Predicting the Underlying Structure for Phylogenetic Trees Using Neural Networks and Logistic Regression
- 1 Pan African University, Institute of Basic Sciences, Technology and Innovation, Nairobi, Kenya
- 2 Department of Statistics and Actuarial Sciences, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya
Abstract
Understanding an underlying structure for phylogenetic trees is very important as it informs on the methods that should be employed during phylogenetic inference. The methods used under a structured population differ from those needed when a population is not structured. In this paper, we compared two supervised machine learning techniques, that is artificial neural network (ANN) and logistic regression models for prediction of an underlying structure for phylogenetic trees. We carried out parameter tuning for the models to identify optimal models. We then performed 10-fold cross-validation on the optimal models for both logistic regression and ANN. We also performed a non-supervised technique called clustering to identify the number of clusters that could be identified from simulated phylogenetic trees. The trees were from both structured and non-structured populations. Clustering and prediction using classification techniques w ere done using tree statistics such as Colless, Sackin and cophenetic indices, among others. Results from 10-fold cross-validation revealed that both logistic regression and ANN models had comparable results, with both models having average accuracy rates of over 0.75. Most of the clustering indices used resulted in 2 or 3 as the optimal number of clusters.
- Stadler, T. (2010) Sampling through Time in Birth-Death Trees. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 267, 396-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.09.010
- Stadler, T. (2013) Recovering Speciation and Extinction Dynamics Based on Phylogenies. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 1203-1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12139
- Maddison, W.P., Midford, P.E. and Otto, S.P. (2007) Estimating a Binary Characteristics Effect on Speciation and Extinction. Systematic Biology, 56, 701-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701607033
- Stadler, T. and Bonhoeffer, S. (2013) Uncovering Epidemiological Dynamics in Heterogeneous Host Populations Using Phylogenetic Methods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, Article ID: 20120198. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0198
- Volz, E.M. (2012) Complex Population Dynamics and the Coalescent under Neutrality. Genetics, 190, 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.134627
- De Bruyn, A., Martin, D.P. and Lefeuvre, P. (2014) Phylogenetic Reconstruction Methods: An Overview. In: Molecular Plant Taxonomy, Humana Press, New York, 257-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-767-9_13
- Blum, M.G., Francois, O. and Janson, S. (2006) The Mean, Variance and Limiting Distribution of Two Statistics Sensitive to Phylogenetic Tree Balance. The Annals of Applied Probability, 16, 2195-2214. https://doi.org/10.1214/105051606000000547
- Brown, A.J.L., Precious, H.M., Whitcomb, J.M., Wong, J.K., Quigg, M., Huang, W., Daar, E.S., Richard, T.D., Keiser, P.H., Connick, E. and Hellmann, N.S. (2000) Reduced Susceptibility of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) from Patients with Primary HIV Infection to Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors Is Associated with Variation at Novel Amino Acid Sites. Journal of Virology, 74, 10269-10273. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.74.22.10269-10273.2000
- Intrator, O. and Intrator, N. (2001) Interpreting Neural-Network Results: A Simulation Study. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 37, 373-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(01)00016-0
- Huo, S., He, Z., Su, J., Xi, B. and Zhu, C. (2013) Using Artificial Neural Network Models for Eutrophication Prediction. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 18, 310-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2013.04.040
- Günther, F. and Fritsch, S. (2010) NeuralNet: Training of Neural Networks. The R Journal, 2, 30-38. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2010-006