| Literature DB >> 28060876 |
Mirsha Quinto-Sánchez1,2, Celia Cintas1, Caio Cesar Silva de Cerqueira1,2,3, Virginia Ramallo1, Victor Acuña-Alonzo4,5, Kaustubh Adhikari4, Lucía Castillo1, Jorge Gomez-Valdés6, Paola Everardo5, Francisco De Avila5, Tábita Hünemeier7, Claudia Jaramillo8, Williams Arias8, Macarena Fuentes4,9, Carla Gallo10, Giovani Poletti10, Lavinia Schuler-Faccini11, Maria Cátira Bortolini11, Samuel Canizales-Quinteros12, Francisco Rothhammer13, Gabriel Bedoya8, Javier Rosique14, Andrés Ruiz-Linares4,15,16, Rolando González-José1.
Abstract
The expression of facial asymmetries has been recurrently related with poverty and/or disadvantaged socioeconomic status. Departing from the developmental instability theory, previous approaches attempted to test the statistical relationship between the stress experienced by individuals grown in poor conditions and an increase in facial and corporal asymmetry. Here we aim to further evaluate such hypothesis on a large sample of admixed Latin Americans individuals by exploring if low socioeconomic status individuals tend to exhibit greater facial fluctuating asymmetry values. To do so, we implement Procrustes analysis of variance and Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) to estimate potential associations between facial fluctuating asymmetry values and socioeconomic status. We report significant relationships between facial fluctuating asymmetry values and age, sex, and genetic ancestry, while socioeconomic status failed to exhibit any strong statistical relationship with facial asymmetry. These results are persistent after the effect of heterozygosity (a proxy for genetic ancestry) is controlled in the model. Our results indicate that, at least on the studied sample, there is no relationship between socioeconomic stress (as intended as low socioeconomic status) and facial asymmetries.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28060876 PMCID: PMC5218465 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Sample details concerning age, gender and country for a total of 2,018 volunteers.
| Age | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Young adult (18–20) | Early adult (20–40) | Middle adult (40–60) | ||||
| Sex | ||||||
| Country | f | m | f | m | f | m |
| Brazil | 28 | 13 | 129 | 65 | 5 | 7 |
| Chile | 3 | 115 | 104 | 525 | 6 | 40 |
| Colombia | 106 | 60 | 208 | 173 | 0 | 0 |
| Mexico | 93 | 40 | 144 | 111 | 0 | 0 |
| Peru | 1 | 3 | 24 | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 231 | 231 | 609 | 889 | 11 | 47 |
Fig 1Anatomical location of the 34 landmarks used in this study depicted on a fronto-lateral view of the face (see Table 2 for definitions).
According to the ethic approval and written informed consent of CANDELA Project, pictures of volunteers cannot be provided in scientific publications or websites. The image presented here belongs to a collaborator who has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish this figure, and was taken following the standard CANDELA protocols.
Facial landmark anatomical definitions (see Fig 1 for anatomic-spatial reference).
| No. | Name | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Sagitals | ||
| 1 | Glabella | The smooth area between the eyebrows just above the nose |
| 18 | Nasion (sellion) | The midpoint of the nasofrontal suture |
| 19 | Pronasal | The most protruded point of the nasal tip |
| 20 | Subnasal | The junction between the lower border of the nasal septum and the cutaneous portion of the upper lip in the midline |
| 23 | Labiale superious | The midpoint of the vermilion border of the upper lip |
| 26 | Stomion | The midpoint of the labial fissure when the lips are closed naturally |
| 29 | Labiale inferious | The midpoint of the vermillion border of the lower lip |
| 30 | Gnathion | The lowest point in the midline on the lower border of the chin |
| Bilaterals | ||
| 2,10 | Frontotemporale | The most medial point on the temporal crest of the frontal bone |
| 3,11 | Superaurale | The highest point of the free margin of the ear |
| 4,12 | Tragion | The tip of tragus |
| 5,13 | Subaurale | The lowest point of the ear lobe |
| 6,16 | Exocanthion | The outer corner of the eye fissure where the eyelids meet |
| 7,15 | Palpebrale superiorus | The superior point of the eyelid |
| 8, 14 | Endocanthion | The inner corner of the eye fissure where the eyelids meet |
| 9, 17 | Palpebrale inferiorus | The inferior point of the eyelid |
| 21,22 | Alare | The most lateral point on the nasal alar |
| 24,28 | crista philtre (upper lip point) | Highest point of the upper vermillion |
| 25,27 | Cheilion | The outer corner of the mouth where the outer edges of the upper and lower vermilions meet |
| 31,33 | Otobasion superiorious | The superior point on the union of the lobule and the head |
| 32,34 | Otobasion inferiorous | The basal point on the union of the lobule and the head |
Pairwise correlations and corresponding p-values for heterozygosity against the parental genetic ancestry values.
| Variable | Correlation | Lower 95% | Upper 95% | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American | Heterozygosity | -0.898 | -0.9061 | -0.8892 | < .0001 |
| European | Heterozygosity | 0.7938 | 0.7771 | 0.8094 | < .0001 |
| European | American | -0.9668 | -0.9695 | -0.9638 | < .0001 |
| African | Heterozygosity | 0.5298 | 0.4977 | 0.5604 | < .0001 |
| African | American | -0.2789 | -0.3186 | -0.2382 | < .0001 |
| African | European | 0.0242 | -0.0194 | 0.0677 | 0.2758 |
Fig 2Matrix depicting correlations among wide-genome heterozygosity scores and genetic ancestry estimations.
a) Males, b) Females. Ellipses account for the 95% of the variance and the color depicts the r-value magnitude (see right-bottom scale for reference). The corresponding r-values are placed in the lower triangle of the matrix.
Inter- and intraobserver mean errors across three digitizing sessions (February, January and December).
RMSE = Root of the mean square error (see text for details).
| February | RMSE | %RMSE | ||||
| min | max | mean | min | Max | mean | |
| Interobserver | 0 | 0.0053 | 0.0009 | 0 | 1.6995 | 0.9172 |
| Intraobserver | 0 | 0.0032 | 0.0007 | 0.3005 | 2 | 1.0828 |
| January | RMSE | %RMSE | ||||
| min | max | mean | min | Max | mean | |
| Interobserver | 0 | 0.0033 | 0.0007 | 0.1713 | 1.411 | 0.908 |
| Intraobserver | 0 | 0.0026 | 0.0007 | 0.589 | 1.8287 | 1.092 |
| December | RMSE | %RMSE | ||||
| min | max | mean | min | Max | mean | |
| Interobserver | 0 | 0.0149 | 0.0043 | 0.2665 | 1.8766 | 1.4884 |
| Intraobserver | 0 | 0.0028 | 0.0009 | 0.1234 | 1.7335 | 0.5116 |
Central tendency and dispersal statistics for within and between-observer differences.
| effect | min | max | sd | mean | median | mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observer 1 | 0.0410 | 0.1719 | 0.0170 | 0.0827 | 0.0806 | 0.0575 |
| Observer 2 | 0.0490 | 0.1505 | 0.0171 | 0.0794 | 0.0765 | 0.0833 |
| O1-O2 | 0.0257 | 0.0739 | 0.0169 | 0.0373 | 0.0316 | 0.0833 |
| Totals | 0.0257 | 0.1719 | 0.0169 | 0.0828 | 0.0808 | 0.0833 |
Repeatability essay: Procrustes ANOVA results with sex as covariate.
| Procrustes ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect | SS | MS | df | F | P (param.) |
| Sex | 0.4987866 | 0.0097801 | 51 | 163.98 | < .0001 |
| Individual | 12.6538792 | 0.0000596 | 212160 | 6.64 | < .0001 |
| DA | 0.0746448 | 0.0016965 | 44 | 188.74 | < .0001 |
| FA | 1.6456741 | 0.0000090 | 183084 | 1.24 | < .0001 |
| Error | 0.1132016 | 0.0000072 | 15675 | ||
Results of HLM for FFA scores against age, sex, BMI, genetic ancestry and PC scores for wealth index.
For simplicity, and considering the high correlation between both data sets, results are presented only for heterozygosity-corrected data (blue-colored cells indicate significant effects at p< = 0.01).
| Heterozygosity corrected FFA scores | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimation | sd | df | t | p | |
| Age | 0.022 | 0.002 | 5,227.956 | 8.781 | 0.000 |
| Sex | -0.125 | 0.030 | 5,222.607 | -4.214 | 0.000 |
| BMI | -0.015 | 0.004 | 5,227.425 | -0.387 | 0.000 |
| Melanine | -0.011 | 0.003 | 5,226.054 | -3.588 | 0.000 |
| European | 0.196 | 0.104 | 3,590.690 | 1.882 | 0.060 |
| African | 1.387 | 0.305 | 5,152.044 | 4.548 | 0.000 |
| PC1 WI | 0.028 | 0.014 | 5,147.350 | 1.949 | 0.051 |
| PC2 WI | -0.026 | 0.016 | 5,213.821 | -1.648 | 0.100 |
| PC3 WI | 0.038 | 0.017 | 5,138.595 | 2.195 | 0.028 |
| PC4 WI | -0.029 | 0.014 | 5,212.806 | -2.094 | 0.036 |
Fig 3Matrix of correlation of FFA scores (corrected and uncorrected for heterozygosity effects) against SES variables (PCA-WI) by sex.
a) Females b) Males. Raw and corrected FFA scores are presented in the left and right columns respectively. Ellipses account for the 95% of the variance and the color depicts the r-value magnitude (see left-bottom scale for reference). Lower triangle of the matrix indicates the r-value correlation scores.
Fig 4Boxplots of distribution of the FFA scores by country and sex.
The dotted line represents the grand mean, the continuous black line connect means among countries. a) Females, b) males. Black points represent outlier values. The left column plots represent raw FFA scores and the right ones the FFA scores corrected for the heterozygosity effects.