Abstract
Organisms face tradeoffs in performing multiple tasks. Identifying the optimal phenotypes maximizing the organismal fitness (or Pareto front) and inferring the relevant tasks allow testing phenotypic adaptations and help delineate evolutionary constraints, tradeoffs, and critical fitness components, so are of broad interest. It has been proposed that Pareto fronts can be identified from high-dimensional phenotypic data, including molecular phenotypes such as gene expression levels, by fitting polytopes (lines, triangles, tetrahedrons, etc.), and a program named ParTI was recently introduced for this purpose. ParTI has identified Pareto fronts and inferred phenotypes best for individual tasks (or archetypes) from numerous datasets such as the beak morphologies of Darwin’s finches and mRNA concentrations in human tumors, implying evolutionary optimizations of the involved traits. Nevertheless, the reliabilities of these findings are unknown. Using real and simulated data that lack evolutionary optimization, we here report extremely high false positive rates of ParTI. The errors arise from phylogenetic relationships or population structures of the organisms analyzed and the flexibility of data analysis in ParTI that is equivalent to p-hacking. Because these problems are virtually universal, our findings cast doubt on almost all ParTI-based results and suggest that reliably identifying Pareto fronts and archetypes from high-dimensional phenotypic data is currently generally difficult.
The dilemma between eliminating dominance-resistant solutions and preserving boundary solutions of extremely convex Pareto fronts