Relationship between fluctuating asymmetry, morphological modality and heterozygosity in an elderly Israeli population

1994 ◽  
pp. 157-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Livshits ◽  
Peter E. Smouse
Keyword(s):  
Fluctuating Asymmetry ◽  
Israeli Population

scholarly journals Fluctuating asymmetry of the normal facial skeleton

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 534-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Gateño ◽  
T.L. Jones ◽  
S.G.F. Shen ◽  
K.-C. Chen ◽  
A. Jajoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fluctuating Asymmetry ◽  
Facial Skeleton

scholarly journals Fluctuating Asymmetry and Developmental Instability, a Guide to Best Practice

Symmetry ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
John H. Graham
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Error ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Environmental Stress ◽  
Fluctuating Asymmetry ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Developmental Instability ◽  
The Past ◽  
Size Scaling ◽  
Research Designs

Best practices in studies of developmental instability, as measured by fluctuating asymmetry, have developed over the past 60 years. Unfortunately, they are haphazardly applied in many of the papers submitted for review. Most often, research designs suffer from lack of randomization, inadequate replication, poor attention to size scaling, lack of attention to measurement error, and unrecognized mixtures of additive and multiplicative errors. Here, I summarize a set of best practices, especially in studies that examine the effects of environmental stress on fluctuating asymmetry.

scholarly journals Nature, Nurture, and Noise: Developmental Instability, Fluctuating Asymmetry, and the Causes of Phenotypic Variation

Symmetry ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1204
Author(s):  
John H. Graham
Keyword(s):  
Fluctuating Asymmetry ◽  
Phenotypic Variation ◽  
Deterministic Chaos ◽  
Monozygotic Twins ◽  
Developmental Instability ◽  
Nonlinear Feedback ◽  
Developmental Variation ◽  
Sewall Wright ◽  
Developmental Noise ◽  
And Behavior

Phenotypic variation arises from genetic and environmental variation, as well as random aspects of development. The genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture) components of this variation have been appreciated since at least 1900. The random developmental component (noise) has taken longer for quantitative geneticists to appreciate. Here, I sketch the historical development of the concepts of random developmental noise and developmental instability, and its quantification via fluctuating asymmetry. The unsung pioneers in this story are Hugo DeVries (fluctuating variation, 1909), C. H. Danforth (random variation between monozygotic twins, 1919), and Sewall Wright (random developmental variation in piebald guinea pigs, 1920). The first pioneering study of fluctuating asymmetry, by Sumner and Huestis in 1921, is seldom mentioned, possibly because it failed to connect the observed random asymmetry with random developmental variation. This early work was then synthesized by Boris Astaurov in 1930 and Wilhelm Ludwig in 1932, and then popularized by Drosophila geneticists beginning with Kenneth Mather in 1953. Population phenogeneticists are still trying to understand the origins and behavior of random developmental variation. Some of the developmental noise represents true stochastic behavior of molecules and cells, while some represents deterministic chaos, nonlinear feedback, and symmetry breaking.

scholarly journals From Isolation to Containment: Perceived Fear of Infectivity and Protective Behavioral Changes during the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6503
Author(s):  
Arielle Kaim ◽  
Maya Siman-Tov ◽  
Eli Jaffe ◽  
Bruria Adini
Keyword(s):  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Behavior ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Road ◽  
Israeli Population ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Public Health Officials

In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, maintenance of protective behavior is a continued challenge in the effort to contain the spread of the virus. A cross-sectional study via an internet questionnaire was utilized to elucidate changes in compliance to protective behavior among the Israeli population (n = 1120), after the beginning of the vaccination campaign. Comparison was made between individuals who were previously infected with the virus, those who received one dose of inoculation with the vaccine, and individuals that were neither infected or vaccinated. The study results indicate that those who were previously infected with the COVID-19 virus were less careful about mask wearing (18.8%) and social distancing (29.7%), as compared to the other examined groups (regarding mask wearing, 8.2% and 11.6% respectively, and with regard to social distancing 12.8% and 19.2%) and may require targeted risk communication campaigns to address this population. Furthermore, the study revealed that those that were non-Jewish (as compared to Jewish study counterparts) or that were older (19+) were more vigilant in their protective behavior (29.6% vs. 11.2% respectively for social distancing and 29.6% vs. 11.1% respectively for mask wearing). Despite a successful initial vaccination campaign in Israel, public health officials need to engage all members of the public to unremittingly observe compliance to directed health guidelines, to ensure that the results of previous governmental efforts in fighting the pandemic (such as lockdowns) will be effectively sustained, and the road to containment will be hastened.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document