New concepts for distinguishing the hidden patterns of linkage disequilibrium which underlie association between genotypes and complex phenotypes

A disappointing feature of conventional methods for detecting association between DNA variation and a phenotype of interest is that they tell us little about the hidden pattern of linkage disequilibrium (LD) with the functional variant that is actually responsible for the association. This limitation applies to case-control studies and also to the transmission/disequilibrium test (TDT) and other family-based association methods. Here we present a fresh perspective on genetic association based on two novel concepts called 'LD squares' and 'equi-risk alleles'. These describe and characterize the different patterns of gametic LD which underlie genetic association. These concepts lead to a general principle - the Equi-Risk Allele Segregation Principle - which captures the way in which underlying LD patterns affect the transmission patterns of genetic variants associated with a phenotype. This provides a basis for distinguishing the hidden LD patterns and might help to locate the functional variants responsible for the association.

Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership

This study explores the theoretical and empirical distinction between developmental leadership and supportive leadership, which are currently encompassed in a single sub dimension of transformational leadership, individualized consideration. Items were selected to assess these constructs, and hypotheses regarding the differential effects of developmental and supportive leadership were proposed. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the proposed distinction between developmental and supportive leadership, although these leadership factors were very strongly associated. Structural equation modelling and multi-level modelling results indicated that both developmental leadership and supportive leadership displayed unique relationships with theoretically selected outcome measures. Developmental leadership displayed significantly stronger relationships with job satisfaction, career certainty, affective commitment to the organization and role breadth self-efficacy than did supportive leadership. Results provide initial evidence in support of the discriminant validity of these two types of leadership. Discussion focuses on the need to further examine the construct of developmental leadership.