Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:40:32.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Body Measurements of Belgian Twins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

E. Dupae ,
E. Defrise-Gussenhoven  and
C. Susanne
E. Dupae
Affiliation:
Center for Biomathematics, Free University of Brussels
E. Defrise-Gussenhoven*
Affiliation:
Center for Biomathematics, Free University of Brussels
C. Susanne
Affiliation:
Center for Biomathematics, Free University of Brussels
*
BIMA, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2 Pleinlaan, 1050 Brussel, Belgium

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A study of 100 MZ and 67 DZ twin pairs aged 18 to 25 years has shown a highly significant genetic contribution to the following measurements: standing and sitting height; height on tragus; arm length; biacromial, biiliac, and bitrochanteric diameter; weight; circumference of thigh and of upper arm relaxed and contracted; and head length and breadth. The twins were brought up together and of the same socioeconomical, geographical, ethnical, and cultural origin. Zygosity diagnosis was based on 22 to 26 blood groups. The means of the measurements were smaller in MZ than in DZ twins, some of them significantly so. The intraclass correlation coefficients of the MZ cotwins were all significant and greater than those of the DZ cotwins. In families of same geographical origin, sib-sib correlations were somewhat smaller than those of the DZ cotwins, but for the three diameters of the body the order was reversed.

Keywords

HeightWeightBody measurementsTwins
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 31 , Issue 3-4: Special Issue on Twin Pregnancies , July 1982 , pp. 139 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1982

References

REFERENCES

1. Christian, JC, Won Kang, K, Norton, JA (1974): Choice of an estimate of genetic variance from twin data. Am J Hum Genet 26:154–161.Google Scholar
2. Christian, JC (1979): Testing twin means and estimating genetic variance. Basis methodology for the analysis of quantitative twin data. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 28:35–40.Google Scholar
3. Corney, G (1978): Twin placentation and some effects on twins of known zygosity. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): “Twin Research: Part B, Biology and Epidemiology.” New York: Alan R. Liss, pp 9–16.Google Scholar
4. Defrise-Gussenhoven, E, Susanne, C, Michotte, Y, Brocteur, J, Hoste, B (1981): Are distances between DZ twins for polygenes and for major genes correlated? In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): “Twin Research: Part C, Epidemiological and Clinical Studies.” New York: Alan R. Liss, pp 239–246.Google Scholar
5. Eaves, LJ (1978): Twins as a basis for the causal analysis of the human personality. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): “Twin Research: Part A, Psychology and Methodology.” New York: Alan R. Liss, pp 151–174.Google Scholar
6. Elston, RC, Boklage, CE (1978): An examination of fundamental assumptions of the twin method. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): “Twin Research: Part A, Psychology and Methodology.” New York: Alan R. Liss, pp 189–199.Google Scholar
7. Falconer, DS (1960): “Introduction to Quantitative Genetics.” Glasgow: Robert Mc Lehose.Google Scholar
8. Feldman, MW, Lewontin, RC (1975): The heritability hang up. Science 190:1163–1168, 1975.Google Scholar
9. Haseman, JK, Elston, RC (1970): The estimation of genetic variance from twin data. Behav Genet 1:11–19.Google Scholar
10. Howells, WW (1966): Variability in family lines versus population variability. Ann NY Acad Sci 134:624–631.Google Scholar
11. Kempthorne, O, Osborne, R (1961): The interpretation of twin data. Am J Hum Genet 13:320–339.Google Scholar
12. Kempthorne, O (1978): Logical, epistemological and statistical aspects of nature-nurture data interpretation. Biometrics 34:1–23.Google Scholar
13. Martin, R, Saller, K (1957): “Lehrbuch der Anthropologie.” Band I. Stuttgart: Fisher Verlag.Google Scholar
14. Martin, NG, Eaves, LJ, Kearsy, MJ and Davies, R (1978): The power of the classical twin method. Heredity 40:97–116.Google Scholar
15. Osborne, RH, De George, FV (1959): “Genetic Basis of Morphological Variation.” Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
16. Susanne, C (1975): Genetic and environmental influences on morphological characteristics. Ann Hum Biol 2:279–287.Google Scholar
17. Susanne, C (1977): Heritability of anthropological characters. Hum Biol 49:573–580.Google Scholar
18. Vandenberg, S (1962): How stable are heritability estimates? A comparison of heritability estimates from six anthropometric studies. Am J Phys Anthropol 20:331–338.Google Scholar