Phylogenetic reconstruction is a fundamental problem in comparative genomics. As a theoretical problem in rearrangement studies, this has been modelled as the Small Parsimony Problem (SPP), in which ancestral genome structures have to be determined minimizing the number of rearrangement events occurring throughout the phylogeny. This problem is of significant interest in microbial and cancer genomics, due to the prevalence and clinical importance of rearrangement events. Genome structures in this problem are expressed as sequences of markers, which are themselves oriented sequence features (such as genes) that abstract from non-structural variations. Recent research has focused on the problem under the natural genomes model, in which arbitrary variations in copy number of markers are allowed. Natural genomes are often studied under the DCJ-indel model, a model which has already been successfully applied to plasmid data. There also exist ILP solutions to a variant of the Small Parsimony Problem under the DCJ-indel model. However, these solutions are limited in their applicability, as they make some critical simplifications for tractability purposes: ancestral marker frequencies and precomputed putative ancestral adjancencies, with their predicted likelihoods, are assumed as input. This creates multiple problems from both a theoretical and practical perspective. Firstly, this simplification means that not the full state space is searched for a solution, but rather only the subset of genomes with the precomputed putative adjacencies, meaning an optimal solution to the exact SPP is not guaranteed. Secondly, marker frequencies are given externally, without any theoretical guarantees. Thirdly, the method used to precompute adjacencies relies on gene trees, which requires the use of genes as markers, when gene annotation is often unreliable, especially in regions with a lot of rearrangement. Additionally, this restricts the applicability of the approach to sets of genomes that are both divergent and large enough to be able to produce informative gene trees. This is, for example, rarely the case for plasmids, where nucleotide mutations are rarer than rearrangements and genomes are small. Hence, we revisit the problem to solve the exact SPP by introducing a cost to indel operations, which allows us to compute ranges of marker frequencies and derive theoretical results, that allow us to reduce the solution space that the ILP searches without sacrificing optimality. We show that this makes the problem tractable for the case of small and recently related genomes, first on simulated genomes, and then on a set of pathogenic plasmids which represent a realistic use case for the method.

Genome rearrangement has been an active area of research in computational comparative genomics for the last three decades. While initially mostly an interesting algorithmic endeavor, now the practical application of rearrangement distance methods and more advanced phylogenetic tasks is becoming common practice, given the availability of many completely sequenced genomes. Several genome rearrangement models have been developed over time, sometimes with surprising computational properties. A prominent example is the fact that computing the reversal distance of two signed permutations is possible in linear time, while for two unsigned permutations it is NP-hard. Therefore one has to always be careful about the precise problem formulation and complexity analysis of rearrangement problems in order not to be fooled. The double distance is the minimum number of genomic rearrangements between a singular and a duplicated genome that - in addition to rearrangements - are separated by a whole genome duplication. At the same time it allows to assign the genes of the duplicated genome to the two paralogous chromosome copies that existed right after the duplication event. Computing the double distance is another example of a tricky hardness landscape: If the distance measure underlying the double distance is the simple breakpoint distance, the problem can be solved in linear time, while with the more elaborate DCJ distance it is NP-hard. Indeed, there is a whole family of distance measures, parameterized by an even number $k$, between the breakpoint distance ($k=2$) at the one end and the DCJ distance ($k=\infty$) at the other end. Only little was known about the hardness border that lies somewhere on the way between these two extremes. Precisely, beneath the two border cases the (linear) problem complexity was known only for $k=4$ and $k=6$. In this paper we close the gap, giving a full picture of the hardness landscape when computing the double distance.