Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:30:37.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex Differences in the Inheritance of Some Anthropometric Characters in Twins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

P. Clarke ,
R. Jardine ,
N.G. Martin ,
A.E. Stark  and
R.J. Walsh
P. Clarke
Affiliation:
School of Human Genetics, University of New South Wales, Sydney
R. Jardine
Affiliation:
Department of Population Biology, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra
N.G. Martin*
Affiliation:
Department of Population Biology, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra
A.E. Stark
Affiliation:
School of Human Genetics, University of New South Wales, Sydney
R.J. Walsh
Affiliation:
School of Human Genetics, University of New South Wales, Sydney
*
Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra 2601, Australia

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.

Biometrical genetical techniques have been applied to the analysis of certain anthropometric characters measured in 134 pairs of adult twins. After allowing for assortative mating it appears that there is a family environment (E2) component for variation in height larger than previously reported. “Fatness” traits – weight, ponderal index, and skinfold thickness – all show higher heritabilities in males and substantial E2 components in females, and reasons for this are discussed. The same is true for cephalic index and forearm length but the reason for these differences is not so obvious. Head length shows a much higher heritability than head breadth. A larger sample of DZ opposite-sex pairs would allow more powerful discrimination, but the variety of patterns of variation revealed by the model-fitting approach used here justify its use over more traditional techniques.

Keywords

HeightWeightCephalic indexSex differencesTwins
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 1980 , pp. 171 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1980

References

REFERENCES

1.da Rocha, FJ, Salzano, FM, Peña, HF, Callegari, SM 1972: New studies on the heritability of anthropometric characteristics as ascertained from twins. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 21:125–134.Google Scholar
2.Eaves, LJ 1977: Inferring the causes of human variation. JR Statist Soc A 140:324–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Eaves, LJ, Last, KA, Young, PA, Martin, NG 1978: Model-fitting approaches to the analysis of human behaviour. Heredity 41:249–320.Google Scholar
4.Edwards, DAW, Hammond, WH, Healy, MJR, Tanner, JM, Whitehouse, RH 1955: Design and accuracy of calipers for measuring subcutaneous tissue thickness. Br J Nutrition, 9:133–143.Google Scholar
5.Harrison, GA, Gibson, JB, Hiorns, RW 1976: Assortative marriage for psychometric, personality and anthropometric variation in a group of Oxfordshire villages. J Biosoc Sci 8:145–153.Google Scholar
6.Holzinger, KJ 1929: The relative effects of nature and nurture influences on twin differences. J Educ Psychol 20:241–248.Google Scholar
7.Jinks, JL, Fulker, DW 1970: Comparison of the biometrical genetical, MAVA and classical appro acht to the analysis of human behavior. Psychol Bull 73:311–349.Google Scholar
8.Martin, NG 1975: The inheritance of scholastic abilities in a sample of twins. Ann Hum Genet Lond 39:219–229.Google Scholar
9.Martin, NG, Eysenck, HJ (1976): Genetic factors in sexual behaviour. In Eysenck, HJ: “Sex and Personality,” Chap 6. London: Open Books.Google Scholar
10.Martin, NG, Eaves, LJ, Kearsey, MJ, Davies, P, 1978: The power of the classical twin study. Heredity 40:97–116.Google Scholar
11.Oscai, LB, Spirakis, CN, Wolff, CA, Beck, RJ 1972: Effects of exercise and of food restriction on adipose tissue cellularity. J Lipid Res 13:588–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Rao, DC, MacLean, CJ, Morton, NE, Yee, S 1975: Analysis of family resemblance. V. Height and weight in Northeastern Brazil. Am J Hum Genet 27:509–520.Google Scholar
13.Spuhler, JN 1968: Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Eugenics Quart 15:128–140.Google Scholar
14.Vandenberg, SG 1962: How “stable” are heritability estimates, A comparison of heritability estimates from six anthropometric studies. Am J Phys Anthropol 20:331–338.Google Scholar
15.Vandenberg, SG (1972): Assortative mating, or who marries whom? Behav Genet 2:127–157.Google Scholar
16.Weiner, JS, Lourie, JA (1969): “Human Biology. A Guide to Field Methods.” Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar