Archives for posts with tag: identity by descent

*update below*

remember this map from ralph & coop [pdf]?:

coop et al - mean within-country ibd rates

those are the mean ibd (identity by descent) rates for various populations in europe. the bigger the circle, the greater the number of ibd blocks larger than 1cM in length shared in common between each populations’ members. so, the larger the circles, the more segments of dna the individuals within those population share in common — i.e. the more alike they are genetically.

well, i never added the hajnal line to that map like i usually like to do for any map of europe that lands on my desktop (see here and here for examples). how remiss of me! (recall that populations within the hajnal line have had a historic tendency to marry late.)

i thought i’d better rectify this situation … so, here it is! mean ibd rates for europe PLUS the hajnal line. enjoy!:

coop et al - mean within-country ibd rates + hajnal line

update: see also jayman’s More on Farming and Inheritance Systems – Part I: IQ.

previously: ibd and historic mating patterns in europe and behind the hajnal line and todd’s family systems and the hajnal line

(note: comments do not require an email. doink!)

i’ve written before (here, here and here) about the hgdp samples and the fact that there is very little to no provenance info connected to them. the problem with this, afaics, is that it’s difficult to know whether or not the hgdp samples are truly representative, in all ways, of the populations from which they came.

i was particularly concerned initially about the french (and the japanese) hgdp samples — and then i got over that — but now i’m concerned about them again. here’s why:

the hgdp samples from france are described thusly:

“France – French/various regions (relatives) – This sample from various regions of France is part of the Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel collected by the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) and the Foundation Jean Dausset (CEPH). This sample consists of unrelated individuals and was collected with proper informed consent.”

great!

hang on — which regions?

auvergne? where, in some villages in the eighteenth century, groups of families regularly inbred with one another? lorraine? which, in some areas, had consanguinity rates of up to 50% between 1810 and 1910? burgundy or brittany, both of which had reportedly higher cousin marriage rates in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries than other regions of france? or were the hgdp samples collected in places like central france which, historically, had much lower rates (in the range of 1-3.5%) of close marriages?

the thing is: we don’t know.

what we do know is that the hgdp sampling seems kinda biased towards unique little groups like basques and orcadians, sardinians and the adygei. which is understandable ’cause these are all interesting, unusual groups and there’s legitimate concern that their unique genomes might sorta disappear in our modern, outbreeding world, and it would be a shame to miss out on the chance to at least keep a record of all that human biodiversity.

but then i have to wonder how representative of the majority of french people are the french hgdp samples? do they truly represent “the french,” or did the samples come from some of those crazy little villages way up in the mountains? i dunno. and neither does anybody else (afaik).

and the reason i wonder is: if teh scientists are gonna do really awesome genetic studies to check for the relatedness between the members of different human populations — like runs of homozygosity (roh) studies or identity by descent (ibd) studies — i think they need to know if the samples they’re looking at are representative or not. do the results for “the french” in studies like this or this or this truly represent the average french, or do they represent some special sub-groups of mountain dwelling french?

in the most recent roh study i posted about, the “french” don’t appear to be much more in- or out-bred than orcadians or the basques, something which strikes me as odd. perhaps — perhaps — that’s because the french hgdp samples are not truly representative of the broader french population. perhaps. i don’t know. nor do the researchers.

rinse and repeat above discussion for the other samples, too.

previously: hgdp samples and relatedness and more on the hgdp samples and why i care about the hgdp samples and meanwhile, in france… and runs of homozygosity and inbreeding (and outbreeding) and ibd and historic mating patterns in europe and runs of homozygosity again

(note: comments do not require an email. not out on a limb, am i?)

**update 08/03: post fixed to remove references to roh which i got wrong (roh≠blocks of ibd!) — see comments below (thanks, citrus!)**

princenuadha points me to this awesome pdf which i guess was a presentation given at a society for molecular biology and evolution (smbe) conference last weekend (thanks, prince!).

here is an interesting graphic from the presentation (pg. 21):

what this map shows are the means of runs of homozygosity (remember those?) blocks of identity by descent (ibd) that are greater than 1cM for each of these european populations. the longer the ibd blocks, the greater the identity by descent, and vice versa. small circles=fewer long blocks of ibd; large circles=more long blocks of ibd.

if a population has lots of short blocks of ibd, then its genetics are all mixed up, possibly due to outbreeding or because of a fairly recent mixing with another population. if a population has lots of long blocks of ibd, then its genetics are not so mixed up and the individuals within it share a lot of identity by descent. this can be an indicator of having been squeezed through a bottleneck or close inbreeding over time.

here are the mean numbers of long blocks of ibd for some of the countries on the map:

as you can see, my “core europeans” (english, french, germans, dutch, prolly some others) all have low means of blocks of ibd. the smallest circles are found right in the center of nw europe: england, france, belgium, germany. also italy (more about that below). in the immediate periphery around core europe, the circles are a bit larger, i.e. there are more long blocks of ibd: scotland, ireland, spain, portugal, switzerland, greece, scandinavians. eastern europeans have even larger circles/even more long blocks of ibd: poles, russians. and populations in the balkans, like the albanians, have enormous circles, i.e. LOTS of long blocks of ibd.

all of that fits the pattern i’ve been talking about here on the ol’ blog (see the mating patterns series below in the left-hand column): that the core europeans have been outbreeding the most and for the longest, with peripheral europeans lagging behind that trend, and eastern europeans really lagging behind the trend. i haven’t actually discussed the balkan populations (yet), but i do know that cousin/endogamous marriage rates are pretty high in the balkans.

i wonder if the numbers for italy may be unrepresentatively low, but it’s difficult to know. the data used are from popres and, like so much genetic data out there, have no provenance info attached to them. so, are the italian data from northern italy (which has a long history of outbreeding) or southern italy (which has a lot of inbreeding) or a combination of both? dunno.

this is a very cool study! i like it a lot. (^_^)

polish gen also has an interesting post about the presentation, btw.

(note: comments do not require an email. ruh roh!)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers