ibd rates for europe and the hajnal line

*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!)

ibd and historic mating patterns in europe

**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!)