Literature DB >> 11989675

Interpretation of the results of common principal components analyses.

David Houle1, Jason Mezey, Paul Galpern.   

Abstract

Common principal components (CPC) analysis is a new tool for the comparison of phenotypic and genetic variance-covariance matrices. CPC was developed as a method of data summarization, but frequently biologists would like to use the method to detect analogous patterns of trait correlation in multiple populations or species. To investigate the properties of CPC, we simulated data that reflect a set of causal factors. The CPC method performs as expected from a statistical point of view, but often gives results that are contrary to biological intuition. In general, CPC tends to underestimate the degree of structure that matrices share. Differences of trait variances and covariances due to a difference in a single causal factor in two otherwise identically structured datasets often cause CPC to declare the two datasets unrelated. Conversely, CPC could identify datasets as having the same structure when causal factors are different. Reordering of vectors before analysis can aid in the detection of patterns. We urge caution in the biological interpretation of CPC analysis results.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11989675     DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01356.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  18 in total

1.  Comparing G matrices: are common principal components informative?

Authors:  Jason G Mezey; David Houle
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Direct estimation of genetic principal components: simplified analysis of complex phenotypes.

Authors:  Mark Kirkpatrick; Karin Meyer
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Replication of an Egfr-wing shape association in a wild-caught cohort of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Ian Dworkin; Arnar Palsson; Greg Gibson
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-01-31       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments.

Authors:  Michael W McCoy; Benjamin M Bolker; Craig W Osenberg; Benjamin G Miner; James R Vonesh
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2006-04-08       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Developmental and spatial covariation of nutrients in growing leaves of Daphne laureola and their relationships with herbivory.

Authors:  Conchita Alonso; Carlos M Herrera
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 10.151

6.  Comparing G: multivariate analysis of genetic variation in multiple populations.

Authors:  J D Aguirre; E Hine; K McGuigan; M W Blows
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.821

7.  A Bayesian framework for comparative quantitative genetics.

Authors:  Otso Ovaskainen; José Manuel Cano; Juha Merilä
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2008-03-22       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Understanding the evolution and stability of the G-matrix.

Authors:  Stevan J Arnold; Reinhard Bürger; Paul A Hohenlohe; Beverley C Ajie; Adam G Jones
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.694

9.  Phenotypic covariance at species' borders.

Authors:  M Julian Caley; Edward Cripps; Edward T Game
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 3.260

10.  How much can the orientation of G's eigenvectors tell us about genetic constraints?

Authors:  Daniel Berner
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-07-04       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.