I don't remember that statement in particular but I may have just meant with no 
reasonable assumptions. Perhaps I meant if one could assume that variation at 
each landmark could be analyzed separately - which it cannot because random 
variation at one landmark will change the alignment at other landmarks and thus 
the apparent variation and covariation at other landmarks. Other way would be 
to assume you knew the true alignment of the specimens and it was not 
influenced by random variation. __________________F. James Rohlf, Distinguished 
Prof. Emeritus Dept. Anthropology and Ecology & Evolution Stonybrook University
-------- Original message --------From: "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]> Date: 12/22/22  4:30 AM  (GMT-10:00) To: Morphmet 
<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MORPHMET2] Re: Is it possible to 
calculate point-wise heritability based on Procrustes shape coordinates I 
happen to read this thread 3 years ago and got interested in Prof. Jim's 
statement that "

It was also asked about computing heritability “for each landmark”. That would 
be difficult without some strong assumptions."I understand there has been 
discussion in this forum about the inappropriateness of analysis of landmarks 
one at a time after GPA. However, I am curious to learn under what "strong 
assumption" could we perform analysis "one landmark at a time"?Shape by 
definition is the configuration of ALL landmarks after GPA. This means one 
should never analyze landmarks one at a time with the slightest hope that 
Procrustes shape coordinates for a single landmark represent local shape 
information. I think understanding the exceptional condition where one could 
analyze landmarks one at a time helps me gain deeper understanding of this 
issue.Thank you.KieranOn Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 9:49:38 PM UTC+8 
[email protected] wrote:Dear Prof. Houle,Thank you very much for your interest 
in my questions. My dataset contains 3D body shape data of people from peopole 
of two ethnicities. Based on such phenotypic data, I wish to estimate 
population differentiation and selection differential/gradient, and total 
predicted response to selection. I agree with you that estimation of these 
quantities requires phenotypic and additive genetic variance-covariance matrix 
rather than heritability. I have only phenotypic data at the moment, although I 
will obtain the genetic data sometime later.I understand that one approach to 
estimate the G matrix is to multiply the P matrix by an estimated value of 
heritability. Implicit in this approach is the assumption of proportionality. 
Am I right that it is impossible to estimate G in the absence of genetic data, 
apart from the approach above?Regards,PatrickOn Wednesday, 31 July 2019 
03:10:31 UTC+8, dhoule  wrote:
    First of all, quantitative genetic concepts are defined relative
      to a reference or base population.  If you are mixing individuals
      from a wide geographic area, what is your population that you are
      making inferences about?
    Second, you can't do any quantitative genetics unless you have
      both 'unrelated' (relative to the defined reference population),
      and individuals with known degrees of relationship.   Do you have
      genomic data on these individuals? 
    
    If all you have are individuals of unknown relationship, all you
      can do is calculate the P matrix, then make some very strong
      assumption - like heritability is 0.3, and get a sort of proxy G
      matrix.  This might be better than nothing.
    Why do you want to know the heritability?  To predict the
      magnitude of changes,  you need the genetic variance and
      covariances, rather than heritabilities.  
    
    David Houle
    On 7/30/2019 11:59 AM, lv xiao wrote:
    
    
      
      A huge thank you to all who have contributed to my
        questions. It did took me a while to read the articles kindly
        suggested. I now have some basic understanding of heritability,
        selection differential, selection gradient, etc.
        
        
        I have 3D data on body shape of Europeans and Africans and
          I wish to obtain estimates of heritability and visualize shape
          changes associated with selection differential and response to
          selection. The first thing I would like to do is to estimate
          the additive genetic variace-covariance matrix G, and
          the phenotypic variance-covariance matrix P. Software such as
          ACE and Wombat have been used for such purpose. The essence of
          this seems to be a multivariate mixed-effect model where the
          dependent variable is the shape data in matrix and the
          independent variables consist of both fixed and random
          effects. However, my dataset is not related to full-sibling
          design and I would like to ask how could I derive matrix P and
          G from my phenotypic data? 
        
        
        Once these two matrices are estimated, I will be able to
          performe further analyses on my own. Thank you.
        
          On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 21:12:13 UTC+8, lv xiao wrote:
          
            Dear all,
              
              
              Heritability is traditionally estimated based on
                genetic data. However, it has also been estimated from
                phenotypic data. In this case, twin comparison is the
                common study design. My question is if I have a sample
                of indenpendent individuals
                whose 3D shape data are available, is it possible to calculate 
heritability based on
                    Procrustes shape coordinates for overall
                shape and for each landmark?
              
              
              Several studies have used the Sequential Oligogenic
                Linkage Analysis Routines (SOLAR) package for estimation
                of heritability of craniofacial trait based on
                independent samples (J. Anat.(2009) 214, pp19–35; THE
                ANATOMICAL RECORD 298:1535–1547 (2015)). However, these
                traits are linear distances, which are quite different
                from "shape" based on Procrustes shape coordinates. 
              
              
              Thanks
            
          
        
      
      -- 
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
      Groups "Morphmet" group.
      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
      send an email to [email protected].
      To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/morphmet2/6d5d4ad1-936f-4a2a-a33b-3445a59a6373%40googlegroups.com.
    
    -- 
David Houle
Department of Biological Science
Florida State University
319 Stadium Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4295

850-339-5670
http://bio.fsu.edu/~dhoule/

  



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Morphmet" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/morphmet2/aab303e0-2433-41c1-9175-b3351fdb2c04n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Morphmet" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/morphmet2/63bbce37.170a0220.9fd95.7625%40mx.google.com.

Reply via email to