ArticleScientific reports2025
Inbreeding and deleterious variation in South Asian populations.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whole-Exome Sequencing in a Consanguinity-Enriched South Indian Retinitis Pigmentosa Cohort: Diagnostic Yield and Molecular Spectrum.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Genetic Diagnosis of Non-Syndromic Hearing Loss in South Indian Consanguineous Families Using Whole-Exome Sequencing.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.