Cargando…

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 pe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ellis, T. H. Noel, Hofer, Julie M. I., Swain, Martin T., van Dijk, Peter J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6823958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31695583
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y
_version_ 1783464628227932160
author Ellis, T. H. Noel
Hofer, Julie M. I.
Swain, Martin T.
van Dijk, Peter J.
author_facet Ellis, T. H. Noel
Hofer, Julie M. I.
Swain, Martin T.
van Dijk, Peter J.
author_sort Ellis, T. H. Noel
collection PubMed
description 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(2) 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6823958
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68239582019-11-06 Mendel’s pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics Ellis, T. H. Noel Hofer, Julie M. I. Swain, Martin T. van Dijk, Peter J. Hereditas Letter to the Editor 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(2) 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. BioMed Central 2019-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6823958/ /pubmed/31695583 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Letter to the Editor
Ellis, T. H. Noel
Hofer, Julie M. I.
Swain, Martin T.
van Dijk, Peter J.
Mendel’s pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics
title Mendel’s pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics
title_full Mendel’s pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics
title_fullStr Mendel’s pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics
title_full_unstemmed Mendel’s pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics
title_short Mendel’s pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics
title_sort mendel’s pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics
topic Letter to the Editor
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6823958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31695583
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41065-019-0111-y
work_keys_str_mv AT ellisthnoel mendelspeacrossesvarietiestraitsandstatistics
AT hoferjuliemi mendelspeacrossesvarietiestraitsandstatistics
AT swainmartint mendelspeacrossesvarietiestraitsandstatistics
AT vandijkpeterj mendelspeacrossesvarietiestraitsandstatistics