Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41053088›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Inbreeding and deleterious variation in South Asian populations.

Jeffrey D Wall, Murillo F Rodrigues

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jeffrey D WallDivision of Genetics, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Beaverton, OR, 97006, USA. walljef@ohsu.edu.
Murillo F RodriguesDivision of Genetics, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Beaverton, OR, 97006, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consanguinity (or inbreeding) refers to the offspring of unions between closely related individuals. It is associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes, including increased mortality and disease burden. More than a billion people live in communities where consanguineous marriages are common, and these communities generally have high rates of rare, recessive diseases. Here, we estimate the degree of inbreeding in a wide range of groups, primarily from South Asia, and highlight shortcomings of previous inbreeding estimation methods. The estimated proportion of consanguineous individuals varies widely by country and group, ranging from 9.3% in Bangladesh to 42.8% in Pakistan for medical cohorts, and from 0 to 100% in Indian indigenous (Adivasi) groups. Within specific subgroups, country-of-residence influences consanguinity proportions, with Indian subgroups showing more consanguinity than their counterparts in other countries. Isolated groups identified from contemporary observations to have reduced population sizes (e.g., Jarawa, Onge, Nicobarese, Aeta, Toda and Toto) all display both increased levels of inbreeding and decreased estimates of current effective population size, in line with expectations. Finally, we quantify the genetic 'cost' of inbreeding by tabulating the numbers of presumed deleterious mutations across runs of homozygosity (ROH) in inbred individuals. We find a greater density of these deleterious mutations in long ROH, consistent with standard evolutionary models of purifying selection, and find evidence for the reduced efficacy of purifying selection in small, isolated populations.

Indexed as

Asian PeopleConsanguinityGenetic VariationInbreedingAsiaBangladeshFemaleGenetics, PopulationHumansMalePakistanPopulation DensityConsanguinityDeleterious variationHuman geneticsSouth asia

Identifiers

PMID41053088
PMCPMC12500929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.