Ch the relational models of RMT, while the remaining two are identified as the asocial and the null interactions. We generalized this categorization to the case of any number N of social actions. We proposed that the categories of action fluxes offer suitable abstract representations of the social actions performed by dyads implementing the relational models. Hence, simulated or real dyads may exhibit various patterns of interactions that can be matched to the six categories of action fluxes, singly or in combination. In that spirit, we discussed a method to identify relational models, expressed as categories of action fluxes, in data sets of dyadic interactions. Finally, we expressed a hypothesis about how social actions are valued and matched by the agents. Our representation can be used to interpret social relationships in terms of RMT and test various hypotheses on dyadic social interactions occurring in potentially large data sets.AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to Alan Fiske for numerous discussions both at UCLA and Z ich, which helped shape and refine our understanding of RMT. We thank Alexandru Babeanu for hisPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,14 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationshipsthorough review of our model and Marco Verweij for stimulating debates. Finally, we thank the Relational Models Theory International Lab, Christine Sadeghi and Ryan Woodard for insightful feedbacks.Author Quisinostat solubility ContributionsWrote the paper: MF DS.
The gene that encodes the CUB and sushi multiple domains 1 protein (CSMD1) has been identified in case vs control genome-wide association (GWAS) samples for addiction- related phenotypes that include extensive use of an addictive substance, vulnerability to develop dependence on an addictive substance, ability to quit smoking and time from initiation of Dactinomycin dose tobacco use to development of nicotine dependence. The modest association signals identified in these studies come from clusters of nearby single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with 10-2 > p > 10-8 association that often do not survive conservative Bonferroni corrections [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. The distribution of these signals in several parts of the CSMD1 gene is consistent with substantial disease-related allelic heterogeneity. CSMD1 has also been identified by several analyses of GWAS data and/or candidate gene studies for vulnerability to schizophrenia and clusters of schizophrenic symptoms [14,15,16,17,18,19]. Association with the CSMD1 intron 3 SNP rs10503253 is among the most studied. This or nearby SNPs have also been associated, at least modestly, with individual differences in cognitive abilities in normal and in schizophrenic samples [20,21,22,23,24]. Nominal p values were 3 x 10-3? x 10-4 for tests of IQ, strategy formation, planning, set shifting and problem solving in Greek military conscripts [20], 0.01?.04 for verbal IQ, performance IQ and/or mnemonic measures in Irish and/or German schizophrenics and controls [23] and 2?0-6 with “memory cognition” in Chinese schizophrenics and controls [24].Three common CSMD1 missense variants with minor allele frequencies > 0.03 are listed in databases. However, all are distant from intron 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi? geneId=64478). Increased frequencies of CSMD1 copy number variants are reported in individuals with mild cognitive impairment and with dementia [25]. However, little reported data links specific human CSMD1 genomic variants to specific.Ch the relational models of RMT, while the remaining two are identified as the asocial and the null interactions. We generalized this categorization to the case of any number N of social actions. We proposed that the categories of action fluxes offer suitable abstract representations of the social actions performed by dyads implementing the relational models. Hence, simulated or real dyads may exhibit various patterns of interactions that can be matched to the six categories of action fluxes, singly or in combination. In that spirit, we discussed a method to identify relational models, expressed as categories of action fluxes, in data sets of dyadic interactions. Finally, we expressed a hypothesis about how social actions are valued and matched by the agents. Our representation can be used to interpret social relationships in terms of RMT and test various hypotheses on dyadic social interactions occurring in potentially large data sets.AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to Alan Fiske for numerous discussions both at UCLA and Z ich, which helped shape and refine our understanding of RMT. We thank Alexandru Babeanu for hisPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,14 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationshipsthorough review of our model and Marco Verweij for stimulating debates. Finally, we thank the Relational Models Theory International Lab, Christine Sadeghi and Ryan Woodard for insightful feedbacks.Author ContributionsWrote the paper: MF DS.
The gene that encodes the CUB and sushi multiple domains 1 protein (CSMD1) has been identified in case vs control genome-wide association (GWAS) samples for addiction- related phenotypes that include extensive use of an addictive substance, vulnerability to develop dependence on an addictive substance, ability to quit smoking and time from initiation of tobacco use to development of nicotine dependence. The modest association signals identified in these studies come from clusters of nearby single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with 10-2 > p > 10-8 association that often do not survive conservative Bonferroni corrections [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. The distribution of these signals in several parts of the CSMD1 gene is consistent with substantial disease-related allelic heterogeneity. CSMD1 has also been identified by several analyses of GWAS data and/or candidate gene studies for vulnerability to schizophrenia and clusters of schizophrenic symptoms [14,15,16,17,18,19]. Association with the CSMD1 intron 3 SNP rs10503253 is among the most studied. This or nearby SNPs have also been associated, at least modestly, with individual differences in cognitive abilities in normal and in schizophrenic samples [20,21,22,23,24]. Nominal p values were 3 x 10-3? x 10-4 for tests of IQ, strategy formation, planning, set shifting and problem solving in Greek military conscripts [20], 0.01?.04 for verbal IQ, performance IQ and/or mnemonic measures in Irish and/or German schizophrenics and controls [23] and 2?0-6 with “memory cognition” in Chinese schizophrenics and controls [24].Three common CSMD1 missense variants with minor allele frequencies > 0.03 are listed in databases. However, all are distant from intron 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi? geneId=64478). Increased frequencies of CSMD1 copy number variants are reported in individuals with mild cognitive impairment and with dementia [25]. However, little reported data links specific human CSMD1 genomic variants to specific.