Commentary: Gärtner's 'third component': still an open question

God playing dice, revisited: determinism and indeterminism in studies of stochastic phenotypic variation

Empirical studies of phenotypic variation show that genetic and environmental heterogeneity account for only part of it. Usually, the magnitude of the residual variation is comparable with that of the genetic component, while notably exceeding the magnitude of the environmental component. This can be interpreted in two ways. A deterministic interpretation associates it with artifacts such as measurement error and genetic and environmental heterogeneity that is unaccounted for. An indeterministic interpretation argues that it is random or stochastic phenotypic variation (SPV) resulting from developmental instability - a developing organism's inability to produce a consistent phenotype in a given environment. Classical example of debates between determinists and indeterminists took place about a century ago in quantum physics. In discussing Heidelberg's Uncertainty Principle, Einstein metaphorically expressed his deterministic position: 'God does not play dice with universe'. The indeterministic Uncertainty Principle, however, was eventually widely accepted. Currently, most biologists implicitly or explicitly support deterministic interpretations of phenotypic variation patterns. Here, a wide range of data on morphological traits (studied with analysis of fluctuating asymmetry) and non-morphological traits are analyzed to provide evidence that SPV is not an artifact, but a valid phenomenon. This evidence supports conclusions that observed associations between SPV and stress can be analyzed in the framework of dynamic energy budget theory, and are inextricably linked through energy homeostasis.

Stochastic developmental variation, an epigenetic source of phenotypic diversity with far-reaching biological consequences

This article reviews the production of different phenotypes from the same genotype in the same environment by stochastic cellular events, nonlinear mechanisms during patterning and morphogenesis, and probabilistic self-reinforcing circuitries in the adult life. These aspects of phenotypic variation are summarized under the term 'stochastic developmental variation' (SDV) in the following. In the past, SDV has been viewed primarily as a nuisance, impairing laboratory experiments, pharmaceutical testing, and true-to-type breeding. This article also emphasizes the positive biological effects of SDV and discusses implications for genotype-to-phenotype mapping, biological individuation, ecology, evolution, and applied biology. There is strong evidence from experiments with genetically identical organisms performed in narrowly standardized laboratory set-ups that SDV is a source of phenotypic variation in its own right aside from genetic variation and environmental variation. It is obviously mediated by molecular and higher-order epigenetic mechanisms. Comparison of SDV in animals, plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, archaeans, and viruses suggests that it is a ubiquitous and phylogenetically old phenomenon. In animals, it is usually smallest for morphometric traits and highest for life history traits and behaviour. SDV is thought to contribute to phenotypic diversity in all populations but is particularly relevant for asexually reproducing and genetically impoverished populations, where it generates individuality despite genetic uniformity. In each generation, SDV produces a range of phenotypes around a well-adapted target phenotype, which is interpreted as a bet-hedging strategy to cope with the unpredictability of dynamic environments. At least some manifestations of SDV are heritable, adaptable, selectable, and evolvable, and therefore, SDV may be seen as a hitherto overlooked evolution factor. SDV is also relevant for husbandry, agriculture, and medicine because most pathogens are asexuals that exploit this third source of phenotypic variation to modify infectivity and resistance to antibiotics. Since SDV affects all types of organisms and almost all aspects of life, it urgently requires more intense research and a better integration into biological thinking.

Understanding variation in disease risk: the elusive concept of frailty

The concept of frailty plays a major role in the statistical field of survival analysis. Frailty variation refers to differences in risk between individuals which go beyond known or measured risk factors. In other words, frailty variation is unobserved heterogeneity. Although understanding frailty is of interest in its own right, the literature on survival analysis has demonstrated that existence of frailty variation can lead to surprising artefacts in statistical estimation that are important to examine. We present literature that demonstrates the presence and significance of frailty variation between individuals. We discuss the practical content of frailty variation, and show the link between frailty and biological concepts like (epi)genetics and heterogeneity in disease risk. There are numerous suggestions in the literature that a good deal of this variation may be due to randomness, in addition to genetic and/or environmental factors. Heterogeneity often manifests itself as clustering of cases in families more than would be expected by chance. We emphasize that apparently moderate familial relative risks can only be explained by strong underlying variation in disease risk between families and individuals. Finally, we highlight the potential impact of frailty variation in the interpretation of standard epidemiological measures such as hazard and incidence rates.