Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Letter

Statistical flaws undermine pre-Columbian chicken debate

David Bryant
PNAS September 2, 2014 111 (35) E3584; first published August 13, 2014; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410797111
David Bryant
Allan Wilson Centre, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago 9054, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: david.bryant@otago.ac.nz

This Letter has a Reply and related content. Please see:

  • Reply to Beavan, Bryant, and Storey and Matisoo-Smith: Ancestral Polynesian “D” haplotypes reflect authentic Pacific chicken lineages - August 13, 2014
  • Using ancient DNA to study the origins and dispersal of ancestral Polynesian chickens across the Pacific - March 17, 2014

See related content:

  • No evidence against pre-Columbian chickens
    - Aug 13, 2014
  • El Arenal pre-Columbian chicken dates secure
    - Aug 13, 2014
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Thomson et al. (1) recently used analyses of modern and ancient chicken DNA in an attempt to overturn evidence of Polynesian dispersal of chickens to pre-Columbian South America. There are, however, significant methodological and statistical problems in the analyses carried out by Thomson et al., problems that seriously undermine their conclusions.

Thomson et al. (1) conduct an approximate Bayesian computation comparison of different models for the ancestral migration patterns of chickens. Their analysis is based on an approximate migration matrix (tables S4 and S5 in ref. 1) that is specified without justification. In these tables, the “backward” rates for South America are 0 for all regions except Europe. That means that any migration to South America will be from Europe with a probability of 1.

It could be that the migration matrices used in the analysis have just been misreported, or that rows and columns were switched by mistake. Whichever the case, the outcome of any model comparison will be significantly determined by the choice of migration matrix. Thomson et al. (1) give no evidence that the data (rather than the a priori migration matrix) provides support for or against the pre-Columbian chicken hypothesis.

A second set of issues relate to the conflict reported by Thomson et al. (1) between proportions of D and E haplotypes reported in early work and their failure to observe an E haplotype [Thomson et al. observed 0 E haplotypes from 22 ancient samples, whereas Storey et al. (2) observed 15 E haplotypes from 31 samples]. Thomson et al. (1) make two mistakes when arguing that these observed proportions are significantly different. The first mistake is to compute P values by fixing one proportion and testing the other sample. This approach underestimates variability because both proportions will have sampling error. The authors should instead conduct a two-sample test, which reduces the level of significance by many orders-of-magnitude.

The second mistake is to treat each individual as an independent sample, making an implicit assumption that individuals from the same island have independent haplotypes. Note that the 31 samples tested by Thomson et al. (1) come from two sites in Niue, one site in Hawai’i, and 12 from a single site in Rapa Nui. One would expect very strong correlation between samples at the same site, and this necessarily increases estimates of variability in the observed proportions, to the point that the observed proportions are highly unlikely to be statistically significant.

In summary, the statistical evidence used by Thomson et al. (1) to argue their case is lacking and should be either revised or rejected.

Footnotes

  • ↵1Email: david.bryant{at}otago.ac.nz.
  • Author contributions: D.B. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.

  • The author declares no conflict of interest.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Thomson VA,
    2. et al.
    (2014) Using ancient DNA to study the origins and dispersal of ancestral Polynesian chickens across the Pacific. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(13):4826–4831.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Storey AA,
    2. et al.
    (2012) Investigating the global dispersal of chickens in prehistory using ancient mitochondrial DNA signatures. PLoS ONE 7(7):e39171.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Statistical flaws undermine pre-Columbian chicken debate
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Statistical flaws undermine chicken debate
David Bryant
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2014, 111 (35) E3584; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1410797111

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Statistical flaws undermine chicken debate
David Bryant
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2014, 111 (35) E3584; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1410797111
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 111 (35)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Anthropology

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Scientist looking at an electronic tablet
Opinion: Standardizing gene product nomenclature—a call to action
Biomedical communities and journals need to standardize nomenclature of gene products to enhance accuracy in scientific and public communication.
Image credit: Shutterstock/greenbutterfly.
One red and one yellow modeled protein structures
Journal Club: Study reveals evolutionary origins of fold-switching protein
Shapeshifting designs could have wide-ranging pharmaceutical and biomedical applications in coming years.
Image credit: Acacia Dishman/Medical College of Wisconsin.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490