The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Although the expected relationship or proportion of genome shared by pairs of relatives can be obtained from their pedigrees, the actual quantities deviate as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and depend on the number of chromosomes and map length. Formulae have been published previously for the variance of actual relationship for a number of specific types of relatives but no general formula for non-inbred individuals is available. We provide here a unified framework that enables the variances for distant relatives to be easily computed, showing, for example, how the variance of sharing for great grandparent–great grandchild, great uncle–great nephew, half uncle–nephew and first cousins differ, even though they have the same expected relationship. Results are extended in order to include differences in map length between sexes, no recombination in males and sex linkage. We derive the magnitude of skew in the proportion shared, showing the skew becomes increasingly large the more distant the relationship. The results obtained for variation in actual relationship apply directly to the variation in actual inbreeding as both are functions of genomic coancestry, and we show how to partition the variation in actual inbreeding between and within families. Although the variance of actual relationship falls as individuals become more distant, its coefficient of variation rises, and so, exacerbated by the skewness, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish different pedigree relationships from the actual fraction of the genome shared.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Understanding Inbreeding Depression, Purging, and Genetic Rescue
Hedrick, P. W., & Garcia-Dorado, A. (2016) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.005 · Cited by 668
Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes
WANG, H., MISZTAL, I., AGUILAR, I., LEGARRA, A., & MUIR, W. M. (2012) · Genetics Research · doi:10.1017/s0016672312000274 · Cited by 632
Wainschtein, P., Jain, D., Zheng, Z., TOPMed Anthropometry Working Group, Aslibekyan, S., Becker, D., Bi, W., Brody, J., Carlson, J. C., Correa, A., et al. (2022) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00997-7 · Cited by 513
Self-citationHarnessing genomic information for livestock improvement
Georges, M., Charlier, C., & Hayes, B. (2019) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-018-0082-2 · Cited by 384
Conomos, M. P., Laurie, C. A., Stilp, A. M., Gogarten, S. M., McHugh, C. P., Nelson, S. C., Sofer, T., Fernández-Rhodes, L., Justice, A. E., Graff, M., et al. (2016) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.12.001 · Cited by 336
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- HILL, W. G., & WEIR, B. S.
- Venue
- Genetics Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-01-12
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-64
- ISSN
- 0016-6723 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5073
- OpenAlex
- W2134049753
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0016672310000480
- The paper
- HILL, W. G., & WEIR, B. S. (2011). Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage. Genetics Research. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0016672310000480
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.