人类学学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (05): 875-882.doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2021.0079
收稿日期:
2020-09-05
修回日期:
2021-07-26
出版日期:
2022-10-15
发布日期:
2022-10-13
通讯作者:
李玉玲
作者简介:
刘燕,副教授,主要从事体质人类学研究。Email: 基金资助:
Received:
2020-09-05
Revised:
2021-07-26
Online:
2022-10-15
Published:
2022-10-13
Contact:
LI Yuling
摘要:
目前有关儿童青少年坐高、下肢长及其比值的报道多为非双生子人群的研究。为了解遗传和环境因素对儿童青少年坐高、下肢长及坐高与下肢长比值影响的相对大小,我们对796对6~18岁双生子的身高和坐高进行了测量,计算下肢长及坐高与下肢长比值,采用结构方程模型分析其遗传和环境相对效应。结果发现,校正年龄后,男女15~18岁年龄组坐高和下肢长的遗传度(0.63~0.78)均分别高于同性别低年龄段儿童青少年(0.31~0.68);坐高与下肢长比值的遗传度除9~11岁女生(0.84)外,其他年龄组均较低(男0.16~0.46,女0.21~0.57);共同环境因素和特殊环境因素对6~14岁儿童青少年各指标的作用较大。本研究提示,在快速发育时期,坐高、下肢长和坐高与下肢长比值对环境因素更为敏感,遗传度较低;机体越成熟,其遗传效应更强。
中图分类号:
刘燕, 李玉玲. 遗传和环境因素对儿童青少年身体高度及其比例的影响[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(05): 875-882.
LIU Yan, LI Yuling. Effects of genetic and environmental factors on body height and proportion of children and adolescents[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2022, 41(05): 875-882.
图1 双生子数据的模型拟合路径图 注:Va、Vc、Ve、Vg分别为加性遗传方差、共同环境方差、特殊环境方差、隐变量年龄的方差,h、c、e、g分别为其相应的通径系数,σ为年龄的标准差。T1、T2分别为一对双生子两个成员的表型值。rg为遗传方差的相关,MZ为1.0,DZ为0.5;rc为共同环境方差的相关,MZ、DZ均为1.0
Fig.1 Path diagram of model-fitting for twin data
年龄组 Age group(a) | 变量Variable | 男Male | 女Female | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
同卵双生子MZ | 异卵双生子DZ | 同卵双生子MZ | 异卵双生子DZ | ||
6~8 | n (%) | 116 (29.74%) | 70 (17.95%) | 114 (29.23%) | 90 (23.08%) |
年龄Age (a) | 7.14±0.84 | 7.09±0.78 | 7.25±0.74 | 7.13±0.81 | |
坐高h(cm) | 69.65±3.54 | 69.40±2.67 | 68.87±3.13* | 67.48±3.34 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 56.60±4.29 | 56.54±3.67 | 56.87±4.09* | 55.03±4.54 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 1.23±0.07 | 1.23±0.07 | 1.21±0.06 | 1.23±0.07 | |
9~11 | n (%) | 118 (29.21%) | 74 (18.32%) | 120 (29.70%) | 92 (22.77%) |
年龄Age (a) | 9.79±0.76* | 10.05±0.84 | 10.07±0.83 | 10.02±0.77 | |
坐高 h(cm) | 74.77±3.62** | 76.23±4.04 | 75.86±4.59 | 76.02±4.37 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 64.30±4.04 | 65.67±5.50 | 65.80±4.57 | 65.22±4.79 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 1.17±0.06 | 1.16±0.05 | 1.15±0.05 | 1.17±0.06 | |
12~14 | n (%) | 146 (33.64%) | 70 (16.13%) | 150 (34.56%) | 68 (15.67%) |
年龄Age (a) | 13.07±0.77* | 12.80±0.86 | 13.01±0.81 | 12.76±0.88 | |
坐高 h(cm) | 85.35±5.54* | 83.45±5.57 | 83.32±3.75 | 82.65±4.15 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 75.98±4.44** | 73.95±5.37 | 72.17±3.92 | 71.90±3.77 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 1.12±0.05 | 1.13±0.05 | 1.16±0.06 | 1.15±0.06 | |
15~18 | n (%) | 122 (33.51%) | 52 (14.29%) | 136 (37.36%) | 54 (14.84%) |
年龄Age (a) | 16.36±1.09 | 16.31±1.11 | 16.10±1.02 | 16.19±1.13 | |
坐高 h(cm) | 92.33±3.70 | 91.60±3.96 | 87.10±3.33 | 86.07±3.36 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 80.07±3.75 | 79.94±3.31 | 73.78±3.56 | 73.06±4.67 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 1.15±0.05 | 1.15±0.06 | 1.18±0.06 | 1.18±0.07 |
表1 各指标不同年龄组双生子的基线资料
Tab.1 Baseline characteristics of twins classified by zygosity and gender in different age groups
年龄组 Age group(a) | 变量Variable | 男Male | 女Female | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
同卵双生子MZ | 异卵双生子DZ | 同卵双生子MZ | 异卵双生子DZ | ||
6~8 | n (%) | 116 (29.74%) | 70 (17.95%) | 114 (29.23%) | 90 (23.08%) |
年龄Age (a) | 7.14±0.84 | 7.09±0.78 | 7.25±0.74 | 7.13±0.81 | |
坐高h(cm) | 69.65±3.54 | 69.40±2.67 | 68.87±3.13* | 67.48±3.34 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 56.60±4.29 | 56.54±3.67 | 56.87±4.09* | 55.03±4.54 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 1.23±0.07 | 1.23±0.07 | 1.21±0.06 | 1.23±0.07 | |
9~11 | n (%) | 118 (29.21%) | 74 (18.32%) | 120 (29.70%) | 92 (22.77%) |
年龄Age (a) | 9.79±0.76* | 10.05±0.84 | 10.07±0.83 | 10.02±0.77 | |
坐高 h(cm) | 74.77±3.62** | 76.23±4.04 | 75.86±4.59 | 76.02±4.37 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 64.30±4.04 | 65.67±5.50 | 65.80±4.57 | 65.22±4.79 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 1.17±0.06 | 1.16±0.05 | 1.15±0.05 | 1.17±0.06 | |
12~14 | n (%) | 146 (33.64%) | 70 (16.13%) | 150 (34.56%) | 68 (15.67%) |
年龄Age (a) | 13.07±0.77* | 12.80±0.86 | 13.01±0.81 | 12.76±0.88 | |
坐高 h(cm) | 85.35±5.54* | 83.45±5.57 | 83.32±3.75 | 82.65±4.15 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 75.98±4.44** | 73.95±5.37 | 72.17±3.92 | 71.90±3.77 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 1.12±0.05 | 1.13±0.05 | 1.16±0.06 | 1.15±0.06 | |
15~18 | n (%) | 122 (33.51%) | 52 (14.29%) | 136 (37.36%) | 54 (14.84%) |
年龄Age (a) | 16.36±1.09 | 16.31±1.11 | 16.10±1.02 | 16.19±1.13 | |
坐高 h(cm) | 92.33±3.70 | 91.60±3.96 | 87.10±3.33 | 86.07±3.36 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 80.07±3.75 | 79.94±3.31 | 73.78±3.56 | 73.06±4.67 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 1.15±0.05 | 1.15±0.06 | 1.18±0.06 | 1.18±0.07 |
变量Variable | 卵型Zygosity | 男Male | 女Female | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6~8 a | 9~11 a | 12~14 a | 15~18 a | 6~8 a | 9~11 a | 12~14 a | 15~18 a | ||
坐高 h | 同卵双生MZ | 0.87** | 0.91** | 0.96** | 0.95** | 0.82** | 0.93** | 0.92** | 0.93** |
异卵双生DZ | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.57 | 0.73 | 0.67 | |
下肢长 L | 同卵双生MZ | 0.81 | 0.84* | 0.90** | 0.83** | 0.92** | 0.92** | 0.95** | 0.91** |
异卵双生DZ | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.45 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.76 | 0.68 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 同卵双生MZ | 0.66 | 0.75 | 0.86** | 0.79** | 0.64 | 0.81 | 0.85** | 0.77 |
异卵双生DZ | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.69 | 0.63 | 0.58 |
表2 不同年龄、性别、卵型的双生子坐高(h)、下肢长(L)及两者比值(h/L)的组内相关系数
Tab.2 Intraclass twins correlations of h, L and h/L classified by age, gender and zygosity
变量Variable | 卵型Zygosity | 男Male | 女Female | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6~8 a | 9~11 a | 12~14 a | 15~18 a | 6~8 a | 9~11 a | 12~14 a | 15~18 a | ||
坐高 h | 同卵双生MZ | 0.87** | 0.91** | 0.96** | 0.95** | 0.82** | 0.93** | 0.92** | 0.93** |
异卵双生DZ | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.57 | 0.73 | 0.67 | |
下肢长 L | 同卵双生MZ | 0.81 | 0.84* | 0.90** | 0.83** | 0.92** | 0.92** | 0.95** | 0.91** |
异卵双生DZ | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.45 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.76 | 0.68 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 同卵双生MZ | 0.66 | 0.75 | 0.86** | 0.79** | 0.64 | 0.81 | 0.85** | 0.77 |
异卵双生DZ | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.69 | 0.63 | 0.58 |
变量Variable | 年龄组 Age group (a) | 模型Model 1 (Ecf=0) | 模型Model 2 (Ecm=Ecf) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
男Male | 女Female | 男Male | 女Female | ||||||||||
Ea | Ec | Ee | Ea | Ec | Ee | Ea | Ec | Ee | Ea | Ec | Ee | ||
坐高 h(cm) | 6~8 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.81 | — | 0.19 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.19 |
9~11 | 0.58 | 0.34 | 0.08 | 0.93 | — | 0.07 | 0.59 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.68 | 0.25 | 0.07 | |
12~14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.67 | 0.29 | 0.04 | 0.44 | 0.49 | 0.07 | |
15~18 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.94 | — | 0.06 | 0.78 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.70 | 0.24 | 0.06 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 6~8 | 0.28 | 0.52 | 0.19 | 0.92 | — | 0.08 | 0.31 | 0.49 | 0.20 | 0.57 | 0.35 | 0.08 |
9~11 | 0.61 | 0.30 | 0.09 | 0.92 | — | 0.08 | 0.62 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 0.07 | |
12~14 | 0.64 | 0.27 | 0.09 | 0.94 | — | 0.06 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.05 | |
15~18 | 0.82 | — | 0.18 | 0.93 | — | 0.07 | 0.63 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.75 | 0.18 | 0.07 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 6~8 | — | 0.65 | 0.35 | 0.66 | — | 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.48 | 0.36 | 0.21 | 0.42 | 0.36 |
9~11 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.22 | 0.84 | — | 0.16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
12~14 | 0.54 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.87 | — | 0.13 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.13 | 0.57 | 0.30 | 0.13 | |
15~18 | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.20 | 0.85 | — | 0.15 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.20 | 0.56 | 0.29 | 0.15 |
表3 各年龄组h, L和h/L 最佳拟合模型的参数估计结果
Tab.3 Parameter estimates in the best-fitting bivariate model for h, L and h/L of different age groups
变量Variable | 年龄组 Age group (a) | 模型Model 1 (Ecf=0) | 模型Model 2 (Ecm=Ecf) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
男Male | 女Female | 男Male | 女Female | ||||||||||
Ea | Ec | Ee | Ea | Ec | Ee | Ea | Ec | Ee | Ea | Ec | Ee | ||
坐高 h(cm) | 6~8 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.81 | — | 0.19 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.19 |
9~11 | 0.58 | 0.34 | 0.08 | 0.93 | — | 0.07 | 0.59 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.68 | 0.25 | 0.07 | |
12~14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.67 | 0.29 | 0.04 | 0.44 | 0.49 | 0.07 | |
15~18 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.94 | — | 0.06 | 0.78 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.70 | 0.24 | 0.06 | |
下肢长 L (cm) | 6~8 | 0.28 | 0.52 | 0.19 | 0.92 | — | 0.08 | 0.31 | 0.49 | 0.20 | 0.57 | 0.35 | 0.08 |
9~11 | 0.61 | 0.30 | 0.09 | 0.92 | — | 0.08 | 0.62 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 0.07 | |
12~14 | 0.64 | 0.27 | 0.09 | 0.94 | — | 0.06 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.05 | |
15~18 | 0.82 | — | 0.18 | 0.93 | — | 0.07 | 0.63 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.75 | 0.18 | 0.07 | |
坐高/下肢长 h/L | 6~8 | — | 0.65 | 0.35 | 0.66 | — | 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.48 | 0.36 | 0.21 | 0.42 | 0.36 |
9~11 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.22 | 0.84 | — | 0.16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
12~14 | 0.54 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.87 | — | 0.13 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.13 | 0.57 | 0.30 | 0.13 | |
15~18 | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.20 | 0.85 | — | 0.15 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.20 | 0.56 | 0.29 | 0.15 |
图3 遗传和环境对不同年龄组坐高(A)和下肢长(B)及其两者比值(C)相对效应的变化情况 Ee.特殊环境效应Unique environmental effect;Ec .共同环境效应Common environmental effect;Ea.加性遗传效应Additive genetic effect
Fig.3 Influence of heredity and environment on h(A), L (B) and h/L(C) in different age groups
[1] |
Xi H, Chen Z, Li W, et al. Chest circumference and sitting height among children and adolescents from Lhasa, Tibet compared to other high altitude populations[J]. American Journal of Human Biology, 2016, 28(2): 197-202
doi: 10.1002/ajhb.22772 pmid: 26250416 |
[2] |
Zhu M, Jiao YH, Xiong F, et al. Analysis of limb segments length and body proportion of southern Chinese children and adolescents[J]. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2015, 51(12): 1164-1171
doi: 10.1111/jpc.12978 pmid: 26257273 |
[3] |
Del Pino M, Ramos MR, Fano V. Leg length, sitting height, and body proportions references for achondroplasia: New tools for monitoring growth[J]. American Journal of Medical Genetics A, 2018, 176(4): 896-906
doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.38633 URL |
[4] |
Merker A, Neumeyer L, Hertel NT, et al. Development of body proportions in achondroplasia: Sitting height, leg length, arm span, and foot length[J]. American Journal of Medical Genetics A, 2018, 176(9): 1819-1829
doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.40356 URL |
[5] | Zhang YQ, Li H. Reference charts of sitting height, leg length and body proportions for Chinese children aged 0-18 years[J]. Annals of Human Biology, 2015, 42(3): 223-230 |
[6] |
Zhang YX, Zhao JS, Chu ZH. Percentiles of waist-to-sitting-height ratio and its relationship with obesity and elevated blood pressure among children and adolescents in Shandong, China[J]. Blood Pressure Monitoring, 2016, 21(1): 33-37
doi: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000154 URL |
[7] |
Bundak R, Bas F, Furman A, et al. Sitting height and sitting height/height ratio references for Turkish children[J]. European Journal of Pediatrics, 2014, 173(7): 861-869
doi: 10.1007/s00431-013-2212-3 pmid: 24401935 |
[8] |
Burton RF. Sitting height as a better predictor of body mass than total height and (body mass)/(sitting height) 3 as an index of build[J]. Annals of Human Biology, 2015, 42(3): 212-216
doi: 10.3109/03014460.2014.954615 URL |
[9] |
Ramoshaba NE, Monyeki KD, Mpya J, et al. The relationship between sitting height, sitting height to height ratio with blood pressure among Polokwane private school children aged 6-13 years[J]. Bmc Public Health, 2017, 17(1): 973-978
doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4983-3 URL |
[10] |
Rodríguez López S, Bensenor IM, Giatti L, et al. Association between maternal education and blood pressure: mediation evidence through height components in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil)[J]. Annals of Human Biology, 2017, 44(3): 243-251
doi: 10.1080/03014460.2016.1188983 pmid: 27168237 |
[11] |
Chang S, Ong HL, Abdin E, et al. Head circumference, leg length and its association with dementia among older adult population in Singapore[J]. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2017, 32(12): e1-e9
doi: 10.1002/gps.4643 URL |
[12] |
Said-Mohamed R, Prioreschi A, Nyati LH, et al. Rural-urban variations in age at menarche, adult height, leg-length and abdominal adiposity in black South African women in transitioning South Africa[J]. Annals of Human Biology, 2018, 45(2): 123-132
doi: 10.1080/03014460.2018.1442497 pmid: 29557678 |
[13] |
Prince MJ, Acosta D, Guerra M, et al. Leg length, skull circumference, and the incidence of dementia in Latin America and China: A 10/66 population-based cohort study[J]. PLOS ONE, 2018, 13(4): e0195133
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195133 URL |
[14] |
He L, Pitkaniemi J, Silventoinen K, et al. ACEt: An R Package for Estimating Dynamic Heritability and Comparing Twin Models[J]. Behavior Genetics, 2017, 47(6): 620-641
doi: 10.1007/s10519-017-9866-y pmid: 28879484 |
[15] | 季成叶. 现代儿童少年卫生学(第2版)[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2010 |
[16] | 席焕久, 陈昭. 人体测量方法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010 |
[17] | Neale MC, Boker SM, Xie G, et al. Mx:statistical modeling (6th edition)[M]. Richmond, VA:Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2002 |
[18] | Dupae E, Defrise-Gussenhoven E, Susanne C. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Body Measurements of Belgian Twins[J]. ActaGeneticaeMedicaeetGemellologiae, 1982, 31(3-4): 139-144 |
[19] |
Salces I, Rebato E, Susanne C, et al. Heritability variations of morphometric traits in West Bengal (India) children aged 4-19 years: A mixed-longitudinal growth study[J]. Annals of Human Biology, 2007, 34(2): 226-239
pmid: 17558593 |
[20] |
Sharma JC, SharmaK. Estimates of genetic variance for some selected morphometric characters: a twin study[J]. Acta Geneticae Medicae Et Gemellologiae, 1984, 33(3): 509-514
pmid: 6543283 |
[21] |
Arya R, Duggirala R, Comuzzie AG, et al. Heritability of Anthropometric Phenotypes in Caste Populations of Visakhapatnam, India[J]. Human Biology, 2002, 74(3): 325-344
pmid: 12180759 |
[22] |
Tanner JM, Cameron N. Investigation of the mid-growth in height, weight and limb circumferences in single-year velocity data from the London 1966-67 growth survey[J]. Annals of Human Biology, 1980, 7(6): 565-577
pmid: 7212642 |
[23] | Sinclair D, Dangerfield P. Human growth after birth (6th edition)[M]. London: Oxford University Press, 2000 |
[24] |
Iuliano-Burns S, Hopper J, Seeman E. The Age of Puberty Determines Sexual Dimorphism in Bone Structure: A Male/Female Co-Twin Control Study[J]. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2009, 94(5): 1638-1643
doi: 10.1210/jc.2008-1522 pmid: 19258406 |
[25] |
Zhang YX, Zhao JS, Chu ZH. Waist to sitting height ratio may be a new useful index for screening obesity and related health risk[J]. International journal of cardiology, 2015, 187(1): 126-127
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.346 URL |
[1] | 周亚威, 王惠, 丁思聪, 陈博. 东周一例人体肱骨发育不对称的病理分析[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(01): 87-97. |
[2] | 饶慧芸. 古蛋白质分析在东亚古人类演化中的应用前景[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(06): 1083-1096. |
[3] | 刘晓敏, 乌云达来, 李玉玲. 双生子多巴胺D3受体基因多态性对儿童体成分的影响[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(02): 274-281. |
[4] | 德力格尔, 乌云格日勒. 内蒙古汉族、蒙古族与日本学生身高和体质量的最大发育年龄段差异[J]. 人类学学报, 2021, 40(05): 847-856. |
[5] | 王燕;李玉玲;刘燕;弓剑. 学龄双生子儿童身体围度与宽度指标的遗传学分析[J]. 人类学学报, 2017, 36(03): 395-404. |
[6] | 张雯欣;张全超. 《人类进化和生物考古视角下的牙齿生长发育》评介[J]. 人类学学报, 2016, 35(04): 633-634. |
[7] | 高国柱. 环境因素对中国城市青少年体表面积发育的影响[J]. 人类学学报, 2016, 35(03): 445-457. |
[8] | 席焕久;李文慧;温有锋;刘堃. 海拔对儿童和青少年生长发育的影响[J]. 人类学学报, 2016, 35(02): 267-282. |
[9] | 王翠斌;赵凌霞. 禄丰古猿带状牙釉质发育不全的再观察[J]. 人类学学报, 2015, 34(04): 544-552. |
[10] | 富杰;鄂勇;陈德忠;敖铁林;陆舜华;丁一;李玉玲. 达斡尔族中小学生体质发育现状及20多年来的变化[J]. 人类学学报, 2015, 34(01): 87-96. |
[11] | 席焕久;温有锋;张海龙;李文慧;任甫;黄克强;肖艳杰;叶丽平;李春山;陈昭;. 青藏高原与安第斯高原地区儿童青少年的身高、体重和胸围的对比[J]. 人类学学报, 2014, 33(02): 198-213. |
[12] | 黄大元; 张惠娟; 吴国运; 梁成青; 熊健. 武陵山区苗族儿童少年体质发育[J]. 人类学学报, 2013, 32(02): 193-203. |
[13] | 李玉玲; 季成叶; 刘燕; 丁一; 栾天抒; 赵曼; 郑玉娜. 学龄双生子儿童头面部特征的遗传学分析[J]. 人类学学报, 2013, 32(01): 93-100. |
[14] | 张雅军; 何驽; 尹兴喆. 山西陶寺遗址出土人骨的病理和创伤[J]. 人类学学报, 2011, 30(03): 265-273. |
[15] | 史铀; 汪红; 尤康; 胡兴宇. 4308例四川地区汉族2—25岁眼距测量及生长发育分析[J]. 人类学学报, 2011, 30(01): 86-90. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||