 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Implications of nonuniqueness in phylogenetic deconvolution of bulk DNA samples of tumors
Algorithms for Molecular Biology volume 14, Article number: 19 (2019)
Abstract
Background
Tumors exhibit extensive intratumor heterogeneity, the presence of groups of cellular populations with distinct sets of somatic mutations. This heterogeneity is the result of an evolutionary process, described by a phylogenetic tree. In addition to enabling clinicians to devise patientspecific treatment plans, phylogenetic trees of tumors enable researchers to decipher the mechanisms of tumorigenesis and metastasis. However, the problem of reconstructing a phylogenetic tree T given bulk sequencing data from a tumor is more complicated than the classic phylogeny inference problem. Rather than observing the leaves of T directly, we are given mutation frequencies that are the result of mixtures of the leaves of T. The majority of current tumor phylogeny inference methods employ the perfect phylogeny evolutionary model. The underlying Perfect Phylogeny Mixture (PPM) combinatorial problem typically has multiple solutions.
Results
We prove that determining the exact number of solutions to the PPM problem is #Pcomplete and hard to approximate within a constant factor. Moreover, we show that sampling solutions uniformly at random is hard as well. On the positive side, we provide a polynomialtime computable upper bound on the number of solutions and introduce a simple rejectionsampling based scheme that works well for small instances. Using simulated and real data, we identify factors that contribute to and counteract nonuniqueness of solutions. In addition, we study the sampling performance of current methods, identifying significant biases.
Conclusions
Awareness of nonuniqueness of solutions to the PPM problem is key to drawing accurate conclusions in downstream analyses based on tumor phylogenies. This work provides the theoretical foundations for nonuniqueness of solutions in tumor phylogeny inference from bulk DNA samples.
Background
Cancer is characterized by somatic mutations that accumulate in a population of cells, leading to the formation of genetically distinct clones within the same tumor [1]. This intratumor heterogeneity is the main cause of relapse and resistance to treatment [2]. The evolutionary process that led to the formation of a tumor can be described by a phylogenetic tree whose leaves correspond to tumor cells at the present time and whose edges are labeled by somatic mutations. To elucidate the mechanisms behind tumorigenesis [2, 3] and identify treatment strategies [4, 5], we require algorithms that accurately infer a phylogenetic tree from DNA sequencing data of a tumor.
Most cancer sequencing studies, including those from The Cancer Genome Atlas [6] and the International Cancer Genome Consortium [7], use bulk DNA sequencing technology, where samples are a mixture of millions of cells. While in classic phylogenetics, one is asked to infer a phylogenetic tree given its leaves, with bulk sequencing data we are asked to infer a phylogenetic tree given mixtures of its leaves in the form of mutation frequencies (Fig. 1). More specifically, one first identifies a set of loci containing somatic mutations present in the tumor by sequencing and comparing the aligned reads of a matched normal sample and one or more tumor samples. Based on the number reads of each mutation locus in a sample, we obtain mutation frequencies indicating the fraction of cells in the tumor sample that contain each mutation. From these frequencies, the task is to infer the phylogenetic tree under an appropriate evolutionary model that generated the data.
The most commonly used evolutionary model in cancer phylogenetics is the twostate perfect phylogeny model, where mutations adhere to the infinite sites assumption [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. That is, for each mutation locus the actual mutation occurred exactly once in the evolutionary history of the tumor and was subsequently never lost. In practice, we construct a tumor phylogeny for mutation clusters rather than individual mutations. While the infinite sites assumption might be violated for individual mutations, a violation of this assumption for all the mutations in a cluster is rare. The underlying combinatorial problem of the majority of current methods is the Perfect Phylogeny Mixture (PPM) problem. Given an \(m\times n\) frequency matrix F, we are asked to explain the composition of the m tumor samples and the evolutionary history of the n mutations. More specifically, we wish to factorize F into a mixture matrix U and a perfect phylogeny matrix B. Not only is this problem NPcomplete [10], but multiple perfect phylogeny trees may be inferred from the same input matrix F (Fig. 1). Tumor phylogenies have been used to identify mutations that drive cancer progression [17, 18], to assess the interplay between the immune system and the clonal architecture of a tumor [19, 20] and to identify common evolutionary patterns in tumorigenesis and metastasis [21, 22]. To avoid any bias in such downstream analyses, all possible solutions must be considered. While nonuniqueness of solutions to PPM has been recognized in the field [11, 23], a rigorous analysis of its extent and consequences on sampling by current methods has been missing.
In this paper, we study the nonuniqueness of solutions to the PPM problem. On the negative side, we prove that the counting problem is #Pcomplete, hard to approximate within a constant factor and that it is hard sample to solutions uniformly at random (unless RP = NP). On the positive side, we give an upper bound on the number of solutions that can be computed in polynomial time, and introduce a simple rejectionbased sampling scheme that samples solutions uniformly for modest numbers n of mutations. Using simulations and real data from a recent lung cancer cohort [18], we identify factors that contribute to nonuniqueness. In addition, we empirically study how the joint application of singlecell and longread sequencing technologies with traditional bulk sequencing technology affects nonuniqueness. Finally, we find that current Markov chain Monte Carlo methods fail to sample uniformly from the solution space.
A preliminary version of this study was published as an extended abstract in RECOMBCG [24].
Preliminaries and problem statement
In this section, we review the Perfect Phylogeny Mixture problem, as introduced in [10] (where it was the called the Variant Allele Frequency Factorization Problem or VAFFP). As input, we are given a frequency matrix \(F = \left[f_{p,c}\right]\) composed of allele frequencies of n singlenucleotide variants (SNVs) measured in m bulk DNA sequencing samples. In the following, we refer to SNVs as mutations. Each frequency \(f_{p,c}\) indicates the proportion of cells in sample p that have mutation c.
Definition 1
An \(m \times n\) matrix \(F = \left[f_{p,c}\right]\) is a frequency matrix provided \({f_{p,c} \in [0,1]}\) for all samples \(p \in [m]\) and mutations \(c \in [n]\).
The evolutionary history of all n mutations is described by a phylogenetic tree. We assume the absence of homoplasy—i.e. no back mutations and no parallel evolution—and define a complete perfect phylogeny tree T as follows.
Definition 2
A rooted tree T on n vertices is a complete perfect phylogeny tree provided each edge of T is labeled with exactly one mutation from [n] and no mutation appears more than once in T.
We call the unique mutation \(r \in [n]\) that does not label any edge of a complete perfect phylogeny tree T the founder mutation. Equivalently, we may represent a complete perfect phylogeny tree by an \(n \times n\) binary matrix B subject to the following constraints.
Definition 3
An \(n \times n\) binary matrix \(B = [b_{c,d}]\) is an ncomplete perfect phylogeny matrix provided:

1.
There exists exactly one \(r \in [n]\) such that \(\sum _{c=1}^n b_{r,c} = 1\).

2.
For each \(d \in [n] \setminus \{r\}\) there exists exactly one \(c \in [n]\) such that \(\sum _{e=1}^n b_{d,e}  \sum _{e=1}^n b_{c,e} = 1\), and \(b_{d,e} \ge b_{c,e}\) for all \(e \in [n]\).

3.
\(b_{c,c} = 1\) for all \(c \in [n]\).
These three conditions correspond to distinctive features in complete perfect phylogenetic trees. Condition 1 states the existence of a single root vertex. Condition 2 indicates that any mutation d other than the root has a unique parent c. Condition 3 removes symmetry to ensure a onetoone correspondence between complete perfect phylogeny matrices and complete perfect phylogenetic trees.
While the rows of a perfect phylogeny matrix B correspond to the leaves of a perfect phylogeny tree T (as per Definition 1), a complete perfect phylogeny matrix B includes all vertices of T. The final ingredient is an \(m \times n\) mixture matrix U defined as follows.
Definition 4
An \(m \times n\) matrix \(U = [u_{p,c}]\) is a mixture matrix provided \({u_{p,c} \in [0,1]}\) for all samples \(p \in [m]\) and mutations \(c \in [n]\), and \(\sum _{c=1}^n u_{p,c} \le 1\) for all samples \(p \in [m]\).
Each row of U corresponds to a bulk sample whose entries indicate the fractions of the corresponding clones represented by the rows in B. Since we omit the normal clone (not containing any mutations), each row of U sums up to at most 1, the remainder being the fraction of the normal clone in the sample. Thus, the forward problem of obtaining a frequency matrix F from a complete perfect phylogeny matrix B and mixture matrix U is trivial. That is, \(F = UB\). We are interested in the inverse problem, which is defined as follows.
Problem 1
(Perfect Phylogeny Mixture (PPM)) Given a frequency matrix F, find a complete perfect phylogeny matrix B and mixture matrix U such that \(F = UB\).
ElKebir et al. [10] showed that a solution to PPM corresponds to a constrained spanning arborescence of a directed graph \(G_F\) obtained from F, as illustrated in Additional file 1: Figure S2. This directed graph \(G_F\) is called the ancestry graph and is defined as follows.
Definition 5
The ancestry graph \(G_F\) obtained from frequency matrix \(F = \left[f_{p,c}\right]\) has n vertices \(V(G_F) = \{1,\ldots ,n\}\) and there is a directed edge \((c,d) \in E(G_F)\) if and only if \(f_{p,c} \ge f_{p,d}\) for all samples \(p \in [m]\).
As shown in [10], the square matrix B is invertible and thus matrix U is determined by F and B. We denote the set of children of the vertex corresponding to a mutation \(c \in [n] \setminus \{r\}\) by \(\delta (c)\), and we define \(\delta (r) = \{r(T)\}\).
Proposition 1
(Ref. [10]) Given frequency matrix \(F = \left[f_{p,c}\right]\) and complete perfect phylogeny matrix \(B = [b_{c,d}],\) matrix \(U = [u_{p,c}]\) where \(u_{p,c} = f_{p,c}  \sum _{d \in \delta (c)} f_{p,d}\) is the unique matrix U such that \(F = UB.\)
For matrix U to be a mixture matrix, it is necessary and sufficient to enforce nonnegativity as follows.
Theorem 2
(Ref. [10]) Let \(F = \left[f_{p,c}\right]\) be a frequency matrix and \(G_F\) be the corresponding ancestry graph. Then, complete perfect phylogeny matrix B and associated matrix U are a solution to PPM instance F if and only if B T of \(G_F\) satisfying
The above inequality is known as the sum condition (SC), requiring that each mutation has frequency greater than the sum of the frequencies of its children in all samples. In this equation, \(\delta _\text {out}(c)\) denotes the set of children of vertex c in rooted tree T. A spanning arborescence T of a directed graph \(G_F\) is defined as a subset of edges that induce a rooted tree that spans all vertices of \(G_F\).
While finding a spanning arborescence in a directed graph can be done in linear time (e.g., using a depthfirst or breadthfirst search), the problem of finding a spanning arborescence in \(G_F\) adhering to (SC) is NPhard [10, 23]. Moreover, the same input frequency matrix F may admit more than one solution (Fig. 2).
Methods
We start by giving a combinatorial characterization of solutions to the PPM problem (“Characterization of the solution space” section), followed by a complexity analysis of the counting and sampling version #PPM (“Complexity” section). “Additional constraints on the solution space” section describes additional constraints that reduce the number of solutions. Finally, “Uniform sampling of solutions” section introduces a rejection sampling scheme that is able to sample uniformly at random.
Characterization of the solution space
Let F be a frequency matrix and let \(G_F\) be the corresponding ancestry graph. By Theorem 2, we have that solutions to the PPM instance F are spanning arborescences T in the ancestry graph \(G_F\) that satisfy (SC). In this section, we describe additional properties that further characterize the solution space. We start with the ancestry graph \(G_F\).
Fact 3
If there exists a path from vertex c to vertex d then \((c,d) \in E(G_F).\)
A pair of mutations that are not connected by a path in \(G_F\) correspond to two mutations that must occur on distinct branches in any solution. Such pairs of incomparable mutations are characterized as follows.
Fact 4
Ancestry graph \(G_F\) does not contain the edge (c, d) nor the edge (d, c) if and only if there exist two samples \(p,q \in [m]\) such that \(f_{p,c} > f_{p,d}\) and \(f_{q,c} < f_{q,d}.\)
We define the branching coefficient as follows.
Definition 6
The branching coefficient \(\gamma (G_F)\) is the fraction of unordered pairs (c, d) of distinct mutations such that \((c,d) \not \in E(G_F)\) and \((d,c) \not \in E(G_F)\).
In the singlesample case, where frequency matrix F has \(m=1\) sample, we have that \(\gamma (G_F) = 0\). This is because either \(f_{1,c} \ge f_{1,d}\) or \(f_{1,d} \ge f_{1,c}\) for any ordered pair (c, d) of distinct mutations. Since an arborescence is a rooted tree, we have the following fact.
Fact 5
For \(G_F\) to contain a spanning arborescence there must exist a vertex in \(G_F\) from which all other vertices are reachable.
Note that \(G_F\) may contain multiple source vertices from which all other vertices are reachable. Such source vertices correspond to repeated columns in F whose entries are greater than or equal to every other entry in the same row. In most cases the ancestry graph \(G_F\) does not contain any directed cycles because of the following property.
Fact 6
Ancestry graph \(G_F\) is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) if and only if F has no repeated columns.
In the case where \(G_F\) is a DAG and contains at least one spanning arborescences, we know that all spanning arborescence T of \(G_F\) share the same root vertex. This root vertex r is the unique vertex of \(G_F\) with indegree 0.
Fact 7
If \(G_F\) is a DAG and contains a spanning arborescence then there exists exactly one vertex r in \(G_F\) from which all other vertices are reachable.
Figure 2 shows the solutions to a PPM instance F with \(m=2\) tumor samples and \(n=5\) mutations. Since F has no repeated columns, the corresponding ancestry graph \(G_F\) is a DAG. Vertex \(r = 1\) is the unique vertex of \(G_F\) without any incoming edges. There are three solutions to F, i.e. \(T_1\), \(T_2\) and \(T_3\) are spanning arborescences of \(G_F\), each rooted at vertex \(r = 1\) and each satisfying (SC). How do we know that F has three solutions in total? This leads to the following problem.
Problem 2
(#Perfect Phylogeny Mixture (#PPM)) Given a frequency matrix F, count the number of pairs (U, B) such that B is a complete perfect phylogeny matrix, U is a mixture matrix and \(F = UB\).
Since solutions to F correspond to a subset of spanning arboscences of \(G_F\) that satisfy (SC), we have the following fact.
Fact 8
The number of solutions to a PPM instance F is at most the number of spanning arborescences in the ancestry graph \(G_F.\)
Kirchhoff’s elegant matrix tree theorem [25] uses linear algebra to count the number of spanning trees in a simple graph. Tutte extended this theorem to count spanning arborescences in a directed graph \(G = (V,E)\) [26]. Briefly, the idea is to construct the \(n \times n\) Laplacian matrix \(L = [\ell _{i,j}]\) of G, where
Then, the number of spanning arborescences \(N_i\) rooted at vertex i is \(\text {det}({\hat{L}}_i)\), where \({\hat{L}}_i\) is the matrix obtained from L by removing the ith row and column. Thus, the total number of spanning arborescences in G is \(\sum _{i=1}^n \text {det}({\hat{L}}_i)\).
By Fact 6, we have that \(G_F\) is a DAG if F has no repeated columns. In addition, by Fact 7, we know that \(G_F\) must have a unique vertex r with no incoming edges. We have the following technical lemma.
Lemma 9
Let \(G_F\) be a DAG and let \(r(G_F)\) be its unique source vertex. Let \(\pi\) be a topological ordering of the vertices of \(G_F.\) Let \(L'=[\ell '_{i,j}]\) be the matrix obtained from \(L = [\ell _{i,j}]\) by permuting its rows and columns according to \(\pi,\) i.e. \(\ell '_{i,j} = \ell _{\pi (i),\pi (j)}.\) Then, \(L'\) is an upper triangular matrix and \(\pi (1) = r(G_F).\)
Proof
Assume for a contradiction that \(L'\) is not upper triangular. Thus, there must exist vertices \(i,j \in [n]\) such that \(j > i\) and \(\ell '_{j,i} \ne 0\). By definition of L and \(L'\), we have that \(\ell '_{j,i} = 1\). Thus \((\pi (j),\pi (i)) \in E(G_F)\), which yields a contradiction with \(\pi\) being a topological ordering of \(G_F\). Hence, \(L'\) is upper triangular. From Fact 7 it follows that \(\pi (1) = r(G_F)\). \(\square\)
Since the determinant of an upper triangular matrix is the product of its diagonal entries, it follows from the previous lemma that \(\text {det}({\hat{L}}'_1) = \prod _{i=1}^{n1} {\hat{\ell }}'_{i,i}\). Combining this fact with Tutte’s directed matrixtree theorem, yields the following result.
Theorem 10
Let F be a frequency matrix without any repeated columns and let r be the unique mutation such that \(f_{p,r} \ge f_{p,c}\) for all mutations c and samples p. Then the number of solutions to F is at most the product of the indegrees of all vertices \(c \ne r\) in \(G_F.\)
In Fig. 2, the number of spanning arborescences in \(G_F\) is \(\text {deg}_{\text {in}}(2) \cdot \text {deg}_{\text {in}}(3) \cdot \text {deg}_{\text {in}}(4) \cdot \text {deg}_{\text {in}}(5) = 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 1 \cdot 3 = 6\). To compute the number of spanning arborescences of \(G_F\) that satisfy (SC), we can simply enumerate all spanning arborescences using, for instance, the GabowMyers algorithm [27] and only output those that satisfy (SC). ElKebir et al. [23] extended this algorithm such that it maintains (SC) as an invariant while growing arborescences. Applying both algorithms on the instance in Fig. 2 reveals that trees \(T_1\), \(T_2\) and \(T_3\) comprise all solutions to F. We note that the enumeration algorithm in [23] has not been shown to be an outputsensitive algorithm.
Complexity
Deciding whether a frequency matrix F can be factorized into a complete perfect phylogeny matrix B and a mixture matrix U is NPcomplete [10] even in the case where \(m=2\) [23]. We showed this by reduction from SubsetSum, defined as follows.
Problem 3
(SubsetSum) Given a set of unique positive integers S, and a positive integer \(t < \sum _{s \in S}s\), find a subset D of S such that \(\sum _{s \in D}s=t\).
As such, the corresponding counting problem #PPM is NPhard. Here, we prove a stronger result, i.e. #PPM is #Pcomplete.
Theorem 11
#PPM is #Pcomplete even when \(m = 2\).
To understand this result, recall the complexity class NP. This class is composed of decision problems that have witnesses that can be verified in polynomial time. The complexity class #P consists of counting problem that are associated with decision problems in NP. That is, rather than outputting yes/no for a given instance, we are interested in the number of witnesses of the instance. The class #Pcomplete is similarly defined as NPcomplete and is composed of the hardest counting problems in #P. That is, if one #Pcomplete problem is solvable in polynomial time then all problems in #P are solvable in polynomial time. How do we show that a counting problem \(\#Y\) is #Pcomplete? To do so, we need to show two things. First, we need to show that the underlying decision problem is in NP. Second, we need to show that another #Pcomplete problem \(\#X\) is just as hard as \(\#Y\). One way of showing this is using a polynomialtime parsimonious reduction from \(\#X\) to \(\#Y\), defined as follows.
Definition 7
Let X and Y be decision problems in NP, and let \(\#X\) and \(\#Y\) be the corresponding counting problems. Let \(\Sigma ^*\) \((\Pi ^*)\) be the set of instances of X (Y). Given instances \(x \in \Sigma ^*\) and \(y \in \Pi ^*\), let X(x) and Y(y) be the corresponding set of witnesses. A reduction \(\sigma :\Sigma ^* \rightarrow \Pi ^*\) from \(\#X\) to \(\#Y\) is parsimonious if \(X(x)=Y(\sigma (x))\) and \(\sigma (x)\) can be computed in time polynomial in x for all \(x\in \Sigma ^*\).
We prove Theorem 11 in two steps by considering the counting version #SubsetSum of SubsetSum. First, we show that #SubsetSum is #Pcomplete by giving a parsimonious reduction from #Mono1in3SAT, a known #Pcomplete problem [28].
Lemma 12
There exists a parsimonious reduction from #Mono1in3SAT to # SubsetSum.
Proof
See Additional file 1. \(\square\)
Second, we show that the previously used reduction to prove NPcompleteness [23] from SubsetSum of PPM is also a parsimonious reduction.
Lemma 13
There exists a parsimonious reduction from #S ubset S um to #PPM restricted to \(m=2\) samples.
Proof
See Additional file 1. \(\square\)
Combining these two results yields the theorem. One way to deal with this hardness result is to resort to approximation algorithms. In particular, for counting problems the following randomized approximation algorithms are desirable.
Definition 8
(Ref. [29]) A fully polynomial randomized approximation scheme (FPRAS) for a counting problem is a randomized algorithm that takes as input an instance x of the problem and error tolerance \(\varepsilon >0\), and outputs a number \(N'\) in time polynomial in \(1/\varepsilon\) and x such that \(\Pr \left[(1+\varepsilon )^{1} N \le N' \le (1+\varepsilon )N\right]\ge 0.75\), where N is the answer to the counting problem.
Suppose we have an FPRAS for #PPM. What would the implications be? Recall the complexity class RP, which is composed of decision problems that admit randomized polynomial time algorithms that return no if the correct answer is no and otherwise return yes with probability at least 1/2. We can use the FPRAS for PPM to construct a randomized polynomial time algorithm for the decision problem PPM, returning yes if the FPRAS gives a nonzero output, and returning no otherwise. Obviously, this algorithm is always correct for noinstances, and returns the correct result at least 75% of the times for yesinstances. Since PPM is NPcomplete, this would imply that RP = NP.
Corollary 14
There exists no FPRAS for #PPM unless RP = NP.
Regarding the sampling problem of PPM, it would be desirable to sample solutions almost uniformly at random, which can be achieved by the following set of algorithms.
Definition 9
(Ref. [29]) A fullypolynomial almost uniform sampler (FPAUS) for a sampling problem is a randomized algorithm that takes as input an instance x of the problem and a sampling tolerance \(\delta >0\), and outputs a solution in time polynomial in x and \(\log \delta ^{1}\) such that the difference of the probability distribution of solutions output by the algorithm and the uniform distribution on all solutions is at most \(\delta\).
However, the existence of an FPAUS to sample the solutions of PPM would similarly imply that RP=NP (i.e. setting \(\delta \le 0.5\)).
Corollary 15
There exists no FPAUS to sample solutions of PPM unless RP = NP.
Additional constraints on the solution space
Longread sequencing Most cancer sequencing studies are performed using nextgeneration sequencing technology, producing short reads containing between 100 and 1000 basepairs. Due to the small size of short reads, it is highly unlikely to observe two mutations that occur on the same read (or read pair). With (synthetic) long read sequencing technology, including 10× Genomics, Pacbio and Oxford Nanopore, one is able to obtain reads with millions of basepairs. Thus, it becomes possible to observe long reads that contain more than one mutation.
As described in [30], the key insight is that a pair (c, d) of mutations that occur on the same read orginate from a single DNA molecule of a single cell, and thus c and d must occur on the same path in the phylogenetic tree. Such mutation pairs provide very strong constraints to the PPM problem. For example in Fig. 2, in addition to frequency matrix F, we may be given that mutations 2 and 5 have been observed on a single read. Thus, in \(T_1\) and \(T_2\) the pair is highlighted in green because it is correctly placed on the same path from the root on the inferred trees. However, the two mutations occur on distinct branches on \(T_3\), which is therefore ruled out as a possible solution.
Singlecell sequencing With singlecell sequencing, we are able to identify the mutations that are present in a single tumor cell. If in addition to bulk DNA sequencing samples, we are given single cell DNA sequencing data from the same tumor, we can constrain the solution space to PPM considerably. In particular, each single cell imposes that its comprising mutations must correspond to a connected path in the phylogenetic tree. These constraints have been described recently in [31].
For an example of these constraints, consider frequency matrix F described in Fig. 2. In addition to frequency matrix F, we may observe a single cell with mutations \(\{1,2,3,5\}\). \(T_1\) is the only potential solution as this is the only tree which places all four mutations on a single path, highlighted in blue. Trees \(T_2\) and \(T_3\) would be ruled out because the mutation set \(\{1,2,3,5\}\) does not induce a connected path in these two trees.
We note that the constraints described above for singlecell sequencing and longread sequencing assume errorfree data. In practice, one must incorporate an error model and adjust the constraints accordingly. However, the underlying principles will remain the same.
Uniform sampling of solutions
Typically, the number m of bulk samples equals 1, but there exist multiregion datasets where m may be up to 10. On the other hand, the number n of mutations ranges from 10 to 1000. In particular, for solid tumors in adults we typically observe thousands of point mutations in the genome. As such, exhaustive enumeration of solutions is infeasible in practice. To account for nonuniqueness of solutions and to identify common features shared among different solutions, it would be desirable to have an algorithm that samples uniformly from the solution space. However, as the underlying decision problem is NPcomplete, the problem of sampling uniformly from the solution space for arbitrary frequency matrices F is NPhard. Thus, one must resort to heuristic approaches.
One class of such approaches employs Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) for sampling from the solution space [9, 14, 15]. Here, we describe an alternative method based on rejection sampling. This method is guaranteed to sample uniformly from the solution space. Briefly, the idea is to generate a spanning arborescence T from \(G_F\) uniformly at random and then test whether T satisfies (SC). In the case where T satisfies (SC), we report T as a solution and otherwise reject T.
For the general case where \(G_F\) may have a directed cycle, we use the cyclepopping algorithm of Propp and Wilson [32]. Note that this only happens when there are mutations with identical frequencies across all samples, i.e. identical columns in the frequency matrix F. This algorithm generates a uniform spanning arborescence in time \(O(\tau ({\tilde{G}}_F))\) where \(\tau ({\tilde{G}}_F)\) is the expected hitting time of \({\tilde{G}}_F\). More precisely, \({\tilde{G}}_F\) is the multigraph obtained from \(G_F\) by including selfloops such that the outdegrees of all its vertices are identical.
For the case where \(G_F\) is a DAG with a unique source vertex r, there is a much simpler sampling algorithm. We simply assign each vertex \(c \ne r\) to a parent \(\pi (c) \in \delta _{\text {in}}(c)\) uniformly at random. It is easy to verify that the resulting function \(\pi\) encodes a spanning arborescence of \(G_F\). Thus, the running time of this procedure is \(O(E(G_F))\). In both cases, the probability of success equals the fraction of spanning arborescences of \(G_F\) that satisfy (SC) among all spanning arborescences of \(G_F\).
An implementation of the rejection sampling for the case where \(G_F\) is a DAG is available on https://github.com/elkebirgroup/OncoLib.
Results
Figures 1 and 2 show anecdotal examples of nonuniqueness of solutions to the Perfect Phylogeny Mixture problem. The following questions arise: is nonuniqueness a widespread phenomenon in PPM instances? Which factors contribute to nonuniqueness and how does information from longread sequencing and singlecell sequencing reduce nonuniqueness? Finally, are current MCMC methods able to sample uniformly from the space of solutions?
To answer these questions, we used real data from a lung cancer cohort [18] and simulated data generated by a previously published tumor simulator [33]. For the latter, we generated 10 complete perfect phylogeny trees \(T^*\) for each number \(n \in \{3,5,7,9,11,13\}\) of mutations. The simulator assigned each vertex \(v \in V(T^*)\) a frequency \(f(v) \ge 0\) such that \(\sum _{v \in V(T^*)} f(v) = 1\). For each simulated complete perfect phylogeny tree \(T^*\), we generated \(m \in \{1,2,5,10\}\) bulk samples by partitioning the vertex set \(V(T^*)\) into m disjoint parts followed by normalizing the frequencies in each sample. This yielded a frequency matrix F for each combination of n and m. In total, we generated \(10 \cdot 6 \cdot 4 = 240\) instances (Additional file 1: Tables S1–S7). The data and scripts to generate the results are available on https://github.com/elkebirgroup/PPMNonUniq.
What contributes to nonuniqueness?
In both real and simulated data, we find that the two main factors that influence nonuniqueness are the number n of mutations and the number m of samples taken from the tumor. The former contributes to nonuniqueness while the latter reduces it, as we will show in the following.
We considered a lung cancer cohort of 100 patients [18], where tumors have undergone multiregion bulk DNA sequencing. Subsequently, the authors used PyClone [34] to cluster mutations with similar cancer cell fractions. The number n of mutation clusters varied from 2 to 13 clusters and the number m of samples varied from 1 to 7 (Fig. 3a). To account for uncertainty in mutation cluster frequencies, we consider a 90% confidence interval obtained from the cancer cell fractions of clustered mutations and solve an interval version of the PPM problem (described in Ref. [23]). To see how the number m of bulk samples affects the number of solutions, we downsample by randomly removing 1 or 2 samples. We find that this dataset exhibits extensive nonuniqueness of solutions, with the number of solutions ranging from 1 to 3280 (Fig. 3b and Additional file 1: Table S1 and S2). We find that the number of solutions increased with increasing number n of mutation clusters, whereas it decreased when downsampling the number m of samples (Fig. 3b).
We observed similar trends in simulated data. That is, as we increased the number n of mutations from 3 to 13 in our simulations, we observed that the number of solutions increased exponentially (Fig. 4a). On the other hand, the number m of samples had an opposing effect: with increasing m the number of solutions decreased.
To understand why we observed these two counteracting effects, we computed the number of spanning arborescences in each ancestry graph \(G_F.\) Figure 4b shows that the number of spanning arborescences exhibited an exponential increase with increasing number n of mutations, whereas increased number m of samples decreased the number of spanning arborescences. The latter can be explained by studying the effect of the number m of samples on the branching coefficient \(\gamma (G_F)\). Figure 4c shows that the branching coefficient increased with increasing m, with branching coefficient \(\gamma (G_F) = 0\) for all \(m=1\) instances F. This finding illustrates that additional samples reveal branching of mutations. That is, in the case where \(m=1\) one does not observe branching in \(G_F\), whereas as \(m \rightarrow \infty\) each sample will be composed of a single cell with binary frequencies and the ancestry graph \(G_F\) will be a rooted tree.
Adding mutations increases the complexity of the problem, as reflected by the number of solutions. To quantify how distinct each solution T is to the simulated tree \(T^*\), we computed the edge recall of T defined as \(E(T) \cap E(T^*) / E(T^*)\) (note that \(E(T^*) = n  1\) by definition). A recall value of 1 indicates that the inferred tree T is identical to the true tree \(T^*\). Figure 4d shows that the median recall decreased with increasing number n of mutations. However, as additional samples provide more information, the recall increased with increasing number m of samples.
How to reduce nonuniqueness?
As discussed in “Additional constraints on the solution space” section, the nonuniqueness of solutions can be reduced through various sequencing techniques such as singlecell sequencing and longread sequencing. We considered the effect of both technologies on the \(n=9\) instances (Additional file 1: Table S6).
By taking longer reads of the genome, longread sequencing can identify mutations which coexist in a clone if they appear near one another on the genome. If two mutations are observed together on a long read, then one mutation is ancestral to the other. That is, on the true phylogenetic tree \(T^*\) there must exist a path from the root to a leaf containing both mutations. We varied the number of mutation pairs observed together from 0 to 5 and observed that increasing this number reduced the size of the solution space (Fig. 5a). In addition, incorporating more simulated longread information resulted in increased recall of the inferred trees (Fig. 5b).
Singlecell sequencing illuminates all of the mutations present in a single clone in a tumor. This reveals a path from the root of the true phylogenetic tree \(T^*\) down to a leaf. Fig. 6a shows the effect that singlecell sequencing has on the size of the solution space. We found that, as we increased the number of known paths (sequenced single cells) in the tree from 0 to 5, the solution space decreased exponentially. Additionally, the inferred trees were more accurate with more sequenced cells, as shown in Fig. 6b by the increase in median edge recall. These effects are more pronounced when fewer samples are available.
In summary, while both singlecell and longread sequencing reduce the extent of nonuniqueness in the solution space, singlecell sequencing achieves a larger reduction than longread sequencing.
How does nonuniqueness affect current methods?
To study the effect of nonuniqueness, we considered two current methods, PhyloWGS [14] and Canopy [15], both of which use Markov chain Monte Carlo to sample solutions from the posterior distribution. Rather than operating from frequencies \(F = \left[f_{p,c}\right]\), these two methods take as input two integers \(a_{p,c}\) and \(d_{p,c}\) for each mutation c and sample p. These two integers are, respectively, the number of reads with mutation c and the total number of reads. Given \(A = [a_{p,c}]\) and \(D = [d_{p,c}]\), PhyloWGS and Canopy aim to infer a frequency matrix \({\hat{F}}\) and phylogenetic tree T with maximum data likelihood \(\Pr (D,A \mid {\hat{F}})\) such that T satisfies (SC) for matrix \({\hat{F}}\). In addition, the two methods cluster mutations that are inferred to have similar frequencies across all samples. To use these methods in our errorfree setting, where we are given matrix \(F = \left[f_{p,c}\right]\), we set the total number of reads for each mutation c in each sample p to a large number, i.e. \(d_{p,c} = 1,000,000\). The number of variant reads is simply set as \(a_{p,c} = f_{p,c} \cdot d_{p,c}\). Since both PhyloWGS and Canopy model variant reads \(a_{p,c}\) as draws from a binomial distribution parameterized by \(d_{p,c}\) and \({\hat{f}}_{p,c}\), the data likelihood is maximized when \({\hat{F}} = F\). We also discard generated solutions where mutations are clustered. Hence, we can use these methods in the errorfree case.
We ran PhyloWGS, Canopy, and our rejection sampling method (“Uniform sampling of solutions” section) on all \(n=7\) instances (Additional file 1: Table S5). We used the default settings for PhyloWGS (2500 MCMC samples, burnin of 1000) and Canopy (burnin of 100 and 1 out of 5 thinning), with 20 chains per instance for PhyloWGS and 15 chains per instance for Canopy. For each instance, we ran the rejection sampling algorithm until it generated 10,000 solutions that satisfy (SC).
Figure 7 shows one \(n=7\) instance (#81) with varying number \(m \in \{1,2,5,10\}\) of samples. For this instance, all the trees output by PhyloWGS satisfied the sum condition. However, the set of solutions was not sampled uniformly, with only 67 out 297 trees generated for \(m=1\) samples. For \(m=5\), this instance had six unique solutions, with PhyloWGS only outputting trees that corresponded to a single solution among these six solutions (Additional file 1: Fig. S5). Similarly, Canopy failed to sample solutions uniformly at random. In addition, Canopy failed to recover any of the two \(m=10\) solutions and recovered incorrect solutions for \(m=5\). The rejection sampling method recovered all solutions for each value of m. In addition, we performed a Chisquare goodness of fit test comparing the distribution of trees generated by rejection sampling to the uniform distribution. The large pvalues indicate that the rejection sampling procedure sampled solutions uniformly at random. Additional file 1: Figures S6–S8 show similar patterns for the other \(n=7\) instances.
There are two possible factors contributing to the nonuniformity of the sampling results of PhyloWGS and Canopy. First, the TreeStructured Stick Breaking (TSSB) process used by PhyloWGS to generate the tree topology does not give a uniform prior over the space of trees. Second, the two MCMC algorithms might not converge onto the stationary distribution in reasonable time. Indeed, by our hardness result for the sampling problem of PPM (Corollary 15), we expect the mixing time to grow exponentially with increasing number n of mutations and increasing number m of samples.
Given a frequency matrix F, the success probability of the rejection sampling approach equals the fraction between the number of solutions and the number of spanning arborescences in \(G_F\), as shown empirically in Additional file 1: Table S9. As such, this approach does not scale with increasing n. Indeed, Fig. 8a shows that the fraction of spanning trees which also fulfill the sum condition is initially high when the number of mutations is low. With \(n=11\) mutations, the fraction is approximately \(10^{2}\) and rejection sampling can be considered to be feasible. However, as the number of mutations is increased further, rejection sampling become infeasible as the fraction can drop to \(10^{10}\) for \(n=21\) mutations (Fig. 8b). Therefore, a better sampling approach is required.
Conclusions
In this work, we studied the problem of nonuniqueness of solutions to the Perfect Phylogeny Mixture (PPM) problem. In this problem, we are given a frequency matrix F that determines a directed graph \(G_F\) called the ancestry graph. The task is to identify a spanning arborescence T of \(G_F\) whose internal vertices satisfy a linear inequality whose terms are entries of matrix F. We formulated the #PPM problem of counting the number of solutions to an PPM instance. We proved that the counting problem is #Pcomplete and that no FPRAS exists unless RP = NP. In addition we argued that no FPAUS exists for the sampling problem unless RP = NP. On the positive side, we showed that the number of solutions is at most the number of spanning arborescences in \(G_F\), a number that can be computed in polynomial time. For the case where \(G_F\) is a directed acyclic graph, we gave a simple algorithm for counting the number of spanning arborescences. This algorithm formed the basis of a rejection sampling scheme that samples solutions to a PPM instance uniformly at random.
Using simulations, we showed that the number of solutions increases with increasing number n of mutations but decreases with increasing number m of samples. In addition, we showed that the median recall of all solutions increases with increasing m but decreases with increasing n. We showed how constraints from singlecell and longread sequencing reduce the number of solutions. Finally, we showed that current MCMC methods fail to sample uniformly from the solution space. This is problematic as it leads to biases that propagate to downstream analyses.
There are a couple of avenues for future research. First, our hardness proof uses a reduction from SubsetSum, which has a pseudopolynomial time algorithm. Recognizing that in practice the frequency matrix is composed of fractional values with small denominators (corresponding to the sequencing coverage), it will be interesting to study whether a similar pseudopolynomial time algorithm may be devised for the PPM problem. Second, while the rejection sampling algorithm achieves uniformity, it does not scale to practical problem instance sizes. Further research is needed to develop sampling algorithms that achieve nearuniformity and have reasonable running time for practical problem instances. Third, just as singlecell sequencing and longread sequencing impose constraints on the solution space of PPM, it will be worthwhile to include additional prior knowledge to further constrain the solution space (such as the use of constraints on migration for metastatic cancers [33, 35]). Finally, the PPM problem and the simulations in this paper assumed errorfree data. Further research is needed to study the effect of sequencing, sampling and mapping errors. It is to be expected that the problem of nonuniqueness is further exacerbated with additional sources of uncertainty.
Availability of data and materials
An implementation of the rejection sampling algorithm is available on https://github.com/elkebirgroup/OncoLib. The data and scripts to generate the results are available on https://github.com/elkebirgroup/PPMNonUniq.
References
 1.
Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science. 1976;194(4260):23–8.
 2.
Tabassum DP, Polyak K. Tumorigenesis: it takes a village. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015;15(8):473–83.
 3.
Schwartz R, Schäffer AA. The evolution of tumour phylogenetics: principles and practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2017;18(4):213–29.
 4.
Fisher R, Pusztai L, Swanton C. Cancer heterogeneity: implications for targeted therapeutics. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(3):479–85.
 5.
Venkatesan S, Swanton C. Tumor evolutionary principles: how intratumor heterogeneity influences cancer treatment and outcome. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Meeting. 2016;35:141–9.
 6.
Kandoth C, McLellan MD, Vandin F, Ye K, Niu B, Lu C, Xie M, Zhang Q, McMichael JF, Wyczalkowski MA, Leiserson MDM, Miller CA, Welch JS, Walter MJ, Wendl MC, Ley TJ, Wilson RK, Raphael BJ, Ding L. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature. 2013;502(7471):333–9.
 7.
Gerstung M, Jolly C, Leshchiner I, Dentro SC, Gonzalez S, Mitchell TJ, Rubanova Y, Anur P, Rosebrock D, Yu K, Tarabichi M, Deshwar A, Wintersinger J, Kleinheinz K, VázquezGarcía I, Haase K, Sengupta S, Macintyre G, Malikic S, Donmez N, Livitz DG, Cmero M, Demeulemeester J, Schumacher S, Fan Y, Yao X, Lee J, Schlesner M, Boutros PC, Bowtell DD, Zhu H, Getz G, Imielinski M, Beroukhim R, Sahinalp SC, Ji Y, Peifer M, Markowetz F, Mustonen V, Yuan K, Wang W, Morris QD, Spellman PT, Wedge DC, Van Loo P, Evolution P, Group HW, network P. The evolutionary history of 2,658 cancers. bioRxiv. 2017;161562.
 8.
Strino F, Parisi F, Micsinai M, Kluger Y. Trap: a tree approach for fingerprinting subclonal tumor composition. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(17):165. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt641. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/17/e165.full.pdf+html.
 9.
Jiao W, Vembu S, Deshwar AG, Stein L, Morris Q. Inferring clonal evolution of tumors from single nucleotide somatic mutations. BMC Bioinform. 2014;15:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/147121051535.
 10.
ElKebir M, Oesper L, AchesonField H, Raphael BJ. Reconstruction of clonal trees and tumor composition from multisample sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(12):62–70.
 11.
Malikic S, McPherson AW, Donmez N, Sahinalp CS. Clonality inference in multiple tumor samples using phylogeny. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(9):1349–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv003.
 12.
Yuan K, Sakoparnig T, Markowetz F, Beerenwinkel N. BitPhylogeny: a probabilistic framework for reconstructing intratumor phylogenies. Genome Biol. 2015;16(1):1.
 13.
Popic V, Salari R, Hajirasouliha I, KashefHaghighi D, West RB, Batzoglou S. Fast and scalable inference of multisample cancer lineages. Genome Biol. 2015;16(1):91.
 14.
Deshwar AG, Vembu S, Yung CK, Jang GH, Stein L, Morris Q. PhyloWGS: reconstructing subclonal composition and evolution from wholegenome sequencing of tumors. Genome Biol. 2015;16(1):35.
 15.
Jiang Y, Qiu Y, Minn AJ, Zhang NR. Assessing intratumor heterogeneity and tracking longitudinal and spatial clonal evolutionary history by nextgeneration sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(37):5528–37.
 16.
Malikic S, Jahn K, Kuipers J, Sahinalp C, Beerenwinkel N. Integrative inference of subclonal tumour evolution from singlecell and bulk sequencing data. bioRxiv. 2017;234914.
 17.
McGranahan N, Favero F, de Bruin EC, Birkbak NJ, Szallasi Z, Swanton C. Clonal status of actionable driver events and the timing of mutational processes in cancer evolution. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(283):283–5428354.
 18.
JamalHanjani M, Wilson GA, McGranahan N, Birkbak NJ, Watkins TBK, Veeriah S, Shafi S, Johnson DH, Mitter R, Rosenthal R, Salm M, Horswell S, Escudero M, Matthews N, Rowan A, Chambers T, Moore DA, Turajlic S, Xu H, Lee SM, Forster MD, Ahmad T, Hiley CT, Abbosh C, Falzon M, Borg E, Marafioti T, Lawrence D, Hayward M, Kolvekar S, Panagiotopoulos N, Janes SM, Thakrar R, Ahmed A, Blackhall F, Summers Y, Shah R, Joseph L, Quinn AM, Crosbie PA, Naidu B, Middleton G, Langman G, Trotter S, Nicolson M, Remmen H, Kerr K, Chetty M, Gomersall L, Fennell DA, Nakas A, Rathinam S, Anand G, Khan S, Russell P, Ezhil V, Ismail B, Irvinsellers M, Prakash V, Lester JF, Kornaszewska M, Attanoos R, Adams H, Davies H, Dentro S, Taniere P, O’Sullivan B, Lowe HL, Hartley JA, Iles N, Bell H, Ngai Y, Shaw JA, Herrero J, Szallasi Z, Schwarz RF, Stewart A, Quezada SA, Le Quesne J, Van Loo P, Dive C, Hackshaw A, Swanton C. Tracking the evolution of nonsmallcell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2109–21.
 19.
Zhang AW, McPherson A, Milne K, Kroeger DR, Hamilton PT, Miranda A, Funnell T, Little N, de Souza CPE, Laan S, LeDoux S, Cochrane DR, Lim JLP, Yang W, Roth A, Smith MA, Ho J, Tse K, Zeng T, Shlafman I, Mayo MR, Moore R, Failmezger H, Heindl A, Wang YK, Bashashati A, Grewal DS, Brown SD, Lai D, Wan ANC, Nielsen CB, Huebner C, TessierCloutier B, Anglesio MS, BouchardCôté A, Yuan Y, Wasserman WW, Gilks CB, Karnezis AN, Aparicio S, McAlpine JN, Huntsman DG, Holt Ra, Nelson BH, Shah SP. Interfaces of malignant and immunologic clonal dynamics in ovarian cancer. Cell. 2018;173(7):1755–176922.
 20.
Łuksza M, Riaz N, Makarov V, Balachandran VP, Hellmann MD, Solovyov A, Rizvi NA, Merghoub T, Levine AJ, Chan TA, Wolchok JD, Greenbaum BD. A neoantigen fitness model predicts tumour response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. Nature. 2017;551(7681):517.
 21.
Turajlic S, Xu H, Litchfield K, Rowan A, Horswell S, Chambers T, O’Brien T, Lopez JI, Watkins TBK, Nicol D, Stares M, Challacombe B, Hazell S, Chandra A, Mitchell TJ, Au L, EichlerJonsson C, Jabbar F, Soultati A, Chowdhury S, Rudman S, Lynch J, Fernando A, Stamp G, Nye E, Stewart A, Xing W, Smith JC, Escudero M, Huffman A, Matthews N, Elgar G, Phillimore B, Costa M, Begum S, Ward S, Salm M, Boeing S, Fisher R, Spain L, Navas C, Gronroos E, Hobor S, Sharma S, Aurangzeb I, Lall S, Polson A, Varia M, Horsfield C, Fotiadis N, Pickering L, Schwarz RF, Silva B, Herrero J, Luscombe NM, JamalHanjani M, Rosenthal R, Birkbak NJ, Wilson GA, Pipek O, Ribli D, Krzystanek M, Csabai I, Szallasi Z, Gore M, McGranahan N, Van Loo P, Campbell P, Larkin J, Swanton C. Deterministic evolutionary trajectories influence primary tumor growth: TRACERx renal. Cell. 2018;173(3):595–610.
 22.
Turajlic S, Xu H, Litchfield K, Rowan A, Chambers T, Lopez JI, Nicol D, O’Brien T, Larkin J, Horswell S, Stares M, Au L, JamalHanjani M, Challacombe B, Chandra A, Hazell S, EichlerJonsson C, Soultati A, Chowdhury S, Rudman S, Lynch J, Fernando A, Stamp G, Nye E, Jabbar F, Spain L, Lall S, Guarch R, Falzon M, Proctor I, Pickering L, Gore M, Watkins TBK, Ward S, Stewart A, DiNatale R, Becerra MF, Reznik E, Hsieh JJ, Richmond TA, Mayhew GF, Hill SM, McNally CD, Jones C, Rosenbaum H, Stanislaw S, Burgess DL, Alexander NR, Swanton C. Tracking Cancer evolution reveals constrained routes to metastases: TRACERx renal. Cell. 2018;173(3):581–94.
 23.
ElKebir M, Satas G, Oesper L, Raphael BJ. Inferring the mutational history of a tumor using multistate perfect phylogeny mixtures. Cell Syst. 2016;3(1):43–53.
 24.
Pradhan D, ElKebir M. On the Nonuniqueness of solutions to the perfect phylogeny mixture problem. RECOMB comparative genomics. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 277–93.
 25.
Kirchhoff G. Ueber die Auflösung der Gleichungen, auf welche man bei der Untersuchung der linearen Vertheilung galvanischer Ströme geführt wird. Annalen der Physik. 1847;148:497–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.18471481202.
 26.
Tutte WT. The dissection of equilateral triangles into equilateral triangles. Math Proc Camb Philos Soc. 1948;44(4):463–82.
 27.
Gabow HN, Myers EW. Finding all spanning trees of directed and undirected graphs. SIAM J Comput. 1978;7(3):280–7. https://doi.org/10.1137/0207024.
 28.
Creignou N, Hermann M. On #P completeness of some counting problems. Research Report RR2144, INRIA. 1993. https://hal.inria.fr/inria00074528.
 29.
Jerrum M. Counting, sampling and integrating: algorithms and complexity. New York: Springer; 2003.
 30.
Deshwar AG, Boyles L, Wintersinger J, Boutros PC, Teh YW, Morris Q. Abstract B2–59: PhyloSpan: using multimutation reads to resolve subclonal architectures from heterogeneous tumor samples. Cancer Res. 2015;75(22 Supplement 2):2–59259.
 31.
Malikic S, Jahn K, Kuipers J, Sahinalp SC, Beerenwinkel N. Integrative inference of subclonal tumour evolution from singlecell and bulk sequencing data. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):1–12.
 32.
Propp JG, Wilson DB. How to get a perfectly random sample from a generic Markov Chain and generate a random spanning tree of a directed graph. J Algorithms. 1998;27(2):170–217.
 33.
ElKebir M, Satas G, Raphael BJ. Inferring parsimonious migration histories for metastatic cancers. Nat Genet. 2018;50(5):718–26.
 34.
Roth A, Khattra J, Yap D, Wan A, Laks E, Biele J, Ha G, Aparicio S, BouchardCôté A, Shah SP. PyClone: statistical inference of clonal population structure in cancer. Nat Methods. 2014;11(4):396–8.
 35.
ElKebir M. Parsimonious migration history problem: complexity and algorithms. In: Parida L, Ukkonen E, editors. 18th international workshop on algorithms in bioinformatics (WABI 2018). Leibniz international proceedings in informatics (LIPIcs), 2018;113:24–12414. Schloss Dagstuhl–LeibnizZentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.WABI.2018.24. http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/9326.
Acknowledgements
This research is part of the Blue Waters sustainedpetascale computing project, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (awards OCI0725070 and ACI1238993) and the state of Illinois. Blue Waters is a joint effort of the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign and its National Center for Supercomputing Applications. M.EK. was supported by the National Science Foundation (CCF 1850502). The authors thank the anonymous referees for insightful comments that have improved the manuscript.
Funding
The funding for this publication comes from a National Science Foundation grant (CCF 1850502).
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
All authors drafted the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Mohammed ElKebir.
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
About this article
Cite this article
Qi, Y., Pradhan, D. & ElKebir, M. Implications of nonuniqueness in phylogenetic deconvolution of bulk DNA samples of tumors. Algorithms Mol Biol 14, 19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1301501901556
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Phylogenetics
 Intratumor heterogeneity
 Intertumor heterogeneity
 Somatic mutations
 Singlenucleotide variant
 Copynumber aberration
 Structural variant
 Metastasis
 Evolution