Biomedical subjects

William L Coventry

Publications and source records attributed to William L Coventry.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Widespread evidence for non-additive genetic variation in Cloninger's and Eysenck's personality dimensions using a twin plus sibling design.

Studies using the classical twin design often conclude that most genetic variation underlying personality is additive in nature. However, studies analyzing only twins are very limited in their ability to detect non-additive genetic variation and are unable to detect sources of variation unique to twins, which can mask non-additive genetic variation. The current study assessed 9672 MZ and DZ twin individuals and 3241 of their siblings to investigate the environmental and genetic architecture underlying eight dimensions of personality: four from Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire and four from Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory. Broad-sense heritability estimates from best-fitting models were two to three times greater than the narrow-sense heritability estimates for Harm Avoidance, Novelty Seeking, Reward Dependence, Persistence, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. This genetic non-additivity could be due to dominance, additive-by-additive epistasis, or to additive genetic effects combined with higher-order epistasis. Environmental effects unique to twins were detected for both Lie and Psychoticism but accounted for little overall variation. Our results illustrate the increased sensitivity afforded by extending the classical twin design to include siblings, and may provide clues to the evolutionary origins of genetic variation underlying personality.

Australia↗

PubMed2005

Quantifying and addressing parameter indeterminacy in the classical twin design.

The classical twin design (CTD) is the most common method used to infer genetic and environmental causes of phenotypic variation. As has long been acknowledged, different combinations of the common environment/assortative mating, and additive, dominant, and epistatic genetic effects can lead to the same observed covariation between twin pairs, meaning that there is an inherent indeterminacy in parameter estimates arising from the CTD. The CTD circumvents this indeterminacy by assuming that higher-order epistasis is negligible and that the effects of either dominant genetic variation or the common environment are nonexistent. These assumptions, however, lead to consistent biases in parameter estimation. The current paper quantifies these biases and discusses alternative strategies for dealing with parameter indeterminacy in twin designs. One strategy is to model the similarity among other relatives in addition to twins (extended twin-family designs), which reduces but does not eliminate indeterminacy in parameter estimates. A more general strategy, applicable to all twin designs, is to present the parameter indeterminacy explicitly, as in a graph. Presenting the space of mathematically equally likely parameter values is important, not only because it aids the proper interpretation of twin design findings, but also because it keeps behavioral geneticists themselves mindful of methodological assumptions that can easily go unexamined.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

Estimating the extent of parameter bias in the classical twin design: a comparison of parameter estimates from extended twin-family and classical twin designs.

The classical twin design (CTD) circumvents parameter indeterminacy by assuming (1) negligible higher-order epistasis; and (2) either nonadditive genetic or common environmental effects are nonexistent, creating two potential sources of bias (Eaves et al., 1978; Grayson, 1989). Because the extended twin-family design (ETFD) uses many more unique covariance observations to estimate parameters, common environmental and nonadditive genetic parameters can be simultaneously estimated. The ETFD thereby corrects for what is likely to be the largest of the two sources of bias in CTD parameter estimates (Keller & Coventry, 2005). In the current paper, we assess the extent of this and other potential sources of bias in the CTD by comparing all published ETFD parameter estimates to CTD parameter estimates derived from the same data. CTD estimates of the common environment were lower than ETFD estimates of the common environment for some phenotypes, but for other phenotypes (e.g., stature in females and certain social attitudes), what appeared as the common environment was resolved to be assortative mating in the ETFD. On average, CTD estimates of nonadditive genetic factors were 43% lower, and additive genetic factors 63% higher, than ETFD estimates. However, broad-sense heritability estimates from the CTD were only 18% higher than ETFD estimates, highlighting that the CTD is useful for estimating broad-sense but not narrow-sense heritability. These results suggest that CTD estimates can be misleading when interpreted literally, but useful, albeit coarse, when interpreted properly.

Genetic Variation↗