The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
Putting IBD to Bed
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

ibd

IBD plays a big part in my understanding of inheritance. I don’t mean inflammatory bowel disease. Nor do I mean isolation by distance. I’m talking identity by descent. Assuming your parents are “unrelated” then you are identical by descent with your sibling across some portion of your genome. You inherit identical segments from your parents, though due to recombination they will usually be non-identical at least across some part of the chromosome. Because of the law of segregation you should overlap 25% with your full sibling on the copy of the genes inherited from your mother and father (double that, and you get 50%). But this is an expected value. As it happens many siblings are not exactly 50% (e.g., I know of full siblings who share 40% of their genomes identical by descent from their parents). In the pre-genomic age this detail about variation was elided because usually you couldn’t precisely estimate the identity by descent. Rather, you just assume that you share 1/2 your genome with your full sibling, 1/4 with a half sibling or aunt/uncle or grandparent, 1/8 with your first cousin, and so forth.

Genomics has changed that. I can tell you for example that my son is ~20% identical by descent with one of his grandfathers. And, more surprisingly, he’s 18.9% identical by descent with one of his great-aunts! If expectation held his great-aunt should be 1/2 as related to him as his grandfather, but expectation did not hold. The figure above is from a review, Relatedness in the post-genomic era: is it still useful?:

Relatedness is a fundamental concept in genetics but is surprisingly hard to define in a rigorous yet useful way. Traditional relatedness coefficients specify expected genome sharing between individuals in pedigrees, but actual genome sharing can differ considerably from these expected values, which in any case vary according to the pedigree that happens to be available. Nowadays, we can measure genome sharing directly from genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data; however, there are many such measures in current use, and we lack good criteria for choosing among them. Here, we review SNP-based measures of relatedness and criteria for comparing them. We discuss how useful pedigree-based concepts remain today and highlight opportunities for further advances in quantitative genetics, with a focus on heritability estimation and phenotype prediction.

If you have academic access, you should read it. If you don’t, they seem to be proposing that we move beyond the confusing concept of identity by descent, and just think in terms of a coalescent framework. It does strike me that classical IBD-thinking is a historical contingency of genetics’ emergence in part in an age where pedigrees were very prevalent tools in interrogating patterns of inheritance. All for the good. But for non-geneticists I would suggest that these new methods which are able to pinpoint with fine precision patterns of genetic variation across pedigrees will allow us to explore in much more detail the nature of the heritability of many quantitative traits.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Quantitative Genetics 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
7 Comments to "Putting IBD to Bed"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Perhaps 30 years ago, I attended a lecture on genetics and genealogy – similarities and differences. One of the illustrations the speaker used was a photograph of a pair of brothers each of whom had married one of a pair of sisters, and their respective families. The brothers were identical twins, and so were the sisters. Hence, he argued, the offspring of the two couples, while genealogically cousins, were genetically brothers and sisters.

    Genomics hadn’t been developed at that time. It would have been interesting to compare the genomes of the cousins.

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I recently noticed that the word “uncle” derives from the Latin “avunculus,” literally “little grandfather.” Made me wonder whether they intuitively understood the basic math of inheritance, since grandfathers and uncles represent the same level of genetic relation.

    Razib, a question. I tested both my grandmothers — my grandfathers are dead. According to 23ndme, I got 57% of my paternal contribution from my paternal grandma, and 54% maternal contribution from my maternal grandma. I realize these are very much in the range of possibility, but do you think they are inflated because those are the individuals actually tested, and their methodology is not accounting for shared genes between grandparents of an isolated (Ashkenazi) population?

  3. are inflated because those are the individuals actually tested, and their methodology is not accounting for shared genes between grandparents of an isolated (Ashkenazi) population?

    hm. the thing is that even if there is IBD segment sharing in non-related ashkenazis the segments are not long.

  4. Purely anecdote, but I know a guy who found out when he was 60 that he had a sister-cousin: the same mother, and two brothers for fathers. Not a hillbilly story either.

    A test of the Habsburgs would now be possible, if access to the graves could be gotten. One Habsburg had something like 16 ancestors total at the generational depth where he could have had 62.

    • Replies: @ray
    62 ? not 64? But I take your point as the Habsburgs were not an advertisement for keeping it in the family.
  5. @John Emerson
    Purely anecdote, but I know a guy who found out when he was 60 that he had a sister-cousin: the same mother, and two brothers for fathers. Not a hillbilly story either.

    A test of the Habsburgs would now be possible, if access to the graves could be gotten. One Habsburg had something like 16 ancestors total at the generational depth where he could have had 62.

    62 ? not 64? But I take your point as the Habsburgs were not an advertisement for keeping it in the family.

  6. 2+4+8+16+32=62. I guessed 64 too.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS