Performance of likelihood ratio tests of evolutionary hypotheses under inadequate substitution models.

In recent years, likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) based on DNA and protein sequence data have been proposed for testing various evolutionary hypotheses. Because conducting an LRT requires an evolutionary model of nucleotide or amino acid substitution, which is almost always unknown, it becomes important to investigate the robustness of LRTs to violations of assumptions of these evolutionary models. Computer simulation was used to examine performance of LRTs of the molecular clock, transition/transversion bias, and among-site rate variation under different substitution models. The results showed that when correct models are used, LRTs perform quite well even when the DNA sequences are as short as 300 nt. However, LRTs were found to be biased under incorrect models. The extent of bias varies considerably, depending on the hypotheses tested, the substitution models assumed, and the lengths of the sequences used, among other things. A preliminary simulation study also suggests that LRTs based on parametric bootstrapping may be more sensitive to substitution models than are standard LRTs. When an assumed substitution model is grossly wrong and a more realistic model is available, LRTs can often reject the wrong model; thus, the performance of LRTs may be improved by using a more appropriate model. On the other hand, many factors of molecular evolution have not been considered in any substitution models so far built, and the possibility of an influence of this negligence on LRTs is often overlooked. The dependence of LRTs on substitution models calls for caution in interpreting test results and highlights the importance of clarifying the substitution patterns of genes and proteins and building more realistic models.