GAMOVA vs STRUCTURE?

Posted by James Bowery on Saturday, 07 April 2007 18:40.

The following racial diagram is derived from the genetic data (no “self identified race” is used as input) via a technique called “GAMOVA” in a paper by Caroline M. Nievergelt, Ondrej Libiger and Nicholas J. Schork titled “Generalized Analysis of Molecular Variance”:
image
This isn’t the first time genetic correlation structure has shown that race precedes the “social construction of race”Andrew D. Skol et al in “An Algorithm to Construct Genetically Similar Subsets of Families with the Use of Self-Reported Ethnicity Information” used a computer program called STRUCTURE to demonstrate that the genetic data contains the correlation structures prior to “socially constructed” race and matches that “social construct” very closely.

However, in the abstract for “Generalized Analysis of Molecular Variance” we read:

However, many of these strategies are either rooted in cluster analysis techniques, and hence suffer from problems inherent to the assignment of the biological and statistical meaning to resulting clusters, or have formulations that do not permit easy and intuitive extensions. We describe a very general approach to the problem of assessing genetic background diversity that extends the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) strategy introduced by Excoffier and colleagues some time ago. As in the original AMOVA strategy, the proposed approach, termed generalized AMOVA (GAMOVA)

So a question to the more technically literate readers:

How do these techniques compare in their results and how might their differences affect the potential for Removing Lewontin’s Fallacy From Hamilton’s Rule, hence extending the theory of Ethnic Genetic Interests and providing a stronger foundation for Universal Nationalism?

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:27 | #

I don’t have the time to look this paper over as carefully as I would like, but note that ‘clustering’ can be viewed as a metric different from genetic similarity/differences.

Remember the Jorde paper from the Utah group discussed here recently.  The “w” measure of genetic similarity was a more stringent measurement than clustering, and is more in line with information need for determination of genetic interests.


2

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:04 | #

You are referring to the MR article “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Populations” wherein the academic paper by the same name by David J Witherspoon, Stephen Wooding, Alan R Rogers, Elizabeth E Marchani, W Scott Watkins, Mark A Batzer and Lynn B Jorde is discussed.

In that MR discussion you stated:

as the post states, “w” ignores structure

Could you present a definition of “structure” and how it differs from “clustering” if at all?

It sounds to me like you’re, perhaps indirectly, criticizing the use of correlation structure measures to strengthen the theory of EGI.


3

Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:38 | #

“It sounds to me like you’re, perhaps indirectly, criticizing the use of correlation structure measures to strengthen the theory of EGI.”

That couldn’t be more mistaken.

Clustering, essentially, is based upon comparing an individual’s gene frequencies to the “centroid” of a particular population; that is, if Europeans are characterized by a set of gene frequencies, and Africans by another, how close is the individual to either set.

I would define structure as composing of those elements of genetic information above and beyond a one-by-one evaluation of gene frequencies and including as well genetic structures beyond that of the single allele.

Easy examples of “structure” would include copy number variation, insertions, deletions, inversions, etc.  But these are NOT the major determinants of structure, nor what we here usually refer to as structure.

That would be the coinheritance of particular alleles (or, even, gene sequences) between individuals and groups.  If one reads the “materials and methods” section of the Jorde paper, they are defining “w” as the average distance of each allele taken in turn - that is _not_ what we would consider structure.

The basic component of structure would thus be defined as the coinheritance of gene sequences/alleles.  Linkage disequilibrium is therefore one aspect of structure, and new LD patterns are established, not surprisingly, upon admixture.

To put it even more simply and to use a crude analogy (very crude), it is not the allele frequencies for, say, eye color, skin color, hair color, nose shape, skull shape, etc. each taken in turn and averaged.  Instead, structure concerns itself with the frequency that these various types of alleles happen to be co-inherited in the same individual or group, the frequency by which particular _combinations_ of the allele type show up in the specific set.

As far as I can see, this is not being measured by Jorde’s “w” distance metric, nor the “c” clustering metrics.

If I am mistaken, then I stand open for correction; perhaps Jorde et al., were not as clear in their paper, and I misinterpret their methodology.  I would, however, require clear and unmistakable evidence that such a misinterpretation has taken place.


4

Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:47 | #

Note: I mistakenly placed the next two posts on this topic in the amygdala thread.


5

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:50 | #

The misplaced comments were:

From Jorde:

1. Methodology:

“Pairwise Genetic Distance
We use the “shared alleles” genetic distance (Bowcock et al. 1994; Chakraborty and Jin
1993; Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997), which defines the distance between two individuals at
a locus as one minus half the number of alleles they share. The genetic distance between
individuals is the average of their per-locus distances. Pairs of individuals are classified as
“within-population” or “between-population” according to whether the individuals were sampled
from the same or different groups of populations as defined above.
8
Dissimilarity fraction ?ˆ
Let ? be the probability that a pair of individuals randomly chosen from different
populations are genetically more similar than an independent pair chosen from any single
population. We compute all possible pairwise genetic distances, classify them as within- or
between-population distances (the sets dW or dB, respectively), then calculate the frequency with
which dW > dB (that is, a within-population pair is more dissimilar than a between-population
pair.) This fraction, ?ˆ , is an estimator of ?. The expected value of ?ˆ ranges from 0 to 0.5
(regardless of the number of populations). At ?ˆ = 0, individuals are always more similar to
members of their own population than to members of other populations; at ?ˆ = 0.5, individuals
are as likely to be more similar to members of other populations as to members of their own. The
distributions of pairwise genetic distances implied here resemble the Common Ancestry Profiles
proposed by Mountain and Ramakrishnan (2005), who use a different measure of genetic
distance. The shared-alleles distance used here generally yields slightly lower values of ?ˆ .
Centroid misclassification rate CC
The centroid classification method is also based on pairwise genetic distances, with one
critical difference: every individual is compared to the centroid of each population, rather than to
every other individual. The centroid is the genetic average of a population, an individual whose
pseudo-genotypes at each locus are the frequencies of the genotypes in that population (not
including the individual being compared to the centroid). This genetic distance is equivalent to
the average of the genetic distances from an individual to all other individuals in the target
population. Each individual is then assigned to the population with the closest centroid, as in
Cornuet et al. (1999). These assignments are compared to the known populations of origin, and
the proportion of individuals misclassified is reported as CC. The expected classification error for
9
random assignment of individuals to populations is 1 – 1/n, where n is the number of
populations.

2. Problem with clustering:

“Nonetheless, it is instructive to consider the analogy using panel C as a guide.
For example, an African individual x with qx = 0.52 will be more similar to a European y with qy
= 0.55 than to another African z with qz = 0.4. Yet that individual x will still be closer to the
population mean trait value for Africans (qA ? 0.46, the African centroid) than to the mean value
of Europeans (qB ? 0.61).”
Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sunday, April 8, 2007 at 12:44 PM | #

“The genetic distance between
individuals is the average of their per-locus distances.”

This is _not_ how I would define “structure.”
Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sunday, April 8, 2007 at 12:46 PM | #


6

Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:48 | #

A review of “On Genetic Interests” by van den Berghe, who considers himself a “political anarchist”:

http://lists.paleopsych.org/pipermail/paleopsych/2005-May/003227.html

One can contrast van den Berghe’s essentially fair review to the ludicrous “hatchet job” by David B of gnxp.  Of course, Dr. van den Berghe seems to be an independent entity, and not an extended phenotype of devious south asians.

Also, read the last paragraph of van den Berghe’s review.  Sound familiar?  “Life has no interests”, “who cares”, “toffee and Mahler.”


7

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:14 | #

My work on compression-as-intelligence has led me to the working belief that the best currently practical approach is to treat structure as algorithmic information.  What this means is you take a set of data—any data at all—and create the minimum length computer program that outputs that data. 

Its easy to state this as the goal but it is, in fact, provably uncomputable to come up with said minimum length program—although it is asymptotically computable with exponential computing resources.

There are other approaches involving generalization of relation arithmetic—hence quantum information systems—that may prove superior if or when quantum “computers” (a misnomer really) become a practical reality.


8

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:08 | #

There is an enormous amount of work on compression of genetic data.  Indeed, it may be the most active area of bioinformatics.

The primary value of what you call “existing distance measurements” is that they offer guidance as to what sort of a priori (or Bayesian prior) structures may offer optimal compression. 

The test is whether they do, in fact, enable the production of shorter programs that output the known data.


9

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:40 | #

Thanks, Loriver.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: I promise you
Previous entry: Symantec: Israel tops world for Internet criminal activity per capita, but…

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 04:15. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:57. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:40. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:27. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:37. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:54. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:23. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:59. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 12 Oct 2024 23:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Fri, 11 Oct 2024 00:50. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:52. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 23:57. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:11. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:28. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:24. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sat, 28 Sep 2024 10:26. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:49. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Tue, 24 Sep 2024 23:09. (View)

affection-tone