Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Neighbor joining
View on WikipediaIn bioinformatics, neighbor joining is a bottom-up (agglomerative) clustering method for the creation of phylogenetic trees, created by Naruya Saitou and Masatoshi Nei in 1987.[1] Usually based on DNA or protein sequence data, the algorithm requires knowledge of the distance between each pair of taxa (e.g., species or sequences) to create the phylogenetic tree.[2]
The algorithm
[edit]
Neighbor joining takes a distance matrix, which specifies the distance between each pair of taxa, as input. The algorithm starts with a completely unresolved tree, whose topology corresponds to that of a star network, and iterates over the following steps, until the tree is completely resolved, and all branch lengths are known:
- Based on the current distance matrix, calculate a matrix (defined below).
- Find the pair of distinct taxa i and j (i.e. with ) for which is smallest. Make a new node that joins the taxa i and j, and connect the new node to the central node. For example, in part (B) of the figure at right, node u is created to join f and g.
- Calculate the distance from each of the taxa in the pair to this new node.
- Calculate the distance from each of the taxa outside of this pair to the new node.
- Start the algorithm again, replacing the pair of joined neighbors with the new node and using the distances calculated in the previous step.
The Q-matrix
[edit]Based on a distance matrix relating the taxa, calculate the x matrix as follows:
| 1 |
where is the distance between taxa and .
Distance from the pair members to the new node
[edit]For each of the taxa in the pair being joined, use the following formula to calculate the distance to the new node:
| 2 |
and:
Taxa and are the paired taxa and is the newly created node. The branches joining and and and , and their lengths, and are part of the tree which is gradually being created; they neither affect nor are affected by later neighbor-joining steps.
Distance of the other taxa from the new node
[edit]For each taxon not considered in the previous step, we calculate the distance to the new node as follows:
| 3 |
where is the new node, is the node which we want to calculate the distance to and and are the members of the pair just joined.
Complexity
[edit]Neighbor joining on a set of taxa requires iterations. At each step one has to build and search a matrix. Initially the matrix is size , then the next step it is , etc. Implementing this in a straightforward way leads to an algorithm with a time complexity of ;[3] implementations exist which use heuristics to do much better than this on average.[4]
Example
[edit]
Let us assume that we have five taxa and the following distance matrix :
| a | b | c | d | e | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | 0 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 8 |
| b | 5 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
| c | 9 | 10 | 0 | 8 | 7 |
| d | 9 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 3 |
| e | 8 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 0 |
First step
[edit]First joining
[edit]We calculate the values by equation (1). For example:
We obtain the following values for the matrix (the diagonal elements of the matrix are not used and are omitted here):
| a | b | c | d | e | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | −50 | −38 | −34 | −34 | |
| b | −50 | −38 | −34 | −34 | |
| c | −38 | −38 | −40 | −40 | |
| d | −34 | −34 | −40 | −48 | |
| e | −34 | −34 | −40 | −48 |
In the example above, . This is the smallest value of , so we join elements and .
First branch length estimation
[edit]Let denote the new node. By equation (2), above, the branches joining and to then have lengths:
First distance matrix update
[edit]We then proceed to update the initial distance matrix into a new distance matrix (see below), reduced in size by one row and one column because of the joining of with into their neighbor . Using equation (3) above, we compute the distance from to each of the other nodes besides and . In this case, we obtain:
The resulting distance matrix is:
| u | c | d | e | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| u | 0 | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| c | 7 | 0 | 8 | 7 |
| d | 7 | 8 | 0 | 3 |
| e | 6 | 7 | 3 | 0 |
Bold values in correspond to the newly calculated distances, whereas italicized values are not affected by the matrix update as they correspond to distances between elements not involved in the first joining of taxa.
Second step
[edit]Second joining
[edit]The corresponding matrix is:
| u | c | d | e | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| u | −28 | −24 | −24 | |
| c | −28 | −24 | −24 | |
| d | −24 | −24 | −28 | |
| e | −24 | −24 | −28 |
We may choose either to join and , or to join and ; both pairs have the minimal value of , and either choice leads to the same result. For concreteness, let us join and and call the new node .
Second branch length estimation
[edit]The lengths of the branches joining and to can be calculated:
The joining of the elements and the branch length calculation help drawing the neighbor joining tree as shown in the figure.
Second distance matrix update
[edit]The updated distance matrix for the remaining 3 nodes, , , and , is now computed:
| v | d | e | |
|---|---|---|---|
| v | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| d | 4 | 0 | 3 |
| e | 3 | 3 | 0 |
Final step
[edit]The tree topology is fully resolved at this point. However, for clarity, we can calculate the matrix. For example:
| v | d | e | |
|---|---|---|---|
| v | −10 | −10 | |
| d | −10 | −10 | |
| e | −10 | −10 |
For concreteness, let us join and and call the last node . The lengths of the three remaining branches can be calculated:
The neighbor joining tree is now complete, as shown in the figure.
Conclusion: additive distances
[edit]This example represents an idealized case: note that if we move from any taxon to any other along the branches of the tree, and sum the lengths of the branches traversed, the result is equal to the distance between those taxa in the input distance matrix. For example, going from to we have . A distance matrix whose distances agree in this way with some tree is said to be 'additive', a property which is rare in practice. Nonetheless it is important to note that, given an additive distance matrix as input, neighbor joining is guaranteed to find the tree whose distances between taxa agree with it.
Neighbor joining as minimum evolution
[edit]Neighbor joining may be viewed as a greedy heuristic for the balanced minimum evolution[5] (BME) criterion. For each topology, BME defines the tree length (sum of branch lengths) to be a particular weighted sum of the distances in the distance matrix, with the weights depending on the topology. The BME optimal topology is the one which minimizes this tree length. NJ at each step greedily joins that pair of taxa which will give the greatest decrease in the estimated tree length. This procedure does not guarantee to find the optimum for the BME criterion, although it often does and is usually quite close.[5]
Advantages and disadvantages
[edit]The main virtue of NJ is that it is fast[6]: 466 as compared to least squares, maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood methods.[6] This makes it practical for analyzing large data sets (hundreds or thousands of taxa) and for bootstrapping, for which purposes other means of analysis (e.g. maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood) may be computationally prohibitive.
Neighbor joining has the property that if the input distance matrix is correct, then the output tree will be correct. Furthermore, the correctness of the output tree topology is guaranteed as long as the distance matrix is 'nearly additive', specifically if each entry in the distance matrix differs from the true distance by less than half of the shortest branch length in the tree.[7] In practice the distance matrix rarely satisfies this condition, but neighbor joining often constructs the correct tree topology anyway.[8] The correctness of neighbor joining for nearly additive distance matrices implies that it is statistically consistent under many models of evolution; given data of sufficient length, neighbor joining will reconstruct the true tree with high probability. Compared with UPGMA and WPGMA, neighbor joining has the advantage that it does not assume all lineages evolve at the same rate (molecular clock hypothesis).
Nevertheless, neighbor joining has been largely superseded by phylogenetic methods that do not rely on distance measures and offer superior accuracy under most conditions.[citation needed] Neighbor joining has the undesirable feature that it often assigns negative lengths to some of the branches.
Implementations and variants
[edit]There are many programs available implementing neighbor joining. Among implementations of canonical NJ (i.e. using the classical NJ optimisation criteria, therefore giving the same results), RapidNJ (started 2003, major update in 2011, still updated in 2023)[9] and NINJA (started 2009, last update 2013)[10] are considered state-of-the-art. They have typical run times proportional to approximately the square of the number of taxa.
Variants that deviate from canonical include:
- BIONJ (1997)[11] and Weighbor (2000),[12] improving on the accuracy by making use of the fact that the shorter distances in the distance matrix are generally better known than the longer distances. The two methods have been extended to run on incomplete distance matrices.[13]
- "Fast NJ" remembers the best node and is O(n^2) always; "relax NJ" performs a hill-climbing search and retains the worst-case complexity of O(n^3). Rapid NJ is faster than plain relaxed NJ.[14]
- FastME is an implementation of the closely related balanced minimum evolution (BME) method (see § Neighbor joining as minimum evolution). It is about as fast as and more accurate than NJ. It starts with a rough tree then improves it using a set of topological moves such as Nearest Neighbor Interchanges (NNI).[15] FastTree is a related method. It works on sequence "profiles" instead of a matrix. It starts with an approximately NJ tree, rearranges it into BME, then rearranges it into approximate maximum-likelihood.[16]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Saitou, N.; Nei, M. (1 July 1987). "The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 4 (4): 406–425. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454. PMID 3447015.
- ^ Xavier Didelot (2010). "Sequence-Based Analysis of Bacterial Population Structures". In D. Ashley Robinson; Daniel Falush; Edward J. Feil (eds.). Bacterial Population Genetics in Infectious Disease. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 46–47. ISBN 978-0-470-42474-2.
- ^ Studier, J. A.; Keppler, K. J. (November 1988). "A note on the neighbor-joining algorithm of Saitou and Nei". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 5 (6): 729–31. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040527. ISSN 1537-1719. PMID 3221794.
- ^ Mailund, Thomas; Brodal, GerthS; Fagerberg, Rolf; Pedersen, Christian NS; Phillips, Derek (2006). "Recrafting the neighbor-joining method". BMC Bioinformatics. 7 (1): 29. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-29. PMC 3271233. PMID 16423304.
- ^ a b Gascuel O, Steel M (2006). "Neighbor-joining revealed". Mol Biol Evol. 23 (11): 1997–2000. doi:10.1093/molbev/msl072. PMID 16877499.
- ^ a b Kuhner, M. K.; Felsenstein, J. (1994-05-01). "A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 11 (3): 459–468. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040126. ISSN 0737-4038. PMID 8015439.
- ^ Atteson K (1997). "The performance of neighbor-joining algorithms of phylogeny reconstruction", pp. 101–110. In Jiang, T., and Lee, D., eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1276, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. COCOON '97.
- ^ Mihaescu R, Levy D, Pachter L (2009). "Why neighbor-joining works". Algorithmica. 54 (1): 1–24. arXiv:cs/0602041. doi:10.1007/s00453-007-9116-4. S2CID 2462145.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "RapidNJ". birc.au.dk.
- ^ "NINJA: a tool for large-scale neighbor-joining phylogeny inference - Home". wheelerlab.org.
- ^ "ATGC: BioNJ". www.atgc-montpellier.fr.
- ^ "WEIGHBOR Homepage". 5 March 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-03-05.
- ^ Criscuolo, Alexis; Gascuel, Olivier (December 2008). "Fast NJ-like algorithms to deal with incomplete distance matrices". BMC Bioinformatics. 9 (1): 166. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-166. PMC 2335114. PMID 18366787.
- ^ Simonsen, Martin; Mailund, Thomas; Pedersen, Christian N. S. (2008). "Rapid Neighbour-Joining" (PDF). Algorithms in Bioinformatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 5251. pp. 113–122. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87361-7_10. ISBN 978-3-540-87360-0.
- ^ "ATGC: FastME". www.atgc-montpellier.fr.
- ^ "FastTree 2.1: Approximately-Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments". www.microbesonline.org.
Other sources
[edit]- Studier JA, Keppler KJ (1988). "A note on the Neighbor-Joining algorithm of Saitou and Nei". Mol Biol Evol. 5 (6): 729–731. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040527. PMID 3221794.
- Martin Simonsen; Thomas Mailund; Christian N. S. Pedersen (2008). "Rapid Neighbour-Joining". Algorithms in Bioinformatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 5251. pp. 113–122. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.218.2078. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87361-7_10. ISBN 978-3-540-87360-0.
External links
[edit]- The Neighbor-Joining Method Archived 2021-07-09 at the Wayback Machine — a tutorial
Neighbor joining
View on GrokipediaOverview
Definition and purpose
Neighbor joining (NJ) is a heuristic algorithm for constructing unrooted phylogenetic trees from a matrix of pairwise evolutionary distances between taxa. Developed as an iterative clustering method, it seeks to identify pairs of taxa that are most closely related at each step, ultimately producing a tree that approximates the minimum total branch length, in accordance with the minimum evolution criterion. The primary purpose of NJ is to infer evolutionary relationships among taxa when the input distances are additive or nearly additive, meaning they can be represented as path lengths on an underlying tree without assuming a constant rate of evolution (molecular clock hypothesis). This makes NJ particularly suitable for datasets where evolutionary rates vary across lineages, allowing for the reconstruction of accurate topologies even under heterogeneous substitution rates. In contrast to character-based approaches like maximum parsimony, which optimize trees by minimizing changes in discrete sequence characters, NJ operates on summarized distance metrics, offering computational efficiency for larger datasets while prioritizing overall tree length minimization over site-specific optimizations. In an NJ tree, the observed taxa serve as the leaves, representing extant species or sequences, while internal nodes depict hypothetical ancestral nodes that connect these leaves through a series of bifurcations. The algorithm outputs an unrooted binary tree topology, where edges are assigned estimated lengths corresponding to the inferred evolutionary distances between connected nodes; the input distance matrix typically derives from alignments of molecular sequences, such as DNA or proteins, converted via models like Jukes-Cantor. This structure facilitates downstream analyses, including rooting the tree or evaluating evolutionary hypotheses, without presupposing a specific root or ultrametric constraints.Historical development
The neighbor-joining (NJ) method was introduced in 1987 by Naruya Saitou and Masatoshi Nei as a distance-based approach for reconstructing unrooted phylogenetic trees from evolutionary distance data.[6] The method starts with a star-like tree and iteratively clusters operational taxonomic units (OTUs) by selecting pairs that minimize the total branch length of the resulting tree, providing both topology and branch lengths efficiently.[6] This innovation addressed key limitations of prior distance methods, such as unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA), which assumes a constant molecular clock and thus performs poorly under uneven evolutionary rates across lineages.[6] In contrast, NJ relaxes the clock assumption, allowing for variable rates and yielding more accurate unrooted topologies in simulations compared to UPGMA and other clustering algorithms like Farris's and Li's methods.[6] Subsequent analyses recognized NJ as an approximation to the minimum evolution (ME) criterion, which seeks the tree topology minimizing total branch length estimated from distances, though NJ computes this heuristically without evaluating all topologies. The method's efficiency and balance of speed and accuracy facilitated its integration into early phylogenetic software, notably the PHYLIP package developed by Joseph Felsenstein starting in the 1980s, where the NEIGHBOR program implemented NJ for unrooted tree construction without clock assumptions. By the 1990s, as computational resources expanded and molecular sequence data proliferated, NJ saw widespread adoption for analyzing larger datasets, with simulations confirming its robustness for moderate-sized phylogenies under various evolutionary models. However, critiques highlighted sensitivities to rate variation and distance estimation errors, prompting refinements such as weighted variants to improve accuracy on heterogeneous data. Key developments in the 1990s included variants like bio-neighbor joining (BIONJ) in 1997, which incorporated a simple evolutionary model to adjust branch length estimates and enhance performance over standard NJ on simulated datasets with rate heterogeneity. These refinements addressed observed inconsistencies in NJ's pair selection under certain conditions, leading to more reliable trees without substantially increasing computational demands. Despite the rise of model-based methods like maximum likelihood in the same era, which offer greater statistical rigor, NJ retained popularity for its polynomial-time complexity (O(n^3)) and suitability for exploratory analyses on large-scale data. As of the 2020s, NJ remains a cornerstone in phylogenetics, valued for its speed in initial tree building and integration into pipelines for bootstrapping or as a starting point for more complex inferences, even as alternatives like maximum likelihood dominate for precision.[7] Its original formulation has garnered over 75,000 citations as of 2025, underscoring enduring impact across fields from molecular evolution to population genetics.[8]Algorithm
Q-matrix computation
The neighbor-joining algorithm initiates its iterative process with an symmetric distance matrix , where denotes the estimated evolutionary distance between operational taxonomic units (OTUs) or taxa and , typically derived from sequence alignments or other molecular data, with for all , and is the current number of active nodes (initially ). The core of this initial step involves computing the Q-matrix, a transformed distance measure that guides pair selection. For each pair of distinct taxa and , the entry is calculated as where the sums range over all remaining active taxa . This formula, introduced by Saitou and Nei, effectively reweights the pairwise distances by subtracting the cumulative distances from and to the rest of the taxon set, scaled by the factor to normalize for the current number of active nodes. The purpose of the Q-matrix is to adjust the raw distances in such that the selected pair minimizes an approximation of the total branch length in the emerging phylogenetic tree, aligning with the minimum evolution principle. By penalizing pairs where or exhibit high cumulative distances to other taxa—often a signature of long external branches—the Q-matrix helps counteract distortions in distance estimates that could arise from uneven evolutionary rates. Negative values of particularly signal pairs where the observed distance may be underestimated relative to the broader taxon connections, highlighting candidates less prone to artifacts like long-branch attraction. Computation of the full Q-matrix occurs once per iteration of the algorithm, beginning with the initial set of taxa and repeating as the number of active nodes decreases. For each iteration with current nodes, evaluating all pairs requires summing the row totals of the distance matrix for each node, which can be precomputed in time per row, leading to an overall time complexity for filling the Q-matrix. This step dominates the per-iteration cost but remains efficient compared to exhaustive tree searches. In interpretation, the entry represents the estimated increase in total tree length upon joining and as neighbors; thus, the pair yielding the smallest (most negative) is prioritized, as it contributes the least to the overall branch length sum and is least likely to reflect systematic biases from long branches misleadingly pulling distant taxa together. This selection criterion ensures the algorithm progressively builds an unrooted tree topology that approximates the additive distance structure while avoiding common pitfalls in distance-based phylogenetics.Pair selection and joining
In each iteration of the neighbor-joining algorithm, the pair of taxa (i, j) that minimizes the value of Q_{ij} from the Q-matrix is selected for joining.[1] This selection criterion identifies taxa that are likely to be immediate neighbors in the phylogenetic tree, prioritizing pairs with the smallest net divergence adjusted for the overall branch lengths in the current set of active taxa.[2] Once selected, the pair (i, j) is joined by creating a new internal node u, which represents their common ancestor. Taxa i and j are removed from the active set of taxa, and the new node u is added to this set in their place. The branches connecting i and j to u are established, with their lengths estimated separately to reflect the evolutionary distances.[1] The tree is constructed iteratively through this process, with each joining step building subtrees that grow outward from the initial taxa. The algorithm continues until only two nodes remain in the active set. These two are then connected directly by an edge whose length is their distance in the current matrix, completing the unrooted phylogenetic tree. For an initial set of n taxa, this requires n-2 joining steps.[2][9] If multiple pairs exhibit the same minimal Q_{ij} value, one is chosen arbitrarily to proceed with the joining.[1] Some implementations may apply additional criteria, such as selecting the pair with the least variance in distances to other taxa, to resolve ties deterministically, though the original method does not specify such refinements.[10]Branch length estimation
In the neighbor-joining algorithm, once a pair of taxa and is selected for joining into a new internal node , branch lengths are estimated for the edges connecting to (denoted ) and to (denoted ). These estimates are computed using the current distance matrix, ensuring that the path distance from to via exactly matches the observed distance , i.e., . This step assumes the distances are additive, meaning they reflect true path lengths along an underlying tree without distortions from evolutionary rate variations or other inconsistencies.[11] The specific formulas for the branch lengths are derived as least-squares estimates under the assumption that and are true neighbors in the tree, with the remaining taxa represented as a composite "Z". Let be the current number of taxa in the matrix, and let the sums be over the remaining taxa : These equations position the new node such that the estimated distances from and to the other taxa align as closely as possible with the observed values, minimizing squared errors in the local subtree.[11] The derivation relies on solving a system where the branch lengths satisfy both the pairwise distance between and and the average deviations to external taxa, as detailed in the least-squares framework for neighbor pairs.[11] If the input distances are not additive—due to factors like long-branch attraction or measurement error—these formulas can produce negative branch lengths, which signal inconsistencies in the data and violate the non-negativity assumption of tree metrics. In such cases, implementations may set negative values to zero or flag them for further analysis, though the algorithm proceeds regardless.[11] For purely additive distances, the estimates recover the exact true branch lengths.[11] These branch lengths contribute directly to the total tree length, which is the sum of all edge lengths in the final topology. By selecting pairs that minimize the implied increase in this total length at each step (via the Q-matrix criterion), the method approximates the minimum evolution principle, favoring parsimonious trees with shorter overall branch sums.Distance matrix update and complexity
After two taxa and are selected and joined into a new node , the distance matrix is updated to reflect distances from to each remaining taxon . The updated distance is computed using the formula which estimates the path distance from to by averaging the distances from to and , adjusted by half the distance between and to account for the branch connecting them. The rows and columns corresponding to and are then removed from the matrix, and a new row and column for are added with the computed values. This process reduces the matrix dimension by one (from to ) with each iteration, continuing until only two nodes remain. The algorithm's time complexity is , arising from operations per iteration to compute the Q-matrix and update distances, repeated over iterations for taxa; space complexity is to store the distance matrix. Although incremental updates to the Q-matrix sums can reduce redundant computations in some implementations, such approaches are not standard in the original method. Optimized implementations, such as NINJA, achieve practical speedups for large datasets while maintaining complexity. Heuristic variants like HNJ approximate the method in time through subset searches and other optimizations for large-scale data. For the final connection between the two remaining nodes, the edge length is set to their distance in the matrix.Worked Example
Initial distance matrix
In neighbor joining, the input is a symmetric distance matrix with zero diagonal elements, where each entry represents the estimated evolutionary distance between operational taxonomic units (OTUs), typically derived from pairwise comparisons of molecular sequences such as DNA or protein alignments.[1] These distances are assumed to approximate the path lengths along the underlying phylogenetic tree, though real-world data often includes noise from evolutionary processes like multiple substitutions.[1] To illustrate an ideal additive case, consider a 4-OTU example with taxa labeled A, B, C, and D. The matrix is as follows:| A | B | C | D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0 | 9 | 9 | 4 |
| B | 9 | 0 | 16 | 7 |
| C | 9 | 16 | 0 | 11 |
| D | 4 | 7 | 11 | 0 |
Iterative steps
To demonstrate the iterative steps of the neighbor-joining algorithm, begin with the initial distance matrix for four taxa labeled A, B, C, and D, assuming the distances are additive for illustration:| A | B | C | D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0 | 9 | 9 | 4 |
| B | 9 | 0 | 16 | 7 |
| C | 9 | 16 | 0 | 11 |
| D | 4 | 7 | 11 | 0 |
where is the observed distance between taxa i and j, and is the total distance from taxon k to all others. The row sums are , , , and . Thus, the Q-matrix is:
| A | B | C | D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | — | -36 | -40 | -36 |
| B | -36 | — | -36 | -40 |
| C | -40 | -36 | — | -36 |
| D | -36 | -40 | -36 | — |
These lengths represent the evolutionary distances along the branches Au and Cu. This join creates an initial tree structure where u connects A and C, with u temporarily pending connections to the remaining taxa B and D, forming a star-like partial topology. Update the distance matrix by removing A and C, introducing u, and computing distances from u to the remaining taxa via
for each k ≠ A, C. This yields the reduced 3×3 matrix for taxa u, B, D:
| u | B | D | |
|---|---|---|---|
| u | 0 | 8 | 3 |
| B | 8 | 0 | 7 |
| D | 3 | 7 | 0 |
resulting in Q_{uB} = -18, Q_{uD} = -18, and Q_{BD} = -18. Select B and D to join into a new node v (arbitrary among ties). The branch lengths are
This join resolves the pending connections from the first iteration, attaching B and D to v, while u remains connected to the evolving structure.
Final tree construction
In the final iteration of the Neighbor Joining algorithm applied to the worked example, the remaining nodes u (containing A and C) and v (containing B and D) are joined. First, update the distance from v to u:With only two clusters left, the algorithm connects them directly, splitting the distance equally: , .[6] The resulting unrooted tree topology is ((A, C), (B, D)), with branch lengths A–u: 1, C–u: 8, u–root: 1, B–v: 6, D–v: 1, v–root: 1. This binary tree can be visualized as a dendrogram where A and C form one clade connected via u to the root, and B and D form the other clade connected via v to the root, emphasizing the equal summation of the two largest pairwise distance sums in the four-point condition that confirms the additive nature of the input matrix. No negative branch lengths occur here, as the distances satisfy additivity; however, in non-additive cases, such estimates can yield negative values, indicating potential inconsistencies in the data.[13] To verify additivity, the path distances in the reconstructed tree are computed and compared to the original matrix. For instance, the path from A to B is , matching the original ; A to D is (original 4); A to C is (original 9); B to C is (original 16); and so on for all pairs. All pairwise paths reproduce the input distances exactly, demonstrating that under additive conditions, Neighbor Joining recovers the true tree topology and compatible branch lengths.[13][6] This example illustrates how Neighbor Joining finalizes the tree by integrating prior joins and ensuring the output aligns with the minimum evolution criterion, effectively reconstructing the underlying phylogeny when distances are additive.
