Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Meta-Analysis of The Her It Ability of Developmental Stability
A Meta-Analysis of The Her It Ability of Developmental Stability
A Meta-Analysis of The Her It Ability of Developmental Stability
Target review
Abstract
Introduction
Data set
Statistical procedures
in the meta-analysis. The file-safe number of studies was calculated. It estimates the
number of studies that would be needed to eliminate the effect’s significance when
those studies showed no heritability (Rosenthal, 1991).
We calculated additive genetic coefficients of variation (CV, = (lOOJV, )/x,
where V, is the additive genetic variance and 2 is mean character value; Houle,
1992) for fluctuating asymmetry and character size per se for as many studies as
possible. Coefficients of variation for the two kinds of characters were compared in
paired t-tests after log,,,-transformation.
All statistical tests reported are two-tailed. Values reported are means (SE).
Results
Brassica campestris IO traits 0.192(0.063)” 0.1089 Sib 78 fam. I I 0 Evans et al. (MS)
Arabidopsis thaliana Days to first flowering and plant height
0.4514 s 16, 21 1 1 I Bagchi and Iyama
(1983)
Epilobium angustijolium Petal length 0.18*(0.07)” 0.3275 P 56 1 I I Moller (I 996)
Euphydryas editha 11 traits wing spot - o.14594’ P 20 1 0 I Mason et al. (1967)
Gryllodes sigillatus Wing - 0.022(0.206)” PO.0237 P 21 I 0 I Eggert and Sakaluk
(I 995)
Eyprepocnemis plorans 4 exoskeletal traits 0.02016’ P 12, 14 I I I Castro et al. (MS)
Drosophila melanogaster Chaetae 0.5374” s 29 gen. 0 I 1 Mather (1953)
Drosophila melanogaster Chaetae - 0.5574Q s 40 0 1 1 Thoday (1958)
Drosophila melanogaster Chaetae 0.023(0.018)9’ 0.2563 P 30-31 0 0 1 Reeve (I 960)
Drosophila melanogaster Chaetae 0.019(0.006)“” 0.5519 s 5, IO gen. 0 I I Reeve (1960)
Drosophila melanogaster Chaetae - 0.7337”’ s 41 gen. 0 1 1 Beardmore (I 965)
Drosophila melanogaster Chaetae 0.0472’“’ S IO gen. I I I Tuinstra et al.
(1990)
Drosophila melanogasrer Chaetae 0.0325 P I4 lines I 1 I Scheiner et al.
(1991)
Drosophila falleni Chaetae 0.26“” 0.2920 P 49 I 0 I Polak and Jaenike,
unpubl.
Panorpa oulgaris Fore-wing length I .072*(0.436)‘s’ 0.4814 P 21 sires I 0 I Thornhill and
Sauer (1992)
Gasterosteus aculeatus Gill rakers 0.63*(0.16)‘@ 0.3763 P 95 fam. 0 1 I Hagen (1973)
Salmo gairdneri Meristic 0.02”’ 0.2699 P I4 fam. 0 I I Leary et al. (1985) s
Oncorhynchus mykiss Meristic 0.017(0.015)‘~’ 0.0522 P 14, 8 fam. 0 I I Leary et al. (1992) s
Lacerta vivipara Scales 0.0706’9’ P 94 1 0 I Chenuil (1991) F
Hirundo rustica 8 traits 0.3070 P 57 I 0 I Moller (1994, g
a
unpubl.)
Homo sapiens Dermatoglyphics -o.04752” P 125 0 0 I Holt (1954) 2
Homo sapiens Dental traits o.035*2’ P II3 0 0 I Bailit et al. (1970) 3
Homo sapiens Dermatoglyphics 0.312*(0.040)” 0.1540 P 150 fam. I 0 I Singh (I 970) E
Homo sapiens Dermatoglyphics 0.1 6*(0.04)24’ 0.0797 P, Sib 711 0 0 1 Mi and Rashad
(1977)
Homo sapiens Dermatoglyphics 0.0698’5) P, Sib 445 I 0 1 Bener (1979)
Homo sapiens Dermatoglyphics 0.0917”” P, Sib 423 1 0 I Bener and Erk
(1979)
Homo sapiens Dental traits 0.0025”’ Sib 32 1 0 I Townsend and
Brown (1980)
Homo sapiens Dental traits 0.03(0.03)=’ 0.0150’ Sib 75 1 0 1 Corruccini and
Potter (1981)
Homo sapiens Dermatoglyphics 0.28(0.07)29’ 0.2250 Sib 301 1 0 1 Loesch and
Martin (1982)
Homo sapiens Dermatoglyphics 0.320*(0.200)‘“’ 0.3008 P 221 1 0 1 Martin et al. (I 982)
Homo sapiens Morphology - 0.2240”’ P 276 1 0 1 Livshits and
Kobyliansky (1989)
Macaca mulatta Skeleton 0.350(0.143)~2’ 0.0647’ P 133 0 0 1 McGrath et al.
(1984)
Mus musculus Dental traits 0.6006’ s 11 gen. I I 1 Leamy (1986)
Mus musculus Skeletal traits 0.1008 P 200 1 0 0 Parker and
Leamy (1991)
Study method: P - estimate based on parent-offspring regression, S estimate based on selection experiment, Sib estimate based on sib analysis.
FA test: test for fluctuating asymmetry (whether left-minus-right character values were random with respect to side, and/or whether frequency
distributions of left-minus-right character values were normal with a mean value of zero) is marked with 1, while an absence of a test is marked
with 0.
Internal validity: I -high, O&low.
External validity: 1 -high, OGlow.
*: estimate significantly (P < 0.05) different from zero.
Notes:
‘r Mean (SE) of ten heritability estimates from Table 2.
‘) Mean (SE) of two heritability estimates from p. 89.
‘) A heritability estimate for father-offspring.
4, Mean of two correlation coefficients of the range reported p. 90.
” A heritability estimate reported p. 712.
6, Mean of seven correlation coefficients reported in Table 5.
‘) Mean effect size of eight regression coefficients calculated for low and high lines in Figs, 4 and 10.
‘) Mean effect size of seven regression coefficients calculated for high and low lines and F, lines in Table 3.
Table 1. (continued).
Table 2. Additive genetic coefficients of variation (CV, ) for fluctuating asymmetry and character size.
Discussion
Parsons, 1990; review in Moller and Swaddle, 1997). An inherent assumption in the
use of the level of fluctuating asymmetry in assessment of environmental conditions
is that developmental stability per se does not have a heritable basis. The generally
small magnitude of the additive genetic variance component of developmental
stability suggests that fluctuating asymmetry may remain a reliable indicator of the
level of environmental stress. Since directional selection increases the level of
fluctuating asymmetry, characters subject to a regime of intense directional selec-
tion may be more suitable for assessment of environmental stress.
In conclusion, developmental stability of morphological characters demonstrate a
statistically significant additive genetic component, and this has important evolu-
tionary implications. Many traits may not be developmentally stable because of
prevailing directional or fluctuating selection regimes.
Acknowledgements
References
Alatalo, R. V., J. Hoglund and A. Lundberg. 1988. Sexual selection models and patterns of variation in
tail ornaments in birds. Biol. J. Linn. Sot. 34: 3633374.
Arnqvist, G. and D. Wooster. 1995. Meta-analysis: Synthesizing research findings in ecology and
evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 2366240.
Bagchi, S. and S. Iyama. 1983. Radiation induced developmental instability in Arabidopsis thaliuna.
Theor. Appl. Genet. 65: 85592.
Bailit, H. L., P. L. Workman, J. D. Niswander and C. J. MacLean. 1970. Dental asymmetry as an
indicator of genetic and environmental conditions in human populations. Human Biol. 42:
6266638.
Beardmore, J. A. 1965. A genetic basis for lateral bias, pp. 75583. In Mutation in Populations.
Symposium on the Mutational Process. Prague, Czechoslovakia.
Bener, A. 1979. Sex differences and bilateral asymmetry in dermatoglyphic pattern elements on the
fingertips. Ann. Hum. Genet., Lond. 42: 3333342.
Bener, A. and F. C. Erk. 1979. The analysis of whorls on specific fingertips with respect to sex, bilateral
asymmetry, and genetic relationship. Ann. Hum. Biol. 6: 3499356.
Castro, A. J., A. Martin-Alganza, M. D. Lopez-Leon, J. Cabrero and J. P. M. Camacho. MS.
Fluctuating asymmetry as a measure of developmental instability in a grasshopper and a locust.
Chakraborty, R., R. M. Cerda, R. M. Flores, G. K. Kshatriya, S-C. Li and L. Jin. 1991. Familial
correlations of inter-digital palmar ridge counts, fluctuating asymmetry, and thair adaptive
significance. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl. 12: 58.
Chenuil, C. 1991. Asymmetrie du nombre d’ecailles ventrales chez le lezard vivipare. MSc thesis, ENS,
Paris.
Clarke, G. M. and J. A. McKenzie. 1987. Developmental stability of insecticide resistant phenotypes in
blowfly; a result of canalizing natural selection. Nature, Lond. 325: 3455346.
14 Mailer and Thornhill
Soule, M. E. 1982. Allomeric variation. 1. The theory and some consequences. Am. Nat. 120: 751-764.
Sot&, M. E. and J. Cuzin-Roudy. 1982. Allomeric variation. 2. Developmental instability of extreme
phenotypes. Am. Nat. 120: 765-786.
Sumner, F. B. and R. R. Huestis. 1921. Bilateral asymmetry and its relation to certain problems of
genetics. Genetics 6: 44-485.
Thoday, J. M. 1958. Homeostasis in a selection experiment. Heredity 12: 401-415.
Thornhill, R. and K. P. Sauer. 1992. Genetic sire effects on the fighting ability of sons and daughters
and mating success of sons in the scorpionfly (Punorpa vulgaris). Anim. Behav. 43: 255-264.
Townsend, G. C. and T. Brown. 1980. Dental asymmetry in Austrahan aboriginals. Human Biol. 52:
661-673.
Tuinstra, E. J., G. de Jong and W. Scharloo. 1990. Lack of response to family selection for directional
asymmetry in Drosophila melunogaster: Left and right sides are not distinguished in development.
Proc. R. Sot. Lond. B 241: 1466152.
Van Valen, L. 1962. A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution 16: 125-142.
Wolf, F. M. 1986. Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research studies. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Zakharov, V. M. 1989. Future prospects for population phenogenetics. Soviet Sci. Rev. F. Physiol.
General Biol. 4: l-79.