Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Close inbreeding and low genetic diversity in Inner Asian human populations despite geographical exogamy

Marchi, Nina, Mennecier, Philippe, Georges, Myriam, Lafosse, Sophie, Hegay, Tatyana, Dorzhu, Choduraa, Chichlo, Boris, Ségurel, Laure, Heyer, Evelyne·2018·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-27047-3PMC PMC6010435
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When closely related individuals mate, they produce inbred offspring, which often have lower fitness than outbred ones. Geographical exogamy, by favouring matings between distant individuals, is thought to be an inbreeding avoidance mechanism; however, no data has clearly tested this prediction. Here, we took advantage of the diversity of matrimonial systems in humans to explore the impact of geographical exogamy on genetic diversity and inbreeding. We collected ethno-demographic data for 1,344 individuals in 16 populations from two Inner Asian cultural groups with contrasting dispersal behaviours (Turko-Mongols and Indo-Iranians) and genotyped genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms in 503 individuals. We estimated the population exogamy rate and confirmed the expected dispersal differences: Turko-Mongols are geographically more exogamous than Indo-Iranians. Unexpectedly, across populations, exogamy patterns correlated neither with the proportion of inbred individuals nor with their genetic diversity. Even more surprisingly, among Turko-Mongols, descendants from exogamous couples were significantly more inbred than descendants from endogamous couples, except for large distances (>40 km). Overall, 37% of the descendants from exogamous couples were closely inbred. This suggests that in Inner Asia, geographical exogamy is neither efficient in increasing genetic diversity nor in avoiding inbreeding, which might be due to kinship endogamy despite the occurrence of dispersal.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-018-27047-3

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Geographical locations of the 16 Inner Asian populations sampled for this study. On this map generated from maps80 and mapdata81 R82 packages, the populations are coloured based on their linguistic affiliation, which also correlates with their matrimonial system. Note that the Kel population is composed of Northern Asian Kyrgyz from two different locations, and that Kaz and Uzb, as well as Akz and Tlg, were sampled at the same location, respectively. UZB.: Uzbekistan, KYR.: Kyrgyzstan, TUR.: Turkmenistan, TAJ.: Tajikistan, AFG.: Afghanistan, PAK.: Pakistan. See Supplementary Table 1B for population codes.
Figure 1 Geographical locations of the 16 Inner Asian populations sampled for this study. On this map generated from maps80 and mapdata81 R82 packages, the populations are coloured based on their linguistic affiliation, which also correlates with their matrimonial system. Note that the Kel population is composed of Northern Asian Kyrgyz from two different locations, and that Kaz and Uzb, as well as Akz and Tlg, were sampled at the same location, respectively. UZB.: Uzbekistan, KYR.: Kyrgyzstan, TUR.: Turkmenistan, TAJ.: Tajikistan, AFG.: Afghanistan, PAK.: Pakistan. See Supplementary Table 1B for population codes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Geographical distances between the birth places of couples in Turko-Mongols and Indo-Iranians. The geographical distances are plotted in log scale (km). Their densities are represented by population (dashed lines) or for the Indo-Iranian and Turko-Mongol groups (solid lines). We represented the average distances within couples per population using a Kernel’s density estimate implemented in R with a smoothing bandwidth of 0.2. See Supplementary Table 1B for population codes.
Figure 2 Geographical distances between the birth places of couples in Turko-Mongols and Indo-Iranians. The geographical distances are plotted in log scale (km). Their densities are represented by population (dashed lines) or for the Indo-Iranian and Turko-Mongol groups (solid lines). We represented the average distances within couples per population using a Kernel’s density estimate implemented in R with a smoothing bandwidth of 0.2. See Supplementary Table 1B for population codes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Genetic diversity (A) and inbreeding patterns (B,C) within populations. Grey lines in (B) represent inbreeding values corresponding to second-cousins and first-cousins. The grey line in (C) represents the homozygosity population baseline expected under panmixia. The number of samples per population is indicated between parentheses. See Supplementary Table 1B for population codes.
Figure 3 Genetic diversity (A) and inbreeding patterns (B,C) within populations. Grey lines in (B) represent inbreeding values corresponding to second-cousins and first-cousins. The grey line in (C) represents the homozygosity population baseline expected under panmixia. The number of samples per population is indicated between parentheses. See Supplementary Table 1B for population codes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Parental couple distances and close inbreeding patterns for descendants from Turko-Mongols. For each of three estimators of inbreeding, we show in red the median value for four different classes of parental distances (<4 km, 4–20 km, 20–40 km and <40 km) as well as confidence intervals at 25% and 75%. The results of a MWU test comparing the <4 km class to all three others is shown below the plot.
Figure 4 Parental couple distances and close inbreeding patterns for descendants from Turko-Mongols. For each of three estimators of inbreeding, we show in red the median value for four different classes of parental distances (<4 km, 4–20 km, 20–40 km and <40 km) as well as confidence intervals at 25% and 75%. The results of a MWU test comparing the <4 km class to all three others is shown below the plot.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Bittles, A. Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Clinical Genetics 60, 89–98 (2008). · DOI
  2. Pemberton, T. J. et al. Genomic patterns of homozygosity in worldwide human populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 91, 275–292 (2012). · DOI
  3. Gazal, S., Sahbatou, M., Babron, M.-C., Génin, E. & Leutenegger, A.-L. High level of inbreeding in final phase of 1000 Genomes Project. Scientific Reports 5, 1–7 (2015). · DOI
  4. Woods, C. G. et al. Quantification of homozygosity in consanguineous individuals with autosomal recessive disease. American journal of human genetics 78, 889–896 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Li, L.-H. et al. Long contiguous stretches of homozygosity in the human genome. Human Mutation 27, 1115–1121 (2006). · DOI
  6. Mitton, J. B. In The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives 17–41 (University of Chicago Press, 1993).
  7. Charlesworth, D. & Willis, J. H. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nature Reviews Genetics 10, 783–796 (2009). · DOI
  8. Robert, A., Toupance, B., Tremblay, M. & Heyer, E. Impact of inbreeding on fertility in a pre-industrial population. European Journal of Human Genetics 17, 673–681 (2009). · DOI
  9. Pusey, A. & Wolf, M. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11, 201–206 (1996). · DOI
  10. Fareed, M., Ahmad, M. K., Azeem Anwar, M. & Afzal, M. Impact of consanguineous marriages and degrees of inbreeding on fertility, child mortality, secondary sex ratio, selection intensity and genetic load: a cross-sectional study from Northern India. Pediatric Research. https://doi.org/10.1038/pr.2016.177 (2016). · DOI
  11. Pedersen, J. The influence of consanguineous marriage on infant and child mortality among palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Community Genetics 5, 178–181 (2002). · DOI
  12. Charlesworth, D. Effects of inbreeding on the genetic diversity of populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 358, 1051–1070 (2003). · DOI
  13. Spielman, D., Brook, B. W. & Briscoe, D. A. & Frankham, R. Does inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity reduce disease resistance? Conservation Genetics 5, 439–448 (2004). · DOI
  14. Frankham, R. Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation 126, 131–140 (2005). · DOI
  15. Saccheri, I. et al. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392, 491–494 (1998). · DOI
  16. Ubbink, G. J., van de Broek, J., Hazewinkel, H. A. & Rothuizen, J. Cluster analysis of the genetic heterogeneity and disease distributions in purebred dog populations. The Veterinary record 142, 209–13 (1998). · DOI
  17. Keller, L. & Waller, D. M. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17, 230–241 (2002). · DOI
  18. Moreno, E., Pérez-González, J., Carranza, J. & Moya-Laraño, J. Better Fitness in Captive Cuvier’s Gazelle despite Inbreeding Increase: Evidence of Purging? PLOS ONE 10(1–15), e0145111 (2015). · DOI
  19. Firman, R. C. & Simmons, L. W. Gametic interactions promote inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Ecology Letters 18, 937–943 (2015). · DOI
  20. Holmes, W. G. & Sherman, P. W. The Ontogeny of Kin Recognition in Two Species of Ground Squirrels. American Zoologist 22, 491–517 (1982). · DOI
  21. Hepper, P. G. Kin Recognition: Functions and Mechanisms a Review. Biological Reviews 61, 63–93 (1986). · DOI
  22. Wolf, A. P. Childhood Association and Sexual Attraction: A Further Test of the Westermarck Hypothesis. American Anthropologist 72, 503–515 (1970). · DOI
  23. Hauber, M. E. & Sherman, P. W. Self-referent phenotype matching: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends in Neurosciences 24, 609–616 (2001). · DOI
  24. Pfefferle, D., Kazem, A. J. N., Brockhausen, R. R., Ruiz-Lambides, A. V. & Widdig, A. Monkeys Spontaneously Discriminate Their Unfamiliar Paternal Kin under Natural Conditions Using Facial Cues. Current Biology 24, 1806–1810 (2014). · DOI
  25. Levréro, F. et al. Social shaping of voices does not impair phenotype matching of kinship in mandrills. Nature Communications 6, 1–7 (2015). · DOI
  26. Crepy, M. A. & Casal, J. J. Kin recognition by self-referent phenotype matching in plants. New Phytologist 209, 15–16 (2016). · DOI
  27. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C. & Perrett, D. I. Social perception of facial resemblance in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior 37, 64–77 (2008). · DOI
  28. Laurent, R. & Chaix, R. MHC-dependent mate choice in humans: Why genomic patterns from the HapMap European American dataset support the hypothesis. BioEssays 34, 267–271 (2012). · DOI
  29. Green, J. P. et al. The Genetic Basis of Kin Recognition in a Cooperatively Breeding Mammal. Current Biology 25, 2631–2641 (2015). · DOI
  30. Hoogland, J. L. Prairie Dogs Avoid Extreme Inbreeding. Science 215, 1639–1641 (1982). · DOI
  31. Ronce, O. How does it feel to be like a rolling stone? Ten questions about dispersal evolution. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 38, 231–253 (2007). · DOI
  32. Lambin, X. Natal Philopatry, Competition for Resources, and Inbreeding Avoidance in Townsend’s Voles (Microtus Townsendii). Ecology 75, 224–235 (1994). · DOI
  33. Pusey, A. E. & Packer, C. The Evolution of Sex-Biased Dispersal in Lions. Behaviour 101, 275–310 (1987). · DOI
  34. Pusey, A. In Pedophilia 201–220, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9682-6_8 (Springer New York, 1990). · DOI
  35. Bradley, B. J., Doran-Sheehy, D. M. & Vigilant, L. Potential for female kin associations in wild western gorillas despite female dispersal. Proceedings. Biological sciences/The Royal Society 274, 2179–85 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  36. Fix, A. G. Migration and colonization in human microevolution. at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6300(200102/03)13:2%3C280::AID-AJHB1040%3E3.0.CO;2-6 (Cambridge University Press, 1999). · DOI
  37. McQuillan, R. et al. Runs of Homozygosity in European Populations. The American Journal of Human Genetics 83, 359–372 (2008). · DOI
  38. Ims, R. a. & Yoccoz, N. G. In Metapopulation Biology 247–265, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012323445-2/50015-8 (Elsevier, 1997). · DOI
  39. Krader, L. Peoples of Central Asia, 2nd edition. Indiana University Publications, Bloomington 26 (1966).
  40. Stoneking, M. Single nucleotide polymorphisms: From the evolutionary past. Nature 409, 821–822 (2001). · DOI
  41. Martínez-Cruz, B. et al. In the heartland of Eurasia: the multilocus genetic landscape of Central Asian populations. European Journal of Human Genetics 19, 216–223 (2011). · DOI
  42. Conrad, D. F. et al. A worldwide survey of haplotype variation and linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nature genetics 38, 1251–1260 (2006). · DOI
  43. Pemberton, T. J. & Rosenberg, N. A. Population-Genetic Influences on Genomic Estimates of the Inbreeding Coefficient: A Global Perspective. Human Heredity 77, 37–48 (2014). · DOI
  44. Palstra, F. P., Heyer, E. & Austerlitz, F. Statistical Inference on Genetic Data Reveals the Complex Demographic History of Human Populations in Central Asia. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32, 1411–1424 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Leutenegger, A.-L. et al. Estimation of the Inbreeding Coefficient through Use of Genomic Data. The American Journal of Human Genetics 73, 516–523 (2003). · DOI
  46. Gazal, S., Sahbatou, M., Babron, M.-C., Génin, E. & Leutenegger, A.-L. FSuite: exploiting inbreeding in dense SNP chip and exome data. Bioinformatics 30, 1940–1941 (2014). · DOI
  47. Leutenegger, A.-L., Sahbatou, M., Gazal, S., Cann, H. & Génin, E. Consanguinity around the world: what do the genomic data of the HGDP-CEPH diversity panel tell us? European Journal of Human Genetics 19, 583–587 (2011). · DOI
  48. Gibson, J., Morton, N. E. & Collins, A. Extended tracts of homozygosity in outbred human populations. Human Molecular Genetics 15, 789–795 (2006). · DOI
  49. Joshi, P. K. et al. Directional dominance on stature and cognition in diverse human populations. Nature 523, 459–62 (2015). · DOI
  50. Kirin, M. et al. Genomic Runs of Homozygosity Record Population History and Consanguinity. PLoS ONE 5(1–7), e13996 (2010). · DOI
  51. Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: A Tool Set for Whole-Genome Association and Population-Based Linkage Analyses. The American Journal of Human Genetics 81, 559–575 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  52. Al-Gazali, L., Hamamy, H. & Al-Arrayad, S. Genetic disorders in the Arab world. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 333, 831–834 (2006). · DOI
  53. Shami, S. A., Schmitt, L. H. & Bittles, A. H. Consanguinity related prenatal and postnatal mortality of the populations of seven Pakistani Punjab cities. Journal of Medical Genetics 26, 267–271 (1989). · DOI
  54. Thompson, E. A. & Roberts, D. F. Kinship structure and heterozygosity on Tristan da Cunha. American journal of human genetics 32, 445–52 (1980).
  55. Kaplanis, J. et al. Quantitative analysis of population-scale family trees with millions of relatives. 9309, 1–12 (2018). · DOI
  56. Marks, S. J., Levy, H., Martinez-Cadenas, C., Montinaro, F. & Capelli, C. Migration distance rather than migration rate explains genetic diversity in human patrilocal groups. Molecular Ecology 21, 4958–4969 (2012). · DOI
  57. Boyce, A. J., Küchemann, C. F. & Harrison, G. A. Neighbourhood knowledge and the distribution of marriage distances. Annals of Human Genetics 30, 335–338 (1967). · DOI
  58. Wright, S. Isolation by distance under diverse systems of mating. Genetics 31, 39–59 (1946). · DOI
  59. Murdock, G. P. Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary. Ethnology 6, 109–236 (1967). · DOI
  60. Roy-Gagnon, M. H. et al. Genomic and genealogical investigation of the French Canadian founder population structure. Human Genetics 129, 521–531 (2011). · DOI
  61. Colonna, V. et al. Comparing population structure as inferred from genealogical versus genetic information. European Journal of Human Genetics 17, 1635–1641 (2009). · DOI
  62. Génin, E. & Todorov, A. A. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1038/npg.els.0005407 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006). · DOI
  63. Redden, D. T. & Allison, D. B. The Effect of Assortative Mating upon Genetic Association Studies: Spurious Associations and Population Substructure in the Absence of Admixture. Behavior Genetics 36, 678–686 (2006). · DOI
  64. Larmuseau, M. H. D., Van Geystelen, A., van Oven, M. & Decorte, R. Genetic genealogy comes of age: Perspectives on the use of deep-rooted pedigrees in human population genetics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 150, 505–511 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  65. Sebro, R. & Risch, N. J. A brief note on the resemblance between relatives in the presence of population stratification. Heredity 108, 563–568 (2012). · DOI
  66. Mountain, J. L. & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. Multilocus genotypes, a tree of individuals, and human evolutionary history. American journal of human genetics 61, 705–18 (1997). · DOI
  67. Verdu, P. et al. Patterns of Admixture and Population Structure in Native Populations of Northwest North America. PLoS Genetics 10(1–17), e1004530 (2014). · DOI
  68. Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B. & Raftery, A. E. mclust 5: Clustering, Classification and Density Estimation Using Gaussian Finite Mixture Models. The R journal 8, 289–317 (2016). · DOI

Cited by

See all 33

Metadata

Authors
Marchi, N., Mennecier, P., Georges, M., Lafosse, S., Hegay, T., Dorzhu, C., Chichlo, B., Ségurel, L., & Heyer, E.
ORCID
Marchi, Nina
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-06-20
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/s41598-018-27047-3
PMC
PMC6010435
Cited by
33
References
6
Language
en
Licence

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: Close inbreeding and low genetic diversity in Inner Asian human populations despite geographical exogamy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-018-27047-3
The paper
Marchi, N., Mennecier, P., Georges, M., Lafosse, S., Hegay, T., Dorzhu, C., Chichlo, B., Ségurel, L., & Heyer, E. (2018). Close inbreeding and low genetic diversity in Inner Asian human populations despite geographical exogamy. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27047-3