Geometric morphometrics aims to characterize of the geometry of complex traits. It is therefore by essence multivariate. The most popular methods to investigate patterns of differentiation in this context are (1) the Principal Component Analysis (PCA), which is an eigenvalue decomposition of the total variance-covariance matrix among all specimens; (2) the Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA, a.k.a. linear discriminant analysis (LDA) for more than two groups), which aims at separating the groups by maximizing the between-group to within-group variance ratio; (3) the between-group PCA (bgPCA) which investigates patterns of between-group variation, without standardizing by the within-group variance. Standardizing within-group variance, as performed in the CVA, distorts the relationships among groups, an effect that is particularly strong if the variance is similarly oriented in a comparable way in all groups. Such shared direction of main morphological variance may occur and have a biological meaning, for instance corresponding to the most frequent standing genetic variation in a population. Here we undertake a case study of the evolution of house mouse molar shape across various islands, based on the real dataset and simulations. We investigated how patterns of main variance influence the depiction of among-group differentiation according to the interpretation of the PCA, bgPCA and CVA. Without arguing about a method performing 'better' than another, it rather emerges that working on the total or between-group variance (PCA and bgPCA) will tend to put the focus on the role of direction of main variance as line of least resistance to evolution. Standardizing by the within-group variance (CVA), by dampening the expression of this line of least resistance, has the potential to reveal other relevant patterns of differentiation that may otherwise be blurred.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,254,667
of 27,356,215 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#156,184
of 237,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,894
of 277,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,564
of 6,453 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,356,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 237,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,453 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
