Volume 7 Supplement 4
Symposium of Computations in Bioinformatics and Bioscience (SCBB06)
Maximum common subgraph: some upper bound and lower bound results
 Xiuzhen Huang^{1}Email author,
 Jing Lai^{2} and
 Steven F Jennings^{3}
https://doi.org/10.1186/147121057S4S6
© Huang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd 2006
Published: 12 December 2006
Abstract
Background
Structure matching plays an important part in understanding the functional role of biological structures. Bioinformatics assists in this effort by reformulating this process into a problem of finding a maximum common subgraph between graphical representations of these structures. Among the many different variants of the maximum common subgraph problem, the maximum common induced subgraph of two graphs is of special interest.
Results
Based on current research in the area of parameterized computation, we derive a new lower bound for the exact algorithms of the maximum common induced subgraph of two graphs which is the best currently known. Then we investigate the upper bound and design techniques for approaching this problem, specifically, reducing it to one of finding a maximum clique in the product graph of the two given graphs. Considering the upper bound result, the derived lower bound result is asymptotically tight.
Conclusion
Parameterized computation is a viable approach with great potential for investigating many applications within bioinformatics, such as the maximum common subgraph problem studied in this paper. With an improved hardness result and the proposed approaches in this paper, future research can be focused on further exploration of efficient approaches for different variants of this problem within the constraints imposed by real applications.
Background
Introduction
Of the many challenging problems related to understanding the biological function of DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic and signalling pathways, one of the most important is comparing the structure of different molecules. The hypothesis is that structure determines function and therefore it should follow that molecules with similar structure should have similar function. Evaluating the similarity of structures can be reduced to a comparison of a set of abstracted graphs if the biological structures can be abstracted as graphs.
Using bioinformatic techniques, biological structure matching can be formulated as a problem of finding the maximum common subgraph. The solution to this problem has important practical applications in many areas of bioinformatics as well as in other areas, such as pattern recognition and image processing [1–3]. For example, protein threading, an effective method to predict protein tertiary structure [4–8], and RNA structural homology searching, a method for annotating and identifying new noncoding RNAs [9–12], both align a target structure against structure templates in a template database.
Song et al [13] makes the following definitions and proposes the following graphical models for RNA structural homology searching: A structural unit in a biopolymer sequence is a stretch of contiguous residues (nucleotides or amino acids). A nonstructural stretch between two consecutive structural units is called a loop. A structure of the sequence is characterized by interactions among structural units. For example, structural units in a tertiary protein are α helices and β strands, called cores. Given a biopolymer sequence, a structure graph H = (V, E, A) can be defined such that each vertex in V(H) represents a structural unit, each edge in E(H) represents the interaction between two structural units, and each arc in A(H) represents the loop ended by two structural units. Similarly, the target sequence can also be represented as a mixed graph G, called a sequence graph. Based on the graphical representations, the structuresequence alignment problem can be formulated as the problem of finding in the sequence graph G a subgraph isomorphic to the structure graph H such that the objective function optimizes the alignment score.
Problem Definition
Throughout this paper, we will use the basic definitions and terminology from [1]: All graphs are simple, undirected graphs. Two graphs are isomorphic if there is a onetoone correspondence between their vertices and there is an edge between two vertices in one graph if and only if there is an edge between the two corresponding vertices in the other graph. If edge (u, v) is an edge connecting u and v, then an induced subgraph G' of a graph G = (V, E) consists of a vertex subset V' ⊆ V and for all edges (u, v) ∈ E where u, v ∈ V'. A graph G_{12} is a common induced subgraph of two given graphs G_{1} and G_{2} if G_{12} is isomorphic to one induced subgraph G'_{1} of G_{1} as well as one induced subgraph G'_{2} of G_{2}. A maximum common induced subgraph (MCIS) of two given graphs G_{1} and G_{2} is the common induced subgraph G_{12} with the maximum number of vertices. Similarly, the maximum common edge subgraph (MCES) is a subgraph with the maximum number of edges common to the two given graphs. The MCIS (or MCES) between two graphs can be further divided into a connected case and a disconnected case. All the different cases of the problem are useful within different biological contexts.
MCES can be transformed into a formulation of MCIS. Interested readers are referred to [1] for details of the transformation. Here we focus on the maximum common induced subgraph (MCIS) problem. For convenience, we call it the maximum common subgraph problem.
The maximum common subgraph problem is NPcomplete [14] and therefore polynomialtime algorithms for it do not exist unless P = NP. In fact, the maximum common subgraph problem is APXhard [15] which means that it has no constant ratio approximation algorithms. This problem is a famous combinatorial intractable problem. Approaches for the maximum common subgraph problem and different variants of this problem are intensively studied in the literature [1].
In this paper, we derive a strong lower bound result for the maximum common subgraph problem in the light of the current research progress in the research area of parameterized computation. We then design the approaches for addressing this problem.
Methods
Parameterized Computation and Recent Progress on Parameterized Intractability
Many problems with important realworld applications in life science are NPhard within the context of the theory of NPcompleteness. This excludes the possibility of solving them in polynomial time unless P = NP. For example, the problems of cleaning up data, aligning multiple sequences, finding the closest string, and identifying the maximum common substructure are all famous NPhard problems in bioinformatics [16–18, 1]. A number of approaches have been proposed in dealing with these NPhard problems. For example, the highlyacclaimed approximation approach [19] tries to come up with a "good enough" solution in polynomial time instead of an optimal solution for an NPhard optimization problem [20–23].
The theory of parameterized computation [17] is a newly developed approach introduced to address NPhard problems with small parameters. It tries to give exact algorithms for an NPhard problem when its natural parameter is small (even if the problem size is big). A parameterized problem Q is a decision problem consisting of instances of the form (x, k), where x is the problem description and the integer k = 0 is called the parameter. The parameterized problem Q is fixedparameter tractable [17] if it can be solved in time f(k)x^{O(1)}, where f is a recursive function. The class FPT contains all the problems that are fixedparameter tractable. In this paper, we assume that complexity functions are "nice" with both the domain and range being nonnegative integers and the values of the functions and their inverses are easily computed. For two functions f and g, we write f(n) = o(g(n)) if there is a nondecreasing and unbounded function λ such that f(n) = g(n)/λ(n). A function f is subexponential if f(n) = 2^{O(n)}.
For a problem in the class FPT, research is focused on identifying more efficient, parameterized algorithms. There are many effective techniques to design parameterized algorithm including the methods of "bounded search tree" and "reduction to a problem kernel". Another example is the vertex cover problem.
Definition
Vertex cover problem: given a graph G and an integer k, determine if G has a vertex cover C of k vertices, i.e., a subset C of k vertices in G such that every edge in G has at least one endpoint in C. Here, the parameter is k.
Given a graph of n vertices, there is a parameterized algorithm that can solve the vertex cover problem in time O(kn + 1.286^{k}) [24].
Accompanying the work on designing efficient and practical parameterized algorithms, a theory of parameter intractability has previously been developed [17]. In parameterized complexity, to classify fixedparameter intractable problems, a hierarchy of classes (the Whierarchy ∪_{t = 0} W [t], where W [t] ⊆ W [t+1] for all t = 0) have been introduced in which the 0th level W [0] is the class FPT. The hardness and completeness have been defined for each level W [i] of the Whierarchy for i = 1, and a large number of W [i]hard parameterized problems have been identified [17]. For example, the clique problem is W[1]hard.
Definition
Clique problem: given a graph G and an integer k, determine if G has a clique C of k vertices, i.e., a subset C of k vertices in G such that there is an edge in G between any two of these k vertices, i.e., the k vertices induce a complete subgraph of G. Here the parameter is k.
The clique problem can be solved in time O(n^{k}), based on the enumeration of all the vertex subsets of size k for a given graph with n vertices.
It has become commonly accepted that no W[1]hard (and W [i]hard, i > 1) problem can be solved in time f(k)n^{O(1)} for any function f (i.e., W[1] ? FPT). W[1]hardness has served as the hypothesis for fixedparameter intractability. An example is a recent result by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis [25], showing that the database query evaluation problem is W[1]hard. This provides strong evidence that the problem cannot be solved by an algorithm whose running time is of the form f(k)n^{O(1)}, thus excluding the possibility of a practical algorithm for the problem even if the parameter k (the size of the query) is small as in most practical cases.
Based on the W[1]hardness of the clique algorithm, computational intractability of problems in bioinformatics has been derived [26–31], the author point out that "Unless an unlikely collapse in the parameterized hierarchy occurs, the results proved in [31] that the problems longest common subsequence and shortest common supersequence are W[1]hard rule out the existence of exact algorithms with running time f(k)n^{O(1)} (i.e., exponential only in k) for those problems. This does not mean that there are no algorithms with much better asymptotic timecomplexity than the known O(n^{k}) algorithms based on dynamic programming, e.g., algorithms with running time n^{vk} are not deemed impossible by our results."
Recent investigation has derived stronger computational lower bounds for wellknown NPhard parameterized problems [32, 33]. For example, for the clique problem – which asks if a given graph of n vertices has a clique of size k – it is proved that unless an unlikely collapse occurs in parameterized complexity theory, the problem is not solvable in time f(k)n^{o(k)} for any function f. Note that this lower bound is asymptotically tight in the sense that the trivial algorithm that enumerates all subsets of k vertices in a given graph to test the existence of a clique of size k runs in time O(n^{k}).
Based on the hardness of the clique problem, lower bound results for a number of bioinformatics problems have been derived [34]. For example, our results for the problem's longest common subsequence and shortest common supersequence have strengthened the results in [31] significantly and advanced the understanding on the complexity of the problems. We show that it is actually unlikely that the problems can be solved in time n^{γ(k)} for any sublinear function γ(k) and the known dynamic programming algorithms of running time O(n^{k}) for the problems are actually asymptotically optimal.
In the following section, we derive the lower bound for exact algorithms of the maximum common subgraph problem.
Lower Bound for Maximum Common Subgraph Problem
The formal parameterized version of the maximum common subgraph problem is described above; we choose the number of vertices in the common subgraph as the parameter. Based on the reduction from the parameterized clique problem to the parameterized common subgraph problem, we derive the hardness result of the parameterized common subgraph problem.
 1.
I_{Q} is the set of input instances. It is recognizable in polynomial time;
 2.
For each instance x ∈ I_{Q}, S_{Q}(x) is the set of feasible solutions for x, which is defined by a polynomial p and a polynomial time computable predicate π (p and π only depend on Q); S_{Q}(x) = {y: y = p(x) and π(x, y)};
 3.
f_{Q}(x, y) is the objective function mapping a pair x ∈ I_{Q} and y ∈ S_{Q}(x) to a nonnegative integer; the function f_{Q} is computable in polynomial time;
 4.
opt_{Q}∈ {max, min}. Q is called a maximization problem if opt_{Q} = max and a minimization problem if opt_{Q} = min.
An NP optimization problem Q can be parameterized in a natural way as follows [35, 32]:
Definition
 1.
If Q is a maximization problem, then the parameterized version of Q is defined as Q = {(x, k)  x ∈ I_{Q} ^ opt_{Q(x)} = k };
 2.
If Q is a minimization problem, then the parameterized version of Q is defined as Q = {(x, k)  x ∈ I_{Q} ^ opt_{Q(x)} = k}.
We now provide the definitions of the maximum common subgraph problem and the parameterized common subgraph problem.
Definition
Maximum common subgraph problem:
Input: two graphs G_{1} = (V_{1}, E_{2}) and G_{2}= (V_{2}, E_{2}).
Output: the maximum common vertexinduced subgraph of the two graphs G_{1} and G_{2}.
Definition
Parameterized common subgraph problem:
Input: two graphs G_{1} = (V_{1}, E_{2}) and G_{2}= (V_{2}, E_{2}), and a positive integer k;
Parameter: k;
Output: "Yes", if there is a common vertexinduced subgraph of k vertices, i.e., a common subgraph of size k of the two graphs G_{1} and G_{2}. Otherwise, output "No".
Lemma 1
The parameterized common subgraph problem is W[1]hard.
Proof: We will give an FPTreduction from clique to the parameterized common subgraph problem as follows.
Given an instance (G, k) of the clique problem, where the graph G has n vertices and k is a positive integer, we construct an instance of the parameterized common subgraph problem as follows: let G_{1} be the graph G, and G_{2} a complete graph of k vertices. The problem can therefore be stated as "Is a common vertexinduced subgraph of k vertices for the graphs G_{1} and G_{2}?"
We can verify that the graph G has a clique of size k if and only if the graphs G_{1} and G_{2} have a common subgraph of k vertices. Since the reduction may be finished in polynomial time O(nk), the reduction is an FPTreduction from clique to parameterized common subgraph problem.
To prove our main result, we will use the definition of linear FPTreduction and W_{1}[1]hard [36]:
Definition
A parameterized problem Q is linear FPTreducible, or more precisely, FPT_{ l }reducible, to a parameterized problem Q' if there exist a function f and an algorithm A of running time f(k)n^{O(1)} that, on each (k, n)instance x of Q, produces a (k', n')instance x' of Q', where k' = O(k), n' = n^{O(1)}, and x is a yesinstance of Q if and only if x' is a yesinstance of Q'.
Linear FPTreduction has the transitivity property [36, 34]. The transitivity of the FPT_{l}reduction is proved in the following lemma:
Lemma 2
Let Q_{1}, Q_{2} and Q_{3} be three parameterized problems. If Q_{1} is FPT_{l}reducible to Q_{2}, and Q_{2} is FPT_{l}reducible to Q_{3}, then Q_{1} is FPT_{l}reducible to Q_{3}.
Proof: If Q_{1} is FPT_{l}reducible to Q_{2}, then there exists a function f_{1} and an algorithm A_{1} of running time f_{1}(k_{1})n_{1}^{o(k1)}m_{1}^{O(1)}, such that for each (k_{1}, n_{1}, m_{1})instance x_{1} of Q_{1}, the algorithm A_{1} produces a (k_{2}, n_{2}, m_{2})instance x_{2} of Q_{2}, where n_{2} = n_{1}^{O(1)}, m_{2} = m_{1}^{O(1)}, and k_{2} = c_{1}k_{1}, where c_{1} is a constant.
If Q_{2} is FPT_{l}reducible to Q_{3}, then there exists a function f_{2} and an algorithm A_{2} of running time f_{2}(k_{2})n_{2}^{O(k2)} m_{2}^{O(1)}, such that on each (k_{2}, n_{2}, m_{2})instance x_{2} of Q_{2}, the algorithm A_{2} produces a (k_{3}, n_{3}, m_{3})instance x_{3} of Q_{3}, where k_{3} = O(k_{2}), n_{3} = n_{2}^{O(1)}, m_{3} = m_{2}^{O(1)}.
We now have an algorithm A that reduces Q_{1} to Q_{3}, as follows: For a given (k_{1}, n_{1}, m_{1})instance x_{1} of Q_{1}, A first calls the algorithm A_{1} on x_{1} to construct a (k_{2}, n_{2}, m_{2})instance x_{2} of Q_{2}, where k_{2} = c_{1}k_{1}, n_{2} = n_{1}^{O(1)}, and m_{2} = m_{1}^{O(1)}. Then A calls the algorithm A_{2} on x_{2} to construct a (k_{3}, n_{3}, m_{3})instance x_{3} of Q_{3}. It is therefore obvious that x_{3} is a yesinstance of Q_{3} if and only if x_{1} is a yesinstance of Q_{1}. Moreover, from k_{2} = c_{1}k_{1} and k_{3} = O(k_{2}), we have k_{3} = O(k_{1}), and from n_{2} = n_{1}^{O(1)}, m_{2} = m_{1}^{O(1)}, n_{3} = n_{2}^{O(1)}, m_{3} = m_{2}^{O(1)}, we get n_{3} = n_{1}^{O(1)} and m_{3} = m_{1}^{O(1)}. Finally, since the invocation of algorithm A_{1} on x_{1} takes time f_{1}(k_{1})n_{1}^{o(k1)} m_{1}^{O(1)}, the invocation of algorithm A_{2} on x_{2} takes time f_{2}(k_{2})n_{2}^{O(k2)} m_{2}^{O(1)}, k_{2} = c_{1}k_{1}, n_{2} = n_{1}^{O(1)}, and m_{2} = m_{1}^{O(1)}, we conclude that the running time of algorithm A is bounded by f_{1}(k_{1})n_{1}^{O(k1)} m_{1}^{O(1)}, where f(k_{1}) = f_{1}(k_{1}) + f_{2}(c_{1}k_{1}). By definition, A is an FPT_{l}reduction from Q_{1} to Q_{3}; i.e., Q_{1} is FPT_{l}reducible to Q_{3}.
Definition
A parameterized problem Q is W[1]hard under the FPT_{l}reduction, or more precisely W_{l}[1]hard, if the Weighted antimonotone CNF 2SAT (abbreviated wcnf 2sat^{}) problem is FPT_{l}reducible to Q.
In particular, it has been shown [32, 33] that the clique problem is W_{l}[1]hard.
Lemma 3
(From theorem 5.2 of [33]) Unless all SNP problems are solvable in subexponential time, no W_{l}[1]hard problem can be solved in time f(k)n^{O(k)} for any recursive function f.
Note Papadimitriou and Yannakakis [30] have introduced the class SNP which contains many wellknown NPhard problems. Some of these problems have been the major targets in the study of exact algorithms, but have so far resisted all efforts for the development of subexponential time algorithms to solve them. Thus, it has been commonly agreed that it is unlikely that all SNP problems are solvable in subexponential time. A recent result showed the equivalence between the statement that "all SNP problems are solvable in subexponential time" and the collapse of a parameterized class called Mini[1, 37] to FPT, which is also considered as an unlikely collapse in parameterized computation.
Lemma 4
The parameterized common subgraph problem is W_{l}[1]hard.
Proof: Referring to the proof of Lemma 1, the reduction from a clique to a parameterized common subgragh problem is a linear FPTreduction.
Based on the transitivity property of the linear FPTreduction of Lemma 2, and the fact that the clique problem is W_{l}[1]hard, the parameterized common subgraph problem could not be solved in time f(k)n^{O(k)}, where k is the number of vertices in the common subgraph and f is any recursive function, unless some unlikely collapse (Mini[1] = FPT) occurs in parameterized computation.
From Lemma 4 and Proposition 3, we have the following theorem:
Theorem
Given two graphs G_{1} and G_{2} with each graph having n vertices, there is no algorithm of time f(k)n^{O(k)} for the parameterized common subgraph problem, where k is the number of vertices in the common subgraph and f is any recursive function, unless some unlikely collapse (Mini[1] = FPT) occurs in parameterized computation.
In consideration of the upperbound result, we now show that our lowerbound result for the maximum common subgraph problem presented here is asymptotically tight.
Upper Bound – Clique Based Approaches
The following approach for the maximum common subgraph problem is based on the reduction [15, 1] from a maximum common subgraph problem to the maximum clique problem.
From two graphs G_{1}= (V_{1}, E_{1}) and G_{2}= (V_{2}, E_{2}), a new graph G= (V, E) is derived as follows: Let V = V_{1} × V_{2} and call V a set of pairs. Call two pairs <u_{1}, u_{2}> and <v_{1}, v_{2}> compatible if u_{1} ≠ v_{1} and u_{2} ≠ v_{2} and if they preserve the edge relation, that is, there is an edge between u_{1} and v_{1} if and only if there is an edge between u_{2} and v_{2}. Let E be the set of compatible edges. A kclique in the new graph G can be interpreted as a matching between two induced knode subgraphs. The two subgraphs are isomorphic since the compatible pairs preserve the edge relations. The new graph G is called the modular product graph of the two graphs G_{1} and G_{2}.
We suppose n = V_{1} = V_{2} (The analysis for the case when V_{1} ? V_{2}, is similar, and thus is omitted). From the construction of G, we have V = n^{2}. By a close observation of the new graph G, we can see that G is indeed an npartite graph, where the vertices are partitioned into n disjoint partitions with each partition having n vertices.
We may use a matrix to denote the n^{2} vertices of the npartite graph with n vertices in each partition.
v_{{1,1}}, v_{{1,2}}, ..., v_{{1,n}}
v_{{2,1}}, v_{{2,2}}, ..., v_{{2,n}}
... ...
v_{{n,1}}, v_{{n,1}}, ..., v_{{n,n}}
The n vertices of the first row v_{{1,i}}, 1 = i = n, belong to partition one of the npartite graph. The n vertices of the second row v_{{2,i}}, 1 = i = n, belong to partition two and so on.
There is no edge between any two vertices within the same partition. Edges only appear between two vertices that are in two different partitions. So, at most one vertex from each partition (of the n vertices) could be in a clique of the graph. Therefore, to find a clique of size k, there will be n^{k} possible ways for choosing the clique vertices. For each possible way, the algorithm needs O(k^{2}) time to check if it constructs a clique of size k. Therefore, this gives an algorithm of time O(n^{k}k^{2}) for the maximum common subgraph problem. We call this algorithm ALGCOMMON SUBGRAPH for the convenience of the following discussion.
This problem – when the maximum clique size k is equal to n – has been studied by Sze et al [38]:
Definition
Given an npartite graph G with n vertices in each part, the nCLIQUE_{np} problem finds an nclique in the graph G.
For this problem, they developed a fast and exact divideandconquer approach. The basic idea of this novel approach is to subdivide the given npartite graph into several n_{0}partite subgraphs with n_{0} < n and solve each smaller subproblem independently using a branchandbound approach as long as the number of cliques of size n_{0} in each subproblem is not too high. The reader is referred to [38] for the details of this divideandconquer approach. However, their approach in the worst case still has the same upper bound.
Given this O(n^{k} k^{2})time algorithm for the maximum common subgraph problem, the lower bound result of our Theorem is asymptotically tight.
When the number of vertices in the common subgraph k is not very far away from the value of n, we define k = n – c, where c is a constant. We illustrate the basic idea for c = 1 as follows [39]: Suppose the npartite graph G has a clique C of size k1. We add one more vertex to each of the n partitions. And we also add edges from this vertex to any vertices (except the newly added vertices) that are not in the same partition. Now we get a new graph G'. G' is an npartite graph with n + 1 vertices in each partition. The new graph G' has a clique C' of size n if and only if the original npartite graph G has a clique of size (n1). The vertices of this clique C' include the vertices of the original clique C and one newly added vertex.
For the newly constructed graph G', we can now apply the algorithm ALGCOMMON SUBGRAPH without any change. And we need time O((n+1)^{n} n^{2}). After we find the clique C', we just remove the newly added vertex and return the other vertices of C'.
Similarly, if the npartite graph G has a clique of size k – c, where c is a positive integer constant, we can find the clique by adding c new vertices and associated edges as described above and then applying the algorithm ALGCOMMON SUBGRAPH which runs in time O((n+c)^{n} n^{2}).
This simple idea of dealing with cliques of a size less than n is useful since it makes the algorithm ALGCOMMON SUBGRAPH work uniformly for finding cliques of different sizes on npartite graphs. In the following, we give the following algorithm for finding cliques of size k – c.
Algorithm for (KC)CLIQUE
INPUT: an npartite graph G, with n vertices in each partition, and a small constant c, where c is a positive integer;
OUTPUT: a clique of size no less than k – c;
Step 1: For i = 0 to c do

Step 1.1: Construct a new graph G_{1}, by adding i new vertices to each partition of the graph G and adding edges from each of the new vertices to any vertices (except the newly added vertices) that are not in the same partition.

Step 1.2: Apply the algorithm ALGCOMMON SUBGRAPH on the graph G_{1}.

Step 1.3: If a clique C_{1} is found, then return "a clique C of size k – i has been found" (C is constructed by removing all the newlyadded vertices from the clique C_{1}).

Endfor
Step 2: Return "no clique has been found".
We now propose two approaches for the maximum common subgraph problem which are based on the relationship between the vertex cover problem and the clique problem:
Algorithm 1: ALGAPPROXCLIQUE
INPUT: an npartite graph G, with n vertices in each partition, and a small constant c, where c is a positive integer;
OUTPUT: a clique for the graph G.
Step 1. Compute the complement graph G' of the modular product graph G = (V, E) of graph G_{1} and G_{2};
Step 2. Apply the approximation algorithm for the vertex cover problem to get a vertex cover C;
Step 3. Return V – C as the clique vertex set.
ALGAPPROXCLIQUE gives an approximate solution for the maximum common subgraph problem in polynomial time. This approach uses the following approximation algorithm for the vertex cover problem with an approximation ratio 2 in [40]:
ALGAPPROXVERTEX COVER
INPUT: a graph G = (V, E);
OUTPUT: a vertex cover C of approximation ratio 2 for the graph G.
Step 1. C ← Φ;
Step 2. E' ← E(G);
Step 3. While E' ≠ Φ

Step 3.1. Let (u, v) be an arbitrary edge of E';

Step 3.2. C = C ∪ {u, v};

Step 3.3. Remove from E' every edge incident on either u or v;
Step 4. Return C as the vertex cover set.
In this algorithm, ALGAPPROXVERTEX COVER selects an edge from the set of edges of the graph G = (V, E) and adds it to C. Repeating this procedure for (u, v) ∈ E(G) and deleting edges from E' that are covered by u or v results in a running time of O(V+E).
Algorithm 2: ALGEXACTMAXCLIQUE
INPUT: an npartite graph G, with n vertices in each partition, and a small constant c;
OUTPUT: a clique for the graph G.
Step 1. Compute the complement graph G' of the modular product graph G = (V, E) of graph G_{1} and G_{2};
Step 2. Apply the parameterized exact algorithm for the Vertex Cover problem on G' and compute the minimum vertex cover C_{0}.
Step 3. Return the maximum clique with the vertex set V – C_{0}.
Alternatively, ALGEXACTMAXCLIQUE could apply in Step 2 the current best algorithm for vertex cover [24] which is of time O(kn + 1.286^{k}). By running the vertex cover algorithm for at most n times, we produce the minimum vertex cover of the product graph G.
Results
In this paper we investigated the lowerbound result for the maximum common subgraph problem. We proved that it is unlikely that there is an algorithm of time f(k)n^{O(k)} for the problem, where k is the number of vertices in the common subgraph and f is any recursive function. We then presented the upper bound of algorithms which solve this problem: O(n^{k}k^{2}) time where k is the number of vertices in the common subgraph. In consideration of the upperbound result, we point out that our lowerbound result for the maximum common subgraph problem is asymptotically tight.
Conclusion
Parameterized computation is a viable approach with great potential for investigating many applications within bioinformatics, such as the maximum common subgraph problem studied in this paper. With an improved hardness result and the proposed approaches in this paper, future research can be focused on further exploration of efficient approaches for different variants of this problem within the constraints imposed by real applications.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This publication was made possible in part by NIH Grant #P20 RR16460 from the IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) Program of the National Center for Research Resources.
This article has been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 7, Supplement 4, 2006: Symposium of Computations in Bioinformatics and Bioscience (SCBB06). The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712105/7?issue=S4.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Raymond JW, Willett P: Maximum common subgraph isomorphism algorithms for the matching of chemical structures. Journal of Computeraided Molecular Design 2002, 16: 521–533.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Horaud R, Skordas T: Stereo correspondence through feature grouping and maximal cliques. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1989, 11(11):1168–1180.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shearer K, Bunke H, Venkatesh S: Video indexing and similarity retrieval by largest common subgraph detection using decision trees. No. IDIAPRR 00–15, Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, Martigny, Valais, Switzerland 2000.Google Scholar
 Bowie J, Luthy R, Eisenberg D: A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known threedimensional structure. Science 1991, 253: 164–170.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bryant SH, Altschul SF: Statistics of sequencestructure threading. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995, 5: 236–244.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Xu Y, Xu D, Uberbacher EC: An efficient computational method for globally optimal threading. Journal of Computational Biology 1998, 5(3):597–614.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lathrop RH, Rogers RG Jr, Bienkowska J, Bryant BMK, Buturovic LJ, Gaitatzes C, Nambudripad R, White JV, Smith TF: Analysis and algorithms for protein sequencestructure alignment. In Computational Methods in Molecular Biology, Salzberg, Searls. Edited by: Kasif. Elsevier; 1998.Google Scholar
 Xu J, Li M, Kim D, Xu Y: RAPTOR: optimal protein threading by linear programming. J Bioinform Comput Biol 2003, 1(1):95–117.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Doudna JA: Structural genomics of RNA. Nature Structural Biology 2000, 7(11 supp):954–956.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Eddy SR: Computational genomics of noncoding RNA genes. Cell 2002, 109: 137–140.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Rivas E, Eddy SR: Noncoding RNA gene detection using comparative sequence analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2001, 2: 8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lowe TM, Eddy SR: tRNAscanSE: A Program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Research 1997, 25: 955–964.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Song Y, Liu C, Huang X, Malmberg R, Xu Y, Cai L: Efficient parameterized algorithm for biopolymer structuresequence alignment. Proceedings of 5th Workshop on Algorithms in BioInformatics (WABI 2005), Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics 2005, 3692: 376–388.Google Scholar
 Gary MR, Johnson DS, Computers and Intractability: a Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness. WH. Freeman and Co; 1979.Google Scholar
 Kann V: On the approximability of the maximum common subgraph problem. In Proc 9th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 577. SpringerVerlag; 1992:377–388.Google Scholar
 Cheetham J, Dehne F, RauChaplin A, Stege U, Taillon PJ: Solving large FPT problems on coarsegrained parallel machines. JCSS 2003, 67: 691.Google Scholar
 Downey R, Fellows M: Parameterized Complexity. Springer; 1999.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Lanctot JK, Li M, Ma B, Wang S, Zhang L: Distinguishing string selection problems. Inf Comput 2003, 185: 41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ausiello G, Crescenzi P, Gambosi G, Kann V, MarchettiSpaccamela A, Protasi M: Complexity and Approximation, Combinatorial Optimization Problems and Their Approximability Properties. New York: SpringerVerlag; 1999.Google Scholar
 Deng X, Li G, Li Z, Ma B, Wang L: A PTAS for distinguishing (sub)string selection. LNCS 2002, 2380: 740.Google Scholar
 Deng X, Li G, Li Z, Ma B, Wang L: Genetic design of drugs without sideeffects. SIAM Journal on Computing 2003, 32: 1073.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jiang T, Li M: On the Approximation of shortest common Supersequences and longest Common subsequences. SIAM J Comput 1995, 24: 1122.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Li M, Ma B, Wang L: On the closest string and substring problems. Journal of the ACM 2002, 49: 157.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen J, Kanj I, Jia W: Vertex cover: further observations and further improvements. Journal of Algorithms 2001, 41: 280–301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Papadimitriou C, Yannakakis M: On the complexity of database queries. JCSS 1999., 58:Google Scholar
 Bodlaender HL, Downey RG, Fellows MR, Hallett MT, Wareham HT: Parameterized complexity analysis in computational biology. Comput Appl Biosci 1995, 11: 49–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bodlaender H, Downey R, Fellows M, Wareham M: The parameterized complexity of sequence alignment and consensus. Theoretical Computer Science 1995, 147: 31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fellows M, Gramm J, Niedermeier R: Parameterized intractability of motif search problems. LNCS 2002, 2285: 262.Google Scholar
 Hallett M: An Integrated Complexity Analysis of Problems for Computational Biology. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Victoria; 1996.Google Scholar
 Papadimitriou C, Yannakakis M: On limited nondeterminism and the complexity of VC dimension. JCSS 1996, 53: 161.Google Scholar
 Pietrzak K: On the parameterized complexity of the fixed alphabet shortest common supersequence and longest common subsequence problems. JCSS 2003, 67: 757.Google Scholar
 Chen J, Chor B, Fellows M, Huang X, Juedes D, Kanj I, Xia G: Tight lower bounds for parameterized NPhard problems. Proc of the 19th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity 2004, 150–160.Google Scholar
 Chen J, Huang X, Kanj I, Xia G: Linear FPT reductions and computational lower bounds. Proc of the 36th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 2004, 212–221.Google Scholar
 Huang X: Parameterized Complexity and Polynomialtime Approximation Schemes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University; 2004.Google Scholar
 Cai L, Chen J: On FixedParameter Tractability and Approximability of NP Optimization Problems. J Comput Syst Sci 1997, 54: 465–474.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen J, Huang X, Kanj I, Xia G: Whardness linear FPTreductions: structural properties and further applications. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Computing and Combinatorics Conference (COCOON 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2005, 3595: 975–984.Google Scholar
 Downey R, EstivillCastro V, Fellows M, Prieto E, Rosamond F: Cutting up is hard to do: the parameterized complexity of kCut and related Problems. Electr Notes Theor Comput Sci 2003., 78:Google Scholar
 Sze SH, Lu S, Chen J: Integrating sampledriven and patterndriven approaches in motif finding. WABI2004 2004, 438–449.Google Scholar
 Sze SH: Lectures notes of Special Topics in Computational Biology, Fall. 2002.Google Scholar
 Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C: Introduction to Algorithms. 2nd edition. MIT Press; 2001.Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.