Literature DB >> 28565553

HIERARCHICAL COMPARISON OF GENETIC VARIANCE-COVARIANCE MATRICES. I. USING THE FLURY HIERARCHY.

Patrick C Phillips1, Stevan J Arnold2.   

Abstract

The comparison of additive genetic variance-covariance matrices (G-matrices) is an increasingly popular exercise in evolutionary biology because the evolution of the G-matrix is central to the issue of persistence of genetic constraints and to the use of dynamic models in an evolutionary time frame. The comparison of G-matrices is a nontrivial statistical problem because family structure induces nonindependence among the elements in each matrix. Past solutions to the problem of G-matrix comparison have dealt with this problem, with varying success, but have tested a single null hypothesis (matrix equality or matrix dissimilarity). Because matrices can differ in many ways, several hypotheses are of interest in matrix comparisons. Flury (1988) has provided an approach to matrix comparison in which a variety of hypotheses are tested, including the two extreme hypotheses prevalent in the evolutionary literature. The hypotheses are arranged in a hierarchy and involve comparisons of both the principal components (eigenvectors) and eigenvalues of the matrix. We adapt Flury's hierarchy of tests to the problem of comparing G-matrices by using randomization testing to account for nonindependence induced by family structure. Software has been developed for carrying out this analysis for both genetic and phenotypic data. The method is illustrated with a garter snake test case. © 1999 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Keywords:  Flury hierarchy; genetic correlation; matrix comparisons; principal components analysis; quantitative genetics; randomization test; statistical resampling

Year:  1999        PMID: 28565553     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb05414.x

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


  27 in total

Review 1.  Applying a quantitative genetics framework to behavioural syndrome research.

Authors:  Ned A Dochtermann; Derek A Roff
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  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

3.  Conspecific density determines the magnitude and character of predator-induced phenotype.

Authors:  Michael W McCoy
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  MIPoD: a hypothesis-testing framework for microevolutionary inference from patterns of divergence.

Authors:  Paul A Hohenlohe; Stevan J Arnold
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  Patterns of quantitative genetic variation in multiple dimensions.

Authors:  Mark Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2008-08-10       Impact factor: 1.082

6.  Seasonal variation in life history traits in two Drosophila species.

Authors:  E L Behrman; S S Watson; K R O'Brien; M S Heschel; P S Schmidt
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 2.411

7.  Size correction in biology: how reliable are approaches based on (common) principal component analysis?

Authors:  Daniel Berner
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Directional Selection Rather Than Functional Constraints Can Shape the G Matrix in Rapidly Adapting Asexuals.

Authors:  Kevin Gomez; Jason Bertram; Joanna Masel
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  The effect of flower position on variation and covariation in floral traits in a wild hermaphrodite plant.

Authors:  Zhi-Gang Zhao; Guo-Zhen Du; Shuang-Quan Huang
Journal:  BMC Plant Biol       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 4.215

10.  Limits of principal components analysis for producing a common trait space: implications for inferring selection, contingency, and chance in evolution.

Authors:  Kevin J Parsons; W James Cooper; R Craig Albertson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-11-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.