back to the seminal paper by Barabási et al. [1] which formalized the concept of network medicine.

An abstract tool which has gathered considerable success in network medicine and network biology are Boolean networks: sets of Boolean variables, each equipped with a Boolean update function describing how to compute the next value of the variable from the values of the other variables.  Despite apparent dissimilarity with the biological systems which involve varying quantities and continuous processes, Boolean networks have been very effective in representing biological networks whose entities are typically seen as being on or off.  Particular examples are protein signalling networks as well as gene regulatory networks.

The paper [2] by Loïc Paulevé presents a versatile tool for tackling reprogramming of Boolean networks seen as models of biological networks.  The problem of reprogramming is often formulated as the problem of finding a set of perturbations which guarantee some properties on the attractors.  The work [2] relies on the most permissive semantics [3], which together with the modelling assumption allows for considerable speed-up in the practically relevant subclass of locally-monotone Boolean networks.

The paper is structured as a tutorial.  It starts by introducing the formalism, defining 4 different general variants of reprogramming under the most permissive semantics, and presenting evaluations of their complexity in terms of the polynomial hierarchy.  The author then describes the software tool BoNesis which can handle different problems related to Boolean networks, and in particular the 4 reprogramming variants.  The presentation includes concrete code examples with their output, which should be very helpful for future users.

The paper [2] introduces a novel scenario: reprogramming of ensembles of Boolean networks delineated by some properties, including for example the property of having a given interaction graph.  Ensemble reprogramming looks particularly promising in situations in which the biological knowledge is insufficient to fully determine all the update functions, i.e. in the majority of modelling situations.  Finally, the author also shows how BoNesis can be used to deal with sequential reprogramming, which is another promising direction in computational controllability, potentially enabling more efficient therapies [4,5].

1. Barabási A-L, Gulbahce N, Loscalzo J (2011) Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2918
2. Paulevé L (2023) Marker and source-marker reprogramming of Most Permissive Boolean networks and ensembles with BoNesis. arXiv, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Mathematical and Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.13307
3. Paulevé L, Kolčák J, Chatain T, Haar S (2020) Reconciling qualitative, abstract, and scalable modeling of biological networks. Nature Communications, 11, 4256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18112-5
4. Mandon H, Su C, Pang J, Paul S, Haar S, Paulevé L (2019) Algorithms for the Sequential Reprogramming of Boolean Networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 16, 1610–1619. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2019.2914383
5. Pardo J, Ivanov S, Delaplace F (2021) Sequential reprogramming of biological network fate. Theoretical Computer Science, 872, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2021.03.013

​​​Determining if genes are orthologous (i.e. homologous genes whose most common ancestor represents a speciation) or paralogous (homologous genes whose most common ancestor represents a duplication) is a foundational problem in bioinformatics. For instance, the input to almost all phylogenetic methods is a sequence alignment of genes assumed to be orthologous.  Understanding if genes are paralogs or orthologs can also be important for assigning function, for example genes that have diverged following duplication may be more likely to have neofunctionalised or subfunctionalised compared to genes that have diverged following speciation, which may be more likely to have continued in a similar role.

This paper by Jones et al (2022) contributes to a wide range of literature addressing the inference of orthology/paralogy relations but takes a different approach to explaining inconsistency between an assumed species phylogeny and a relation graph (a graph where nodes represent genes and edges represent that the two genes are orthologs). Rather than assuming that inconsistencies are the result of incorrect assessment of orthology (i.e. incorrect edges in the relation graph) they ask if the relation graph could be consistent with a species tree combined with some amount of lateral (horizontal) gene transfer.

The two main questions addressed in this paper are (1) if a network N and a relation graph R are consistent, and (2) if – given a species tree S and a relation graph R – transfer arcs can be added to S in such a way that it becomes consistent with R? 

The first question hinges on the concept of a reconciliation between a gene tree and a network (section 2.1) and amounts to asking if a gene tree can be found that can both be reconciled with the network and consistent with the relation graph. The authors show that the problem is NP hard. Furthermore, the related problem of attempting to find a solution using k or fewer transfers is NP-hard, and also W[1] hard implying that it is in a class of problems for which fixed parameter tractable solutions have not been found. The proof of NP hardness is by reduction to the k-multi-coloured clique problem via an intermediate problem dubbed “antichain on trees” (Section 3). The “antichain on trees” construction may be of interest to others working on algorithmic complexity with phylogenetic networks.

In the second question the possible locations of transfers are not specified (or to put it differently any time consistent transfer arc is considered possible) and it is shown that it generally will be possible to add transfer edges to S in such a way that it can be consistent with R. However, the natural extension to this question of asking if it can be done with k or fewer added arcs is also NP hard.

Many of the proofs in the paper are quite technical, but the authors have relegated a lot of this detail to the appendix thus ensuring that the main ideas and results are clear to follow in the main text. I am grateful to both reviewers for their detailed reviews and through checking of the proofs.

References

Jones M, Lafond M, Scornavacca C (2022) Consistency of orthology and paralogy constraints in the presence of gene transfers. arXiv:1705.01240 [cs], ver. 6 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Mathematical and Computational Biology. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01240