Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits.

D Houle1

  • 1Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

Genetics
|January 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Monitoring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons deposition in eastern Canada using moss biomonitoring: A large-scale study of spatial patterns and environmental influences.

The Science of the total environment·2026
Same author

Key factors influencing Hg levels and trends in unperturbed oligotrophic temperate and boreal lakes.

Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)·2024
Same author

Northeastern North America as a potential refugium for boreal forests in a warming climate.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2016
Same author

Evolution of reduced post-copulatory molecular interactions in Drosophila populations lacking sperm competition.

Journal of evolutionary biology·2015
Same author

Estimating sampling error of evolutionary statistics based on genetic covariance matrices using maximum likelihood.

Journal of evolutionary biology·2015
Same author

Response of canopy nitrogen uptake to a rapid decrease in bulk nitrate deposition in two eastern Canadian boreal forests.

Oecologia·2014
Same journal

Coexistence of piRNA and KZFP defense systems: Evolutionary dynamics of layered defense against transposable elements.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Creation and manipulation of bipartite expression transgenes in C. elegans using phiC31 recombinase.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Inherited long telomeres induce a genome-wide transcriptional response in budding yeast.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Adaptive Dynamics of Quantitative Traits in a Steadily Changing Environment.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Functional Landscape of Zebrafish Gonadotropins and Receptors: A Comprehensive Genetic Analysis.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Synergistic actions of Nup43 and Myosin VI drive actin cone assembly during Drosophila spermiogenesis.

Genetics·2026
See all related articles

Standardized measures of genetic variation, like the additive genetic coefficient of variation, are better for comparing evolvability and genetic variability than heritability. Fitness-related traits show higher variation, contrary to previous heritability-based conclusions.

Area of Science:

  • Quantitative genetics
  • Evolutionary biology
  • Heritability studies

Background:

  • Comparing genetic variation in quantitative traits serves two main purposes: assessing evolvability and understanding forces maintaining genetic variability.
  • Traditional comparisons often use narrow-sense heritability, which is frequently inappropriate for these purposes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate appropriate measures for comparing genetic variation in quantitative traits for evolvability and variability.
  • To investigate the relationship between trait-specific selection and levels of genetic and nongenetic variation.

Main Methods:

  • A meta-analysis of 842 published estimates of trait means, variances, and heritabilities.
  • Calculation and comparison of additive genetic coefficients of variation and heritabilities across different selection regimes.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Standardized measures, such as the additive genetic coefficient of variation, are more suitable for comparing evolvability and variability than heritability.
  • Traits closely related to fitness exhibit higher additive genetic and nongenetic variability when assessed by coefficients of variation, contrasting with heritability-based findings.
  • Low heritability in fitness traits is attributed to high residual variation, potentially due to numerous influencing factors or lack of stabilizing selection.

Conclusions:

  • The additive genetic coefficient of variation is a more appropriate comparative measure for evolvability and genetic variability.
  • Fitness traits possess higher genetic and residual variability, challenging previous conclusions drawn from heritability.
  • Researchers must report trait means and variances to enable appropriate calculations of genetic variation measures.