孟德尔豌豆杂交:品种、性状和统计

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2019-10-31 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y
T H Noel Ellis, Julie M I Hofer, Martin T Swain, Peter J van Dijk
{"title":"孟德尔豌豆杂交:品种、性状和统计","authors":"T H Noel Ellis, Julie M I Hofer, Martin T Swain, Peter J van Dijk","doi":"10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A controversy arose over Mendel's pea crossing experiments after the statistician R.A. Fisher proposed how these may have been performed and criticised Mendel's interpretation of his data. Here we re-examine Mendel's experiments and investigate Fisher's statistical criticisms of bias. We describe pea varieties available in Mendel's time and show that these could readily provide all the material Mendel needed for his experiments; the characters he chose to follow were clearly described in catalogues at the time. The combination of character states available in these varieties, together with Eichling's report of crosses Mendel performed, suggest that two of his F3 progeny test experiments may have involved the same F2 population, and therefore that these data should not be treated as independent variables in statistical analysis of Mendel's data. A comprehensive re-examination of Mendel's segregation ratios does not support previous suggestions that they differ remarkably from expectation. The χ<sup>2</sup> values for his segregation ratios sum to a value close to the expectation and there is no deficiency of extreme segregation ratios. Overall the χ values for Mendel's segregation ratios deviate slightly from the standard normal distribution; this is probably because of the variance associated with phenotypic rather than genotypic ratios and because Mendel excluded some data sets with small numbers of progeny, where he noted the ratios \"deviate not insignificantly\" from expectation.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mendel's pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics.\",\"authors\":\"T H Noel Ellis, Julie M I Hofer, Martin T Swain, Peter J van Dijk\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A controversy arose over Mendel's pea crossing experiments after the statistician R.A. Fisher proposed how these may have been performed and criticised Mendel's interpretation of his data. Here we re-examine Mendel's experiments and investigate Fisher's statistical criticisms of bias. We describe pea varieties available in Mendel's time and show that these could readily provide all the material Mendel needed for his experiments; the characters he chose to follow were clearly described in catalogues at the time. The combination of character states available in these varieties, together with Eichling's report of crosses Mendel performed, suggest that two of his F3 progeny test experiments may have involved the same F2 population, and therefore that these data should not be treated as independent variables in statistical analysis of Mendel's data. A comprehensive re-examination of Mendel's segregation ratios does not support previous suggestions that they differ remarkably from expectation. The χ<sup>2</sup> values for his segregation ratios sum to a value close to the expectation and there is no deficiency of extreme segregation ratios. Overall the χ values for Mendel's segregation ratios deviate slightly from the standard normal distribution; this is probably because of the variance associated with phenotypic rather than genotypic ratios and because Mendel excluded some data sets with small numbers of progeny, where he noted the ratios \\\"deviate not insignificantly\\\" from expectation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

统计学家费雪(R.A. Fisher)提出了孟德尔的豌豆杂交实验可能是如何进行的,并批评了孟德尔对其数据的解释,此后,孟德尔的豌豆杂交实验引起了争议。在此,我们重新审视了孟德尔的实验,并调查了费雪在统计学上对偏差的批评。我们描述了孟德尔时代可用的豌豆品种,并表明这些品种可以随时提供孟德尔实验所需的所有材料;他选择遵循的特征在当时的目录中已有明确描述。这些品种的特征状态组合以及艾克林(Eichling)关于孟德尔所做杂交的报告表明,他的两个 F3 后代测试实验可能涉及同一个 F2 群体,因此在对孟德尔的数据进行统计分析时,不应将这些数据视为独立变量。对孟德尔分离比的全面重新研究并不支持以前关于分离比与期望值相差很大的说法。他的分离比的χ2 值总和接近期望值,而且不存在极端分离比的缺陷。总体而言,孟德尔分离比的χ值略微偏离标准正态分布;这可能是由于表型比而不是基因型比的相关方差,也可能是由于孟德尔排除了一些后代数量较少的数据集,他指出这些数据集的分离比与期望值 "偏差不小"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mendel's pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics.

A controversy arose over Mendel's pea crossing experiments after the statistician R.A. Fisher proposed how these may have been performed and criticised Mendel's interpretation of his data. Here we re-examine Mendel's experiments and investigate Fisher's statistical criticisms of bias. We describe pea varieties available in Mendel's time and show that these could readily provide all the material Mendel needed for his experiments; the characters he chose to follow were clearly described in catalogues at the time. The combination of character states available in these varieties, together with Eichling's report of crosses Mendel performed, suggest that two of his F3 progeny test experiments may have involved the same F2 population, and therefore that these data should not be treated as independent variables in statistical analysis of Mendel's data. A comprehensive re-examination of Mendel's segregation ratios does not support previous suggestions that they differ remarkably from expectation. The χ2 values for his segregation ratios sum to a value close to the expectation and there is no deficiency of extreme segregation ratios. Overall the χ values for Mendel's segregation ratios deviate slightly from the standard normal distribution; this is probably because of the variance associated with phenotypic rather than genotypic ratios and because Mendel excluded some data sets with small numbers of progeny, where he noted the ratios "deviate not insignificantly" from expectation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1