Here is perhaps the most famous opera aria of all “Largo al factotum” (i.e. Figaro, Figaro, Figaro) from The Barber of Seville by Giaochino Rossini. I chose this version from the Netherlands because it had subtitles.
Nature Genetics recently published a meta-analysis of virtually all twin studies over the last half century:
Tinca J C Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A de Leeuw, Patrick F Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M Visscher & Danielle Posthuma. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics 47,702–709 (2015) doi:10.1038/ng.3285.
One of the authors, Peter Visscher, is perhaps the most influential and innovative thinker in human genetics at this moment and this paper continues his string of insightful results. The paper examined close to eighteen thousand traits in almost three thousand publications, representing fifteen million twins. The main goal was to use all the available data to recompute the heritability estimates for all of these traits. The first thing they found was that the traits were highly skewed towards psychiatric and cognitive phenotypes. People who study heritability are mostly interested in mental function. They then checked to see if there was any publication bias where people only published results with high heritability. They used multiple methods but they basically checked if the predictions of effect size was correlated with sample size and they found none. Their most interesting result, which I will comment on more below was that the average heritability across all traits was 0.488, which means that on average genes and environment contribute equally. However, heritability does vary widely across domains where eye, ear, nose and throat function are most heritable, and social values were least heritable. The largest influence of shared environmental effects was for bodily functions, infections, and social values. Hence, staying healthy depends on your environment, which is why a child who may be stunted in their impoverished village can thrive if moved to Minnesota. It also shows why attitudes on social issues can and do change. Finally, the paper addressed two important technical issues which I will expand on below – 1) previous studies may be underestimating heritability and 2) heritability is mostly additive.
Heritability is the fraction of the variance of a trait due to genetic variance. Here is a link to a previous post explaining heritability although as my colleague Vipul Periwal points out, it is full of words and has no equations. Briefly, there are two types of heritability – broad sense and narrow sense. Broad sense heritability, , is the total genetic variance divided by the phenotypic variance. Narrow sense heritability is the linear or additive genetic variance divided by the phenotypic variance. A linear regression of the standardized trait of the children against the average of the standardized trait of the parents is an estimate of the narrow sense heritability. It captures the linear part while the broad sense heritability includes the linear and nonlinear contributions, which include dominance and gene-gene effects (epistasis). To estimate (narrow-sense) heritability from twins, Polderman et al. used what is called Falconer’s formula and took twice the difference in the correlation of a trait between identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins (). The idea being that the any difference between identical twins must be environmental (nongenetic), while the difference between dyzgotic twins is half genetic and environmental, so the difference between the two is half genetic. They also used another Falconer formula to estimate the shared environmental variance, which is , since this “cancels out” the genetic part. Their paper then boiled down to doing a meta-analysis of and . Meta-analysis is a nuanced topic but it boils down to weighting results from different studies by some estimate of how large the errors are. They used the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects approach, which is implemented in R. The Falconer formulas estimate the narrow sense heritability but many of the previous studies were interested in nonadditive genetic effects as well. Typically, what they did was to use either an ACE (Additive, common environmental, environmental) or an ADE (Additive, dominance, environmental) model. They decided on which model to use by looking at the sign of . If it is positive then they used ACE and if it is negative they used ADE. Polderman et al. showed that this decision algorithm biases the heritability estimate downward.
If the heritability of a trait is mostly additive then you would expect that and they found that this was observed in 69% of the traits. Of the top 20 traits, 8 traits showed nonadditivity and these mostly related to behavioral and cognitive functions. Of these eight, 7 showed that the correlation between monozygotic twins was smaller than twice that of dizygotic twins, which implies that nonlinear genetic effects tend to work against each other. This makes sense to me since it would seem that as you start to accumulate additive variants that increase a phenotype you will start to hit rate limiting effects that will tend to dampen these effects. In other words, it seems plausible that the major nonlinearity in genetics is a saturation effect.
The most striking result was that the average heritability across all of the traits was about 0.5. Is an average value of 0.5 obvious or deep? I honestly do not know. When I told theoretical neuroscientist Fred Hall this result, he thought it was obvious and should be expected from maximum entropy considerations, which would assume that the distribution of would be uniform or at least symmetric about 0.5. This sounds plausible but as I have asserted many times – biology is the result of an exponential amplification of exponentially unlikely events. Traits that are heritable are by definition those that have variation across the population. Some traits, like the number of limbs, have no variance but are entirely genetic. Other traits, like your favourite sports team, are highly variable but not genetic even though there is a high probability that your favourite team will be the same as your parent’s or sibling’s favourite team. Traits that are highly heritable include height and cognitive function. Personality on the other hand, is not highly heritable. One of the biggest puzzles in population genetics is why there is any variability in a trait to start with. Natural selection prunes out variation exponentially fast so if any gene is selected for, it should be fixed very quickly. Hence, it seems equally plausible that traits with high variability would have low heritability. The studied traits were also biased towards mental function and different domains have different heritabilities. Thus, if the traits were sampled differently, the averaged heritability could easily deviate from 0.5. Thus, I think the null hypothesis should be that the value is a coincidence but I’m open to a deeper explanation.
A software tool to investigate these results can be found here. An enterprising student could do some subsampling of the traits to see how likely 0.5 would hold up if our historical interests in phenotypes were different.
Thanks go to Rick Gerkin for suggesting this topic.
We have a new paper out in the World Health Organization Bulletin looking at the association between an increase in food supply and average weight gain:
Stefanie Vandevijvere, Carson C Chow, Kevin D Hall, Elaine Umali & Boyd A Swinburn. Increased food energy supply as a major driver of the obesity epidemic: a global analysis, Bulletin of the WHO 2015;93:446–456.
This paper extends the analysis we did in our paper on the US food supply to the rest of the world. In the US paper, we showed that an increase in food supply more than explains the increase in average body weight over the duration of the obesity epidemic, as predicted by our experimentally validated body weight model. I had been hoping to do the analysis on the rest of the world and was very happy that my colleagues in Australia and New Zealand were able to collate the global data, which was not a simple undertaking.
What we found was almost completely consistent with the hypothesis that food is the main driver of obesity everywhere. In more than half of the countries (45/83), the increase in food supply more than explains the increase in weight. In other mostly less developed nations (11/83), an increase in food was associated with an increase in body weight although it was not sufficient to explain all of the weight gain. Five countries had a decrease in both food and body weight. Five countries had decreases in food supply and an increase in body weight and finally three countries (Iran, Rwanda, and South Africa) had an increase in food but a decrease in body weight.
Now by formal logic, only one of these observations is inconsistent with the food push hypothesis. Recall that if A implies B then the only logical conclusion you can draw is that not B implies not A. Hence, if we hypothesize that increased food causes increased obesity then that means if we see no obesity then that implies no increase in food. Thus only three countries defied our hypothesis and they were Iran, Rwanda, and South Africa where obtaining accurate data is difficult.
The five countries that had a decrease in food but an increase in body weight do not dispute our hypothesis. They just show that increased food is not necessary, which we know is true. Decreased activity could also lead to increased weight and it is possible that this played a role in these countries and the 11 others where food was not sufficient to explain all of the weight increase.
I was already pretty convinced that food was the main driver of the obesity epidemic and this result puts it to rest for me. This is the main reason that I don’t believe that the obesity epidemic is a health problem per se. It is a social and economic problem.
Tchaikovksy’s 1812 Overture played by the Boston Pops with conductor Keith Lockhart. The piece was written to commemorate the defeat of Napolean’s forces by Russia but now it’s an American 4th of July tradition. How’s that for globalization?
Here is a short essay by theoretical physicist John Hopfield of the Hopfield net and kinetic proofreading fame among many other things (hat tip to Steve Hsu). I think much of the hostility of biologists towards physicists and mathematicians that Hopfield talks about have dissipated over the past 40 years, especially amongst the younger set. In fact these days, a good share of Cell, Science, and Nature papers have some computational or mathematical component. However, the trend is towards brute force big data type analysis rather than the simple elegant conceptual advances that Hopfield was famous for. In the essay, Hopfield gives several anecdotes and summarizes them with pithy words of advice. The one that everyone should really heed and one I try to always follow is “Do your best to make falsifiable predictions. They are the distinction between physics and ‘Just So Stories.’”
Here is the song “Let it go” from the Disney movie “Frozen” performed by Idina Menzel. This is not “classical music” per se, although there is a long tradition of classical music in films. However, the real reason I picked it is because it may be the first and only use of the word “fractal” in a pop song.
When simulating any system with randomness, sampling from a probability distribution is necessary. Usually, you’ll just need to sample from a normal or uniform distribution and thus can use a built-in random number generator. However, for the time when a built-in function does not exist for your distribution, here’s a simple algorithm.
Let’s say you have some probability density function (PDF) on some domain and you want to generate a set of numbers that follows this probability law. This is actually very simple to do although those new to the field may not know how. Generally, any programming language or environment has a built-in random number generator for real numbers (up to machine precision) between 0 and 1. Thus, what you want to do is to find a way to transform these random numbers, which are uniformly distributed on the domain to the random numbers you want. The first thing to notice is that the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for your PDF, is a function that ranges over the interval , since it is a probability. Thus, the algorithm is: 1) generate a random number between o and 1, and 2) plug it into the inverse of . The numbers you get out satisfy your distribution (i.e. ).
If you’re lucky enough to have a closed form expression of the inverse of the CDF then you can just plug the random numbers directly into your function, otherwise you have to do a little more work. If you don’t have a closed form expression for the CDF then you can just solve the equation for . Newton’s method will generally converge very quickly. You just loop over the command x = x – (P(x)-r)/rho(x) until you reach the tolerance you want. If you don’t have a closed form expression of the CDF then the simplest way is construct the CDF numerically by computing the N dimensional vector , for some discretization parameter such that . If the PDF is defined on the entire real line then you’ll have to decide on what you want the minimum to be. If the distribution has thin tails, then you just need to go out until the probability is smaller than your desired error tolerance. You then find the index such that is closest to (i.e. in Julia you could use findmin(abs(v[j]-r))) and your random number is .
Here is why the algorithm works. What we are doing is transforming the PDF of , which we can call , to the desired PDF for . The transformation we use is . Thus, or . Now, is just 1 on the interval and is the PDF of as expected. Thus, inverting the CDF for uniform random numbers always gives you a new set of random numbers that satisfies the new PDF. Trivial perhaps, but really useful.