Talk:Inbreeding depression/Archive 1

Archive 1

Diagram

Diagram no longer needed! Mikecf10 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

I am taking this out of "needs to be cleaned up" because I think I've cleaned it up fairly well. 128.101.70.96 15:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)lotusduck

"species not subject to inbreeding depression" is scientifically inaccurate and could do with re-writing and citations which actually support the claims being made (currently they are fairly tenuously linked). It is true that inbreeding does affect different species differently, but it is misleading to say that the species listed are immune to it. Wise zoologist (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid vigor?

To me this seems to be the opposite of hibrid vigor, but I am niave on this subject. If this is correct, probably worthadding to the article. ike9898 04:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really - "hybrid vigour" is a function of increased levels of heterozygosity in a population. Inbreeding depression comes from an increased frequency of deleterious alleles in a small population or from increased homozygosity in recessive deleterious alleles. Guettarda 13:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It still hasn't anything to do with dominant or recessive genes. This article contains several(!) logical errors. It seems to have been written from someone who just doesn't understands what he was talking about. That's dangerous for "knowledge". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.167.84 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

"Residents of Vlotho, Germany". I am assuming good faith, since it is added with an other entry, but can someone confirm this? Asm82 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed bad faith, but more importantly, since it's not a wikilink, it's useless to users. Plus, they f'ed up the formatting with their addition, which smells like vandalism. Ergo, I removed it. If they really feel strongly about it, they can post it on the talk page. WLU 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomic bias: This article seems to mostly be concerned with (vertebrate) animals

Which is unfortunate since ID seems rather ubiquitous and is especially important in the study of the evolution of plant mating system. (Most plants being hermaphrodite, often with male and female function placed in the same flower). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinymonty (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxa not suffering from ID ?

Hmm, looks like this is animals - most examples, anyway, that have gone through a severe bottleneck and survived. Isn't the usual way to investigate ID to produce some inbred and some outbred lines and compare their fitnesses? How, is one to do this in a species where there is only one line? Even though this line seems to do well it may not be in mutation-selection balance? Anyway, seems like this section takes up to much space in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinymonty (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In humans?

Supposing an isolated population of humans, mostly cut off from civilization, became so inbred over several generations that the population was particularly subject to problems such as birth defects or mental retardation. Would this be considered a form of inbreeding depression? I know this has happened to some degree (as is the case with the Ulas family), so would this be an inbreeding depression or is there another term for it altogether when this phenomenon occurs in some form in a human population? Thomasiscool (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have found one reference within that ostensibly refers to this occuring in humans; the article on the Vadoma (the two-toed people of Zimbabwe) says that "the Vadoma are a popular example of the genetic effects of small population size on genetic defects and mutation. Due to the Vadoma tribe's isolation, they have developed and maintained ectrodactyly, and due to the comparatively small gene pool, the condition is much more frequent than elsewhere." Subsequently, the article about small population size has an entire section about the genetic consequences of dangerously low populations. It had never occurred to me to look here, but this seems to refer to exactly what I was asking about. Still, though, I am wondering a) to what degree this does occur in human populations, and b) should we make reference to the genetic consequences of small population size in this article? Please give your thoughts on this. Thomasiscool (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to (a) but if you want to add (as per b) to the article just be bold and do it. If other editors disagree then they change/revert whatever. I do have a comment to make about this article however. In the lead it states, "Breeding between closely related individuals, called inbreeding, results in more recessive deleterious traits manifesting themselves." My problem with that is the assumption being made that all "deleterious traits" are recessive. There is even a whole article that seems to be supporting that stance? My view is that deleterious traits/genes can also be dominant. Well I should include co-dominant or partial dominants here also. A partial dominant being expressed differently phenotypically in the homozygous state than it is in the heterozygous state. There are many examples of lethal or partial lethal genes that are actually dominants rather than recessives to wildtype. Anyhow I'm waffling on but my main point is that the comment that inbreeding results in more "recessive" deleterious traits seems to imply (unless I'm reading it wrong?) that only recessives are bad? What do others think about this?--Sting Buzz Me... 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm no expert on the specifics of genetics, but thanks for answering my original question. I have devoted an entire section to the occurrence of this problem in humans, including real-life examples. However, I have a very limited knowledge of such cases, and in any event, my best guess would be that many of them are, if not completely unknown, not widely known. If anybody knows of any more cases involving some form of inbreeding depression in humans, please do not hesitate to add them. BTW, does anybody else agree that this whole issue seems to relate very closely to the shaky concept of backward evolution? Thomasiscool (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea of backwards or forwards is wrong in that Evolution is not about a "direction". As I understand it Evolution is pretty much a species surviving via natural selection to "fit" the niche that it is in. So "how" it evolves depends on survival of the fittest (adaptions/mutations) to the environment it is in. How this subject relates to backward evolution I'm really not sure?--Sting Buzz Me... 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and this is why I referred to "backward" evolution as a shaky concept. In my own opinion, there has to be a better term to encompass what this concept means. The reason I think the two topics are related is because it seems to me that in many cases the inbreeding depression could cause a high enough prevailence of one or more deleterious traits that it would cause the population to become so much less fit than average that they at least seem to revert to more primitive ways. The example that comes to my mind is the Ulas family (not sure if you're familiar with them?). Anyway, their unique situation was clearly caused in part by inbreeding and in part by isolation, two factors covered by this article. In any event, I think its time we revamped the backward evolution article and perhaps this one or other ones relating to it, so as to make it as factually and politically correct as possible. Please give your thoughts. Thomasiscool (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not anything in Ulas family article to say that it is because of Inbreeding.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has got back to me and I cannot find anything so I am going to take out the bit about the Ulas family.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks and the royal families among the ancient Egyptians practiced inbreeding and identified the cure for inbreeding depression. The cure is culling (preventing further reproduction by) the defectives. Aristotle said, "Nothing imperfect should ever be allowed to grow up," referring to infanticide. Many ancient peoples exposed their defective babies to natural predators, in order to maintain the purity of their gene stock free from deleterious recessive genes. While it is usually true that inbreeding without culling causes inbreeding depression, it is also usually true that inbreeding with sufficiently rigorous culling prevents inbreeding depression. Further, a practice of culling defective infants, continued over generations, removes deleterious genes from the gene pool and gradually reduces the rate of the culling necessary. I offer no moral judgment. I only say, "It works." Jenab6 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a few points here:

1) I agree that the Ulas family is not relevant to this discussion.

2) 'Breeding between closely related individuals, called inbreeding, results in more recessive deleterious traits manifesting themselves' I agree absolutely, and the writer makes no assumption that only recessive traits are deleterious. However, dominant deleterious traits are more quickly bred out as they are expressed in heterozygotes; recessive traits are not. Inbreeding causes a loss of heterozygosity causing the recessive deleterious alleles to be more exposed to expression than in an outbred population. Remember, selection acts on phenotypes, not on genotypes. In heterozygotes, only the dominant allele is expressed in the phenotype, so only the dominant allele can undergo selection.

3) Possibly the best-known example of inbreeding depression in human genetics is the Ellis-van Creveld syndrome causing dwarfism and polydactyly of the Amish in Pennsylvania. As a result of the "Founder Effect" plus inbreeding they suffer from this at a rate of about 1 in 200 individuals, compared with the rate of 1 in 60,000 for the population as a whole (this is a dominant trait, by the way). http://evolutionbioc334.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html Haemophilia among the royal families of Europe is another example.

4) Culling affected individuals will not cure inbreeding depression caused by rare recessive alleles. It is fairly well-known that when a rare recessive allele is present in the population, most copies of this allele are present in heterozygotes, who are carriers, but not affected by the condition. Cystic fibrosis is a very good example of this. It is caused by recessive mutations to the CFTR gene. Although only one person in 3,000 suffers from this in European populations, 1 person is 25 is a carrier. This means that of all the recessive deleterious cystic fibrosis alleles in the European population, 98.4% are carried by unaffected heterozygotes. Culling affected individuals would be totally useless. This was the fallacy embodied by eugenics in the early 20th century. http://www.who.int/genomics/public/geneticdiseases/en/index2.html#CF

Sorry, I forgot my signature Marchino61 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Hemophilia in the royal families of Europe is not, and cannot be, coursed by inbreeding, its carried on the X chromosome.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Dandelion and other asexually reproducing organisms

I removed this tag from the dandilion entry in the list on plants that tolerate inbreeding: . I removed the tag since, although there may be many species of dandelion, it is accepted that some of these are asexual (see Taraxacum). It is hard to find sources that describe exactly which species are asexual/apomictic and which are not, and whether asexual and sexual reproductive modes are strict in the species thus classified. I did find a relatively recent paper on the topic "Genetic structure of a population sample of apomictic dandelions" that states "Outside areas in Central Europe (Den Nijs and Sterk, 1980) and Asia (Richards, 1973), where diploid sexuals are found, dandelions are almost exclusively polyploid and obligate apomicts. Despite the lack of sexuals in these areas, it is not exceptional to find tens of different genotypes co-occurring in meadows, pastures or verges (Lyman and Ellstrand, 1984; Van der Hulst et al, 2000, and unpublished results)."

In short, I think dandelion should stand as a clear example of plants that tolerate inbreeding since, according to the quote above, common species produce seeds asexually and individuals are therefore maximally "inbred". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Still needs citing, and it would be better to comment on how plants generally tend to be less affected by inbreeding than animals rather than taking the fairly arbitrary example of the dandelion, or people will get the wrong impression that dandelions are somehow very different to other plantsWise zoologist (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mankind in general is in an inbreeding depression...

Man is not inbred in "isolated rural areas". Man is inbred in all rural areas, thanks to the large families that were possible there. Organisms (people) that inherit the genes for having a large families quickly end up engaged to their relatives. Read that again until you understand it.

Nothing man does can be explained without the assumption of my heading. The general rejection of hybrids, genius, and otherwise most able people by the majority can only be explained by the majority "desire" to pursue failure and their identical twin as a mate (directionally) on the real fact that this produces more children.

The human genome deteriorates noticably each passing year. It is statistically measured. The inbreed depression phenomenon is borne out by DNA analysis of populations.

The article shows inbred bias to not mention all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.184.90 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Numerous experiments

"Charles Darwin, through numerous experiments, was one of the first scientists to demonstrate the effects of inbreeding depression. " This seems to imply that Darwin treated his family as an experiment in inbreeding. That's monstrous and unsupported allegation. If it was meant to be a joke, let's get rid of it. 208.65.73.105 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I did. The abstract of the paper does not make this implication; instead, it states that he was concerned for the health of his children, so I put that instead. It doesn't seem like a particularly strong example to begin with, given the limited sample size, so I moved it down as well. Note that one of the sources is merely referencing one of the others. GreenReaper (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed Toromiro from taxa not subject to inbreeding depression

The only source I was able to find discussing inbreeding depression and Toromiro was Maunder, M., Culham, A., Alden, B., Zizka, G., Orliac, C., Lobin, W., & ... Glissmann-Gough, S. (2000). Conservation of the Toromiro Tree: Case Study in the Management of a Plant Extinct in the Wild. Conservation Biology, 14(5), 1341-1350. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98520.x which states:

"Inbreeding depression can be manifested through changes in growth and physiology (Dudash et al. 1997); for Toromiro, however, there are no historical measures of changes relative to the original wild population. Accordingly, the magnitude and effect of genetic erosion and inbreeding depression cannot be fully assessed."

---some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Mechanism

This section is not very clearly written, and in places factually incorrect.

" Due to evolutionary causes, recessive genes are, more often than not, detrimental phenotypes by causing the organism to be less fit to its natural environment."

Not true. Many very common traits in human beings, for example, are recessive. They are often more common than the corresponding dominant trait. e.g. Widow's peak is dominant, but not having a widow's peak is probably more common. Many animals (e.g. dogs, cats) have coat colours produced by recessive genes.

And what "evolutionary causes"? This is not clear to me.

"genes are....phenotypes"? Genes are not phenotypes. They express phenotypes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchino61 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Species not subject to inbreeding depression- removal

This section isn't great. Since I think it does more harm than good, I shall remove it then rewrite this section as "factors reducing inbreeding depression" over the next few days.Wise zoologist (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've now finished the re-write of 'Factors reducing inbreeding depression', so if someone wants to check it through that'd be great Wise zoologist (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Many claims without source or evidence.

Those claims seem to be opinions. This article needs improvement from serious people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.167.84 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

In the sentence that starts "Inbreeding depression seems to be present in most groups of organisms..." the word seems implies that there is still not a definitive answer on this claim. (Claire.tucker (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC))

Mechanisms

Words like may/seems/or appears to be should be eliminated from this section and only concrete facts should be included. The first sentence of this paragraph invites suspicion by saying "may on one hand" and then not providing an alternative. Claire.tucker (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inbreeding depression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110052346/http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm30/lynch.html to http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm30/lynch.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikisun1952.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)