Originally posted January 22, 2021 as a preprint
Abstract
Viral phylogenies provide crucial information on the spread of infectious diseases, and many studies fit mathematical models to phylogenetic data to estimate epidemiological parameters such as the effective reproduction ratio (Re) over time. Such phylodynamic inferences often complement or even substitute for conventional surveillance data, particularly when sampling is poor or delayed. It remains generally unknown, however, how robust phylodynamic epidemiological inferences are, especially when there is uncertainty regarding pathogen prevalence and sampling intensity. Here we use recently developed mathematical techniques to fully characterize the information that can possibly be extracted from serially collected viral phylogenetic data, in the context of the commonly used birth-death-sampling model. We show that for any candidate epidemiological scenario, there exists a myriad of alternative, markedly different and yet plausible “congruent” scenarios that cannot be distinguished using phylogenetic data alone, no matter how large the dataset. In the absence of strong constraints or rate priors across the entire study period, neither maximum-likelihood fitting nor Bayesian inference can reliably reconstruct the true epidemiological dynamics from phylogenetic data alone; rather, estimators can only converge to the “congruence class” of the true dynamics. We propose concrete and feasible strategies for making more robust epidemiological inferences from viral phylogenetic data.