3
$\begingroup$

In general, inbred individuals tend to be at increased risk of sterility as shown in cows (Gonzales-Recio, 2007) or in leghorns (Nordskog and Cheng, 1988) for examples. I only have very quickly looked at a few abstract but it seems that this effect is a bit controversial in humans with two studies showing a negative relationship between consanguinity and sterility (Rao and Inbaraj, 1979; Bittles et al., 2009) and one showing a positive relationship (Ober et al., 1999).

What is the relationship between the inbreeding coefficient $F$ and the (relative or absolute) risk of sterility in humans?

For a definition of the inbreeding coefficient, please see here, here and there or just google inbreeding coefficient.

I am looking for some function, linear or not, that describes the probability of being sterile ($P_s$) as a function of the inbreeding coefficient $F$ in humans. I am aware such measure might differ among human populations but I'll be interested in whatever we can find.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd note that two of the three human studies you cite re: inbred individuals are at increased risk of sterility actually show the opposite. The 1999 Ober study demonstrates decreased fecundity (not sterility) in a subset of Hutterite women, but generally, larger population based studies (Bittles is a good example) show the opposite (no decrease in fecundity, or general production of offspring). The concerns that do hold up are increased rate of major birth defects and childhood death. Once these individuals in these communities reach reproductive age, if anything, they produce more offspring. $\endgroup$ – De Novo Nov 9 '18 at 17:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DeNovo Oops! Indeed! +1. I rephrased my post. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Nov 9 '18 at 17:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.