Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:55:45.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Multivariate Genetic Analysis of Ridge Count Data From the Offspring of Monozygotic Twins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Rita M. Cantor
Rita M. Cantor*
Affiliation:
Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, UCLA School of Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
*
Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, 1000 West Carson Street, Division of Medical Genetics, E-4, Torrance, CA 90509

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Inheritance patterns of digital ridge counts have been analyzed using multivariate statistical methods and data from the offspring of half-sib twin kinships. Prior studies found the univariate measure total ridge count to be highly heritable and the counts on individual fingers to be somewhat less heritable, and exploratory factor analytic studies indicated that at least two, and possibly three, independent genetic influences are responsible for this ten variable multivariate trait.

Two statistical methods have been employed to elucidate the factors controlling ridge count development on all ten fingers. An exploratory method developed by Bock and Vandenberg [4] has been applied to the among and between mean square matrices from a multivariate nested analysis of variance on thirty balanced male twin kinships. A principal component analysis on the resulting matrix of pure genetic effects has revealed two substantial genetic factors. One strongly influences the counts on all ten fingers, with the largest loadings on the three central fingers of each hand, while the other has an impact on the thumbs and fifth fingers. For both factors the loadings on homologous fingers are nearly equal. This exploratory procedure is wasteful of the data that is available in half-sib twin kinships, however.

Confirmatory factor analyses, employing the LISREL IV program, have been conducted on all available ridge count data from the offspring of forty-eight unbalanced male twin kinships and fiftynine unbalanced female twin kinships. Nested analyses of variance performed on sex-adjusted data yielded five 10 × 10 variance-covariance matrices containing 275 unique statistics for the estimation of genetic and environmental parameters and the testing of hypotheses.

A series of ten genetic and environmental hypothetical models for ridge count development, each more complex than the previous one, have been tested. They include a simple environmental model, an additive genetic and environmental model proposed by Holt [16], a full additive genetic model including five separate finger factors, two laterality factors and a general genetic factor, and seven models augmenting this full additive genetic model with factors for maternal epistatic and general environmental effects. The most complete model, which includes eight additive (one general, two laterality, and five finger) as well as maternal, epistatic, and general environmental factors cannot be rejected at a .05 level of significance. This model accounts for 99% of the variance that cannot be accounted for by a simple environmental model, and 95% of the variance unaccounted for by Holt's model. It suggests that while a strong genetic factor influences the ridge counts on all ten fingers, there are other factors affecting the counts on the homologous fingers separately as well as different factors affecting the counts on the left and right hands. In addition to these additive effects, influences due to the maternal environment common to all pregnancies of the mother, and those due to the unique environment of each pregnancy of the mother, and those due to the interaction of genes at separate loci have also been detected.

Results of the Bock and Vandenberg analysis are concordant with those obtained by the LISREL program. While the former only requires the availability of standard statistical packages, it is wasteful of data from the half-sib families. The latter, on the other hand, while it requires the use of a specific program, LISREL or its equivalent, uses all half-sibship data and allows one to test genetic and environmental hypotheses as well as conduct exploratory factor analyses.

Keywords

Multivariate traitDermatoglyphicsHalf-sib modelFinger ridge countsCovariance structure analysisMonozygotic twins
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 32 , Issue 3-4 , July 1983 , pp. 161 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1983

References

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, TW, Rubin, H (1956): Statistical inference in factor analysis. In Neyman, J (ed): “Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. V.” Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, pp 111–150.Google Scholar
2. Bartlett, MS (1951): The goodness of fit of a single hypothetical discriminant function in the case of several groups. Ann Eugenics 16:199–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Bock, RD, Petersen, AC (1975): A multivariate correction for attentuation. Biometrika 62:673–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bock, RD, Vandenberg, SG (1968): Components of heritable variation in mental test scores. In Vanenberg, SG (ed): “Progress in Human Behavior Genetics.” Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, pp 233–260.Google Scholar
5. Bonnevie, K (1924): Studies on the papillary patterns of human fingers. J Genet 15:1–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Corey, LA, Nance, WE (1978): The monozygotic half-sib model: A tool for epidemiologic research. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): “Psychology and Methodology.” New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp 201–209.Google Scholar
7. Corey, LA, Winter, R, Eaves, LJ, Golden, W, Nance, WE (1980): The MZ half-sib design: An approach for the examination of the etiology of congenital malformations. In Melnick, M, Bixler, D, Shields, ED (eds): “The Etiology of Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate.” New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp 437–454.Google Scholar
8. Eaves, LJ, Last, KA, Young, PA, Martin, NG (1978): Model-fitting approaches to the analysis of human behaviour. Heredity 41:249–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Eaves, LJ, Martin, NGG, Eysenck, SBG (1977): An application of the analysis of covariance structures to the psychogenetical study of impulsiveness. Br J Statist Psychol 30:185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Fisher, FM (1966): The Identification Problem in Econometrics. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
11. Fletcher, R, Powell MJD (1963): A rapidly convergent descent method for minimization. Computer Journal 6:163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Fulker, DW (1978): Multivariate extensions of a biometrical model of twin data. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): “Twin Research: Psychology and Methodology.” New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp 217–236.Google Scholar
13. Haymen, BJ (1960): Maximum likelihood estimation of genetic components of variation. Biometrics 16:369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Holt, SB (1956/1957): Genetics of dermal ridges: The relation between total ridge-count and the variability of counts from finger to finger. Ann Hum Genet 22:323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Holt, SB (1958): The correlations between ridge-counts on different fingers estimated from a population sample. Ann Hum Genet 23:459–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Holt, SB (1968): The genetics of Dermal Ridges. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
17. Howe, WG (1955): Some contributions to factor analysis. Report No. ORNL-1919. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Iagolnitzer, ER (1978): Component pair analysis: A multivariate approach to twin data with application to dermatoglyphics. In Nance, WG, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): “Twin Research: Clinical Studies.” New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp 211–221.Google Scholar
19. Jöreskog, KG (1966): Testing a simple structure hypothesis in factor analysis. Psychometrika 31:165–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Jöreskog, KG (1969): A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 34:183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Jöreskog, KG (1971): Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 36:409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Jöreskog, KG, Sörbom, D (1978): LISREL IV User's: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc. Google Scholar
23. Kang, KW, Lindemann, JP, Christian, JC, Nance, WE (1974): Sampling variances in twin and sibling studies in man. Hum Hered 24:363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Kempthorne, O, Osborne, RH (1961): The interpretation of twin data. Am J Hum Genet 13:320–329.Google ScholarPubMed
25. Lawley, DN (1958): Estimation in factor analysis under various initial assumptions. Br J Statist Psychol 11:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Lawley, DN, Maxwell, AE (1963): Factor analysis as a statistical method. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
27. Loehlin, JC, Vandenberg, SG (1968): Genetic and environmental components in the covariation of cognitive abilities: An additive model. In Vandenberg, SG (ed): “Progress in Human Behavior Genetics.” Baltimore: The Johns Hopkin University Press, pp 261–278.Google Scholar
28. Martin, NG, Eaves, LJ (1977): The genetical analysis of covariance structure. Heredity 38:79–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Martin, NG, Eaves, LJ, Fulker, DW (1979): The genetical relationship of impulsiveness and sensation seeking to Eysenck's personality dimensions. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 28:197–210.Google ScholarPubMed
30. Miller, RC, Aurand, LW, Flach, WR (1950): Amino acids in high and low protein corn. Science 112:57–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Nakata, M, Yu, PL, Davis, B, Nance, WE (1974): Genetic determinants of craniofacial morphology: A twin study. Ann Hum Genet 37:431–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Nakata, M, Yu, PL, Nance, WE (1974): Multivariate analysis of craniofacial measurements in twin and family data. Am Phys Anthropol 41:423–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Nance, WE (1976): Genetic studies of the offspring of identical twins. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 25: 103–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Nance, WE, Corey, LA (1976): Genetic models for the analysis of data from the families of identical twins. Genetics 83:811–826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Nance, WE, Corey, LA, Boughman, JB (1978): Monozygotic twin kinships. A new design for genetic and epidemiologic research. In Morton, N, Chung, CS (eds): “Genetic Epidemiology.” New York: Academic Press, pp 87–132.Google Scholar
36. Nance, WE, Nakata, M, Paul, T, Yu, PL (1974): The use of twins in the analysis of phenotypic traits in man. In Janreich, DT, Salko, RG, Porter, IH (eds): “Congenital Defects: New Directions in Research.” New York: Academic Press, pp 23–49.Google Scholar
37. Numerical Algorithms Group (1974): E04HAF. In “NAG Library Marks Manual.” Oxford: NAG Central Office.Google Scholar
38. Parisi, P, DiBacco, M (1968): Fingerprints and the diagnosis of zygosity in twins. Acta Genet Med Gemollol 17:333–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Phelan, MC, Nance, WE, Corey, LA (1981): Determinants of ridge counts in MZ twin kinships. Acta Genet Med Gemollol 30:59–66.Google ScholarPubMed
40. Potter, RH, Nance, WE, Yu, PL, Davis, WB (1976): A twin study of dental dimension: Independent, genetics determinants. Am J Phys Anthropol 44:397–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Reed, T, Evans, MM, Norton, JA Jr, Christian, JC (1979): Maternal effects on fingertip dermatoglyphics. Am J Hum Genet 31:315–323.Google ScholarPubMed
42. Roberts, DF, Coope, E (1975): Components of variation in a multifactorial character: A dermatoglyphic analysis. Hum Biol 47:169–188.Google Scholar
43. Rostron, J (1977): Multivariate studies on the genetics of dermal ridges. Ann Hum Genet 41:199–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute Statistical Analysis System, Raleigh, NC, 1979.Google Scholar
45. Siervogel, RM, Roche, AF, Roche, EM (1979): The identification of developmental fields using digital distribution of fingerprint patterns and ridge counts. In Wertelecki, W, Plato, CC, Paul, NW (eds): “Dermatoglyphic Fifty Years Later.” New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp 135–147.Google Scholar
46. Singh, S (1979): Evidence of dominance in the finger ridge counts using multivariate analysis. In Wertelecki, W, Plato, CC, Paul, NW (eds): “Dermatoglyphis Fifty Years Later.” New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc. pp 495–500.Google Scholar
47. Spence, MA, Elsten, RC, Namboodiri, KK, Pollitzer, WS (1973): Evidence for a possible major gene in absolute finger ridge count. Hum Hered 23:414–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Spence, MA, Westlake, J, Lange, K (1977): Estimation of the variance components for dermal ridge count. Ann Hum Genet 41:111–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Tucker, LR, Lewis, C (1973): A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Tukey, JW (1951): Components in regression. Biometrics 7:33–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Vandenberg, SG (1965): Multivariate analysis of twin differences. In Vandenberg, SG (ed): “Methods and Goals in Human Behavior Genetics.” New York: Academic Press, pp 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Winter, RM, Golden, WL, Nance, WE, Eaves, LJ (1978): A half-sib model for the analysis of qualitative traits. Am J Hum Genet 30:129A.Google Scholar