Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Analysis of a genetically structured variance heterogeneity model using the Box–Cox transformation

  • YE YANG (a1), OLE F. CHRISTENSEN (a1) and DANIEL SORENSEN (a1)

Summary

Over recent years, statistical support for the presence of genetic factors operating at the level of the environmental variance has come from fitting a genetically structured heterogeneous variance model to field or experimental data in various species. Misleading results may arise due to skewness of the marginal distribution of the data. To investigate how the scale of measurement affects inferences, the genetically structured heterogeneous variance model is extended to accommodate the family of Box–Cox transformations. Litter size data in rabbits and pigs that had previously been analysed in the untransformed scale were reanalysed in a scale equal to the mode of the marginal posterior distribution of the Box–Cox parameter. In the rabbit data, the statistical evidence for a genetic component at the level of the environmental variance is considerably weaker than that resulting from an analysis in the original metric. In the pig data, the statistical evidence is stronger, but the coefficient of correlation between additive genetic effects affecting mean and variance changes sign, compared to the results in the untransformed scale. The study confirms that inferences on variances can be strongly affected by the presence of asymmetry in the distribution of data. We recommend that to avoid one important source of spurious inferences, future work seeking support for a genetic component acting on environmental variation using a parametric approach based on normality assumptions confirms that these are met.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Analysis of a genetically structured variance heterogeneity model using the Box–Cox transformation
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Analysis of a genetically structured variance heterogeneity model using the Box–Cox transformation
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Analysis of a genetically structured variance heterogeneity model using the Box–Cox transformation
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. email: Sorensen@humo.dk

References

Hide All
Ansel, J., Bottin, H., Rodriguez-Beltran, C., Damon, C., Nagarajan, M., Fehrmann, S., François, J. & Yvert, G. (2008). Cell-to-cell stochastic variation in gene expression is a complex genetic trait. PLoS Genetics 4, doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000049.
Argente, M., Santacreu, M., Climent, A., Bolet, G. & Blasco, A. (1997). Divergent selection for Uterine Capacity in Rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 75, 23502354.
Bickel, P. J. & Doksum, K. A. (1981). An analysis of transformations revisited. Journal of the American Statistical Association 76, 296311.
Box, G. E. P. & Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 26, 211252.
Box, G. E. P. & Cox, D. R. (1982). An analysis of transformations revisited, rebutted. Journal of the American Statistical Association 77, 209210.
De Oliveira, V., Kedem, B. & Short, D. (1997). Bayesian prediction of transformed Gaussian fields. Journal of the American Statistical Association 92, 14221433.
De Oliveira, V., Fokianos, K. & Kedem, B. (2002). Bayesian transformed Gaussian random fields. Japanese Journal of Applied Statistics 31, 175187.
Falconer, D. S. & Mackay, T. F. C. (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman.
Foulley, J. L. & Quaas, R. L. (1995). Heterogeneous variances in Gaussian linear mixed models. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 27, 211228.
Foulley, J. L., San Cristobal, M., Gianola, D. & Im, S. (1992). Marginal likelihood and Bayesian approaches to the analysis of heterogeneous residual variances in mixed linear Gaussian models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 13, 291305.
Gelfand, A. E. (1996). Model determination using sampling-based methods. In Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice (ed. Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S. & Spiegelhalter, D. J.), pp. 145161. London: Chapman and Hall.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H. & Rubin, D. (2004). Bayesian Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall.
Gianola, D., Im, S., Fernando, R. L. & Foulley, J. L. (1990). Mixed model methodology and the Box-Cox theory of transformations. In Advances in Statistical Methods for Genetic Improvement of Livestock (ed. Gianola, D. & Hammond, K.), pp. 1540. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.
Gianola, D., Foulley, J. L., Fernando, R. L., Henderson, C. R. & Weigel, K. A. (1992). Estimation of heterogeneous variances using empirical Bayes methods: theoretical considerations. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 28052823.
Gutierrez, J. P., Nieto, B., Piqueras, P., Ibáñez, N. & Salgado, C. (2006). Genetic parameters for canalisation analysis of litter size and litter weight at birth in mice. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 38, 445462.
Hill, W. G. & Zhang, X. S. (2004). Effects on phenotypic variability of directional selection arising through genetic differences in residual variability. Genetical Research 83, 121132.
Hinkley, D. V. & Runger, G. (1984). The analysis of transformed data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79, 302320.
Ibáñez, N., Varona, L., Sorensen, D. & Noguera, J. L. (2007). A study of heterogeneity of environmental variance for slaughter weight in pigs. Animal 2, 1926.
Ibáñez, N., Sorensen, D., Waagepetersen, R. & Blasco, A. (2008). Selection for environmental variation: a statistical analysis and power calculations to detect response. Genetics 180, 22092226.
Ibe, S. N. & Hill, W. G. (1988). Transformation of poultry egg production data to improve normality, homoscedasticity and linearity of regression. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 105, 231240.
Lee, J. C., Lin, T. I., Lee, K. J. & Hsu, Y. L. (2005). Bayesian analysis of Box–Cox transformed linear mixed models with ARMA(p,q) dependence. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 133, 435451.
Mackay, T. F. C. & Lyman, R. F. (2005). Drosophila bristles and the nature of quantitative genetic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360, 15131527.
Mulder, H. A., Bijma, P. & Hill, W. G. (2007). Prediction of breeding values and selection responses with genetic heterogeneity of environmental variance. Genetics 175, 18951910.
Mulder, H. A., Bijma, P. & Hill, W. G. (2008). Selection for uniformity in livestock by exploiting genetic heterogeneity of residual variance. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 40, 3759.
Ordas, B., Malvar, R. A. & Hill, W. G. (2008). Genetic variation and quantitative trait loci associated developmental stability and the environmental correlation between traits in maize. Genetical Research 90, 385395.
Ros, M., Sorensen, D., Waagepetersen, R., Dupont-Nivet, M., SanCristobal, M., Bonnet, J.-C. & Mallard, J. (2004). Evidence for genetic control of adult weight plasticity in the snail Helix aspersa. Genetics 168, 20892097.
Rowe, S., White, I., Avendano, S. & Hill, W. G. (2006). Genetic heterogeneity of residual variance in broiler chickens. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 38, 617635.
San Cristobal, M., Foulley, J. L. & Manfredi, E. (1993). Inference about multiplicative heteroscedastic components of variance in a mixed linear Gaussian model with an application to beef cattle breeding. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 25, 330.
San Cristobal-Gaudy, M., Elsen, J. M., Bodin, L. & Chevalet, C. (1998). Prediction of the response to a selection for canalisation of a continuous trait in animal breeding. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 30, 423451.
Solomon, P & Taylor, J. (1999). Orthogonality and transformations in variance components models. Biometrika 86(2), 289300.
Sorensen, D. & Waagepetersen, R. (2003). Normal linear models with genetically structured residual variance heterogeneity: a case study. Genetical Research 82, 207222.
Sorensen, D., Vernersen, A. & Andersen, S. (2000). Bayesian analysis of response to selection: a case study using litter size in Danish Yorkshire pigs. Genetics 156, 283295.
Wolc, A., White, I., Avendano, S. & Hill, W. G. (2009). Genetic variability in residual variation in body weight and conformation scores in broiler chicken. Poultry Science 88, 11561161.
Zhang, X. & Hill, W. (2005). Evolution of the environmental component of phenotypic variance: stabilizing selection in changing environments and the cost of homogeneity. Evolution 59, 12371244.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed