Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41035063›Full record

ArticleAlgorithms for molecular biology : AMB2025

Finding maximum common contractions between phylogenetic networks.

Bertrand Marchand, Nadia Tahiri, Shohreh Golpaigani Fard, Olivier Tremblay-Savard, Manuel Lafond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bertrand MarchandDepartement d'Informatique, University of Sherbrooke, 2500 Boulevard de l'Universite, J1K2R1, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. bertrand.marchand@usherbrooke.ca.
Nadia TahiriDepartement d'Informatique, University of Sherbrooke, 2500 Boulevard de l'Universite, J1K2R1, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Shohreh Golpaigani FardDepartment of Computer Science, University of Manitoba, 75 Chancellors Cir, R3T5V6, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Olivier Tremblay-SavardDepartment of Computer Science, University of Manitoba, 75 Chancellors Cir, R3T5V6, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Manuel LafondDepartement d'Informatique, University of Sherbrooke, 2500 Boulevard de l'Universite, J1K2R1, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.

Funding

NSERC/FRQNT NOVA program 327657
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we lay the groundwork on the comparison of phylogenetic networks based on edge contractions and expansions as edit operations, as originally proposed by Robinson and Foulds to compare trees. We prove that these operations connect the space of all phylogenetic networks on the same set of leaves, even if we forbid contractions that create cycles. This allows to define an operational distance on this space, as the minimum number of contractions and expansions required to transform one network into another. We highlight the difference between this distance and the computation of the maximum common contraction between two networks. Given its ability to outline a common structure between them, which can provide valuable biological insights, we study the algorithmic aspects of the latter. We first prove that computing a maximum common contraction between two networks is NP-hard, even when the maximum degree, the size of the common contraction, or the number of leaves is bounded. We also provide lower bounds to the problem based on the Exponential-Time Hypothesis. Nonetheless, we do provide a polynomial-time algorithm for weakly galled trees, a generalization of galled trees.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsContractionsPhylogenetic networksWeakly galled trees

Identifiers

PMID41035063
PMCPMC12490124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.