Artifactual phylogenies caused by correlated distribution of substitution rates among sites and lineages: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Despite the advances in understanding molecular evolution, current phylogenetic methods barely take account of a fraction of the complexity of evolution. We are chiefly constrained by our incomplete knowledge of molecular evolutionary processes and the limits of computational power. These limitations lead to the establishment of either biologically simplistic models that rarely account for a fraction of the complexity involved or overfitting models that add little resolution to the problem. Such oversimplified models may lead us to assign high confidence to an incorrect tree (inconsistency). Rate-across-site (RAS) models are commonly used evolutionary models in phylogenetic studies. These account for heterogeneity in the evolutionary rates among sites but do not account for changing within-site rates across lineages (heterotachy). If heterotachy is common, using RAS models may lead to systematic errors in tree inference. In this work we show possible misleading effects in tree inference when the assumption of constant within-site rates across lineages is violated using maximum likelihood. Using a simulation study, we explore the ways in which gamma stationary models can lead to wrong topology or to deceptive bootstrap support values when the within-site rates change across lineages. More precisely, we show that different degrees of heterotachy mislead phylogenetic inference when the model assumed is stationary. Finally, we propose a geometry-based approach to visualize and to test for the possible existence of bias due to heterotachy.