Darwin was right: inbreeding depression on male fertility in the Darwin family

Page created by Ben Hansen
 
CONTINUE READING
bs_bs_banner

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483. With 2 figures

Darwin was right: inbreeding depression on male
fertility in the Darwin family
GONZALO ÁLVAREZ1, FRANCISCO C. CEBALLOS*1 and TIM M. BERRA                                           FLS2,3
1
  Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago
de Compostela, Spain
2
  Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, 1760
University Dr., Mansfield, OH 44906, USA
3
  Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT,
Australia

Received 25 July 2014; revised 3 September 2014; accepted for publication 4 September 2014

Charles Darwin, who was married to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, was the first experimentalist to
demonstrate the adverse effects of inbreeding. He documented the deleterious consequences of self-fertilization on
progeny in numerous plant species, and this research led him to suspect that the health problems of his 10
children, who were very often ill, might have been a consequence of his marriage to his first cousin. Because
Darwin’s concerns regarding the consequences of cousin marriage on his children even nowadays are considered
controversial, we analyzed the potential effects of inbreeding on fertility in 30 marriages of the Darwin–Wedgwood
dynasty, including the marriages of Darwin’s children, which correspond to the offspring of four cousin marriages
and three marriages between unrelated individuals. Analysis of the number of children per woman through
zero-inflated regression models showed a significantly adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on family
size. Furthermore, a statistically significant adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on reproductive
period duration was also detected. To our knowledge, this is the first time that inbreeding depression on male
fertility has been detected in humans. Because Darwin’s sons had fewer children in comparison to non-inbred men
of the dynasty, our findings give empirical support to Darwin’s concerns on the consequences of consanguineous
marriage in his own progeny. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society,
2015, 114, 474–483.

ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: human fertility – zero-inflated regression models.

                   INTRODUCTION                                 mental research programme on the harmful effects of
                                                                inbreeding was performed by Charles Darwin, who
Scientific and family concerns relative to inbreeding
                                                                carried out carefully controlled experiments that
converge in Charles Darwin’s biography. Inbreeding
                                                                involved self-fertilization and outcrossing between
is usually defined as the mating between relatives
                                                                unrelated individuals in 57 plant species (Darwin,
and leads to increased homozygosity in the progeny of
                                                                1868, 1876). In these experiments, Darwin docu-
such a mating. In humans, genome-wide scans show
                                                                mented the phenomenon of inbreeding depression
that inbred individuals are characterized by numer-
                                                                because the offspring of self-fertilized plants were on
ous long chromosomal segments of marker
                                                                average shorter, flowered later, weighed less, and
homozygosity (termed ROHs, runs of homozygosity),
                                                                produced fewer seeds than the progeny of cross-
which appear to be randomly distributed along their
                                                                fertilized plants. Darwin’s laborious study on inbreed-
chromosomes (Gibson, Morton & Collins, 2006; Woods
                                                                ing had its origin in his interest on plant reproductive
et al., 2006; McQuillan et al., 2008). The first experi-
                                                                systems because his research was performed to
                                                                explain why numerous plant species have systems
                                                                that prevent self-fertilization and why reproduction
*Corresponding author. E-mail: francisco.ceballos@usc.es        by outcrossing is prevalent in nature (Pannell, 2009).

474                    © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
INBREEDING DEPRESSION IN THE DARWIN FAMILY                         475

   However, it is very likely that Darwin also had a              Nowadays, Charles Darwin’s concerns on the
personal interest in the matter. Charles Darwin was            harmful effects of first-cousin marriage in his progeny
married to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood and they             are often considered unjustified or, at least, exagger-
had 10 children (Freeman, 1982; Browne, 2002; Berra,           ated because they were based on the extrapolation
2013). Darwin, who suffered illness for most of his            from ill-effects of self-fertilization (inbreeding coeffi-
adult life with many differing symptoms (Colp, 2008;           cient, F = 0.50) in plants to the outcomes of first-
Hayman, 2013), was worried about the health of his             cousin marriage (F = 0.0625) in humans, as well as on
children, who were very often ill, and three of them           prejudices against consanguineous marriage preva-
died before adulthood: Anne Elizabeth (1841–51),               lent in that time (Jones, 2008; Bittles, 2009). Never-
Mary Eleanor (1842), and Charles Waring (1856–58).             theless, the possibility of an adverse effect of
Darwin’s own ill health not only led him to fear that his      inbreeding on fertility in the offspring of a number of
children could have inherited his medical problems,            cousin marriages of the Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty
but also he suspected that his marriage to his first           has been repeatedly pointed out (Moore, 2005;
cousin might have caused some of his children’s health         Golubovsky, 2008). Three of Charles Darwin’s six
problems (Browne, 2002; Moore, 2005; Jones, 2008;              children with long-term marriage history (William,
Bittles, 2009; Kuper, 2009; Berra, 2013). The interest         Henrietta, and Leonard) had no progeny and their
of Darwin on the consequences of human inbreeding              unexplained infertility might have been the result of
led him to ask his friend John Lubbock, member of              increased homozygosity for recessive autosomal
Parliament, to make a request to Parliament for the            meiotic mutations as a result of cousin marriage
inclusion of a question on consanguineous marriage in          (Golubovsky, 2008). In the same sense, it has been
the 1871 Census of Great Britain and Ireland (Browne,          also noted that a number of individuals of the
2002; Bittles, 2009; Berra, Álvarez & Ceballos, 2010a).        Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty, including the offspring of
   Charles Darwin’s son George was also involved in            Emma Wedgwood and her brothers Josiah III, Henry,
the matter. He performed a study on cousin marriage            and Hensleigh, who were also married to cousins,
in England, concluding that the adverse effects of             presented low fertility (Moore, 2005). However, these
consanguineous marriage could be not so strong as              observations do not constitute convincing evidence of
assumed in that time, particularly in the best families:       an adverse effect of inbreeding on fertility in the
‘I may mention that Dr. Arthur Mitchell, of Edinburgh,         Darwins’ children because the relationship between
conducted an extensive inquiry, and came to the con-           inbreeding and fertility among marriages has not
clusion that, under favourable conditions of life, the         been investigated in the Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty.
apparent ill-effects were frequent almost nil, whilst if       Furthermore, it is necessary to take into account that
the children were ill fed, badly housed and clothed, the       the present knowledge of the impact of inbreeding on
evil might become very marked. This is in striking             fertility is very limited in humans. By contrast to the
accordance with some unpublished experiments of my             extensive evidence for inbreeding depression on pre-
father, Mr. Charles Darwin, on the in-and-in breeding          reproductive survival (Bittles & Black, 2010; Álvarez,
of plants; for he has found that in-bred plants, when          Quinteiro & Ceballos, 2011; Bittles, 2012; Ceballos &
allowed enough space and good soil, frequently show            Álvarez, 2013), the effects of increased homozygosity
little or no deterioration, whilst when placed in com-         on human fertility caused by inbreeding are little
petition with another plant, they frequently perish or         known and only a few studies have reported conclu-
are much stunted’ (Darwin, 1875). Darwin was very              sive evidence (Ober, Hyslop & Hauck, 1999; Robert
influenced by George’s research in such a way that he          et al., 2009; Postma, Martini & Martini, 2010). The
revised his opinion on the effects of consanguineous           high incidence of cousin marriages in the Charles
marriage in his late years. In the last edition of The         Darwin family gives the opportunity of using such
variation of animals and plants under domestication,           marriages as a useful framework for investigating the
published in 1875, Darwin claimed: ‘Whether consan-            effects of inbreeding on human fertility, which, in
guineous marriages, such as are permitted in civilized         turn, could shed light on Darwin’s concerns regarding
nations, and which would not be considered as close            the consequences of consanguineous marriage in his
interbreeding in the case of our domesticated animals,         own progeny.
cause any injury will never be known with certainty
until a census is taken with this object in view. My son,
George Darwin, has done what is possible at present by
                                                                          MATERIAL AND METHODS
a statistical investigation, and he has come to the
conclusion, from his own researches and those of Dr.                  GENEALOGICAL     AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Mitchell, that the evidence as to any evil thus caused         Genealogical information obtained from The Exciting
is conflicting, but on the whole points to the evil being      Wedgwoods Home Page (http://www.familyhistorian
very small’.                                                   .info/exciting/wedgwood/index.html), Kindred Britain

© 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
476    G. ÁLVAREZ ET AL.

Figure 1. Partial pedigree of the 26 individuals of the Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty considered for the fertility
analysis.

(http://www.kindred.stanford.edu), and other sources          depth of at least five generations. Inbreeding coeffi-
(Freeman, 1984; Berra, Álvarez & Shannon, 2010b)              cients for individuals belonging to other different
was used to extend the pedigree of the Darwin–                families who were married to Darwin–Wedgwood
Wedgwood dynasty constructed by Berra et al.                  individuals were based on at least three generations,
(2010a) to include all the individuals considered in          and therefore they were individuals for whom all
the present study (Fig. 1). Pedigree analysis was used        their great-grandparents were known.
to calculate the individual inbreeding coefficient for           Demographic data consisted of the total number of
husband (Fh) and wife (Fw) and the kinship coefficient        children produced per woman, the age of marriage for
(θ) of the couple by means of FSPEED software                 both husband and wife, the duration of marriage, the
(Tenset Technologies; http://www.tenset.co.uk/fspeed).        protogenesic interval (time interval between marriage
The inbreeding coefficient (F) is the probability that        and birth of the first child), the intergenesic interval
an individual receives at a given autosomal locus two         (mean time between two successive birth events), and
alleles that are identical by descent or, equivalently,       the reproductive span (time interval between the first
the proportion of the individual’s autosomal genome           and the last child). To obtain a measure of the repro-
expected to be homozygous by descent (autozygous)             ductive period duration for all women irrespective of
(Cavalli-Sforza & Bodmer, 1971; Falconer & Mackay,            the number of children, an index denoted effective
1996; Hedrick, 2011). The proportion of the individu-         reproductive span was defined as the reproductive
al’s genome that is identical by descent (f) is expected      span + 1. In this way, a couple with one child has an
to be the inbreeding coefficient (F) with variance            effective reproductive span of 1 year, and an effective
Var (f) ≈ 2F(1 – F)/ρG, where G is the total length of        reproductive span of zero was assigned to couples
the autosomal genome expressed in Morgans and                 with no children. The demographic information
ρ = nm + nf, where nm and nf denote, respectively,            was obtained from the genealogical sources above
the number of meiosis from the individual to the              mentioned.
ancestral pair in the paternal and maternal lines
(Carothers et al., 2006). The coefficient of kinship of a
couple is the probability that two alleles at the same                         STATISTICAL   ANALYSIS
locus drawn at random, one from each spouse, are              The effects of explanatory variables such as Fh, Fw, θ,
identical by descent, and therefore the inbreeding            age at marriage for husband and wife, and duration of
coefficient of an individual is equal to kinship coeffi-      marriage on the total number of children per woman
cient of his or her parents. The amount of pedigree           were investigated through different regression models
information available for the individuals from the            for count data: generalized linear models (GLMs) and
Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty allowed us to compute                 zero-inflated models (Zeileis, Kleibe & Jackman,
inbreeding coefficients on the basis of a pedigree            2008; Zuur et al., 2009). Zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP)

                      © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
INBREEDING DEPRESSION IN THE DARWIN FAMILY                      477

and zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) regression                                 RESULTS
models, as well as their classical counterparts,
Poisson GLM and negative binomial GLM, were used               The inbreeding effects on fertility in the Darwin–
because the distribution of number of children from            Wedgwood dynasty were investigated in the offspring
Darwin–Wedgwood women was characterized by                     of a number of marriages that presented remarkable
excess zeros and overdispersion (sample variance               differences in their degree of consanguinity (Fig. 1).
larger than the mean). The relative goodness of fit of         Four cousin marriages were contracted by Charles
the different regression models to data was evaluated          Darwin’s wife, Emma Wedgwood, and her brothers
by the Akaike information criterion (AIC), which was           Josiah III, Hensleigh and Henry. Hensleigh
used as a model selection criterion to decide on the           Wedgwood was married to his first cousin, Frances
optimal model. The negative binomial distribution is           Makintosh, giving place to offspring with an inbreed-
commonly used for overdispersed count data in many             ing coefficient of 0.0625. The marriage of Charles and
areas of biological research (White & Bennetts, 1996;          Emma and the marriage of Josiah Wedgwood III and
Lloyd-Smith, 2007) and is usually expressed in terms           Caroline Darwin, Charles Darwin’s sister, were also
of the mean (m) and a dispersion parameter k, and              first-cousin unions but their progeny had an inbreed-
its variance is m + m2/k. The smaller k, the larger            ing coefficient of 0.0630 given that their grandpar-
the overdispersion. If k→∞, the negative binomial              ents, Josiah Wedgwood I and Sarah Wedgwood, were
converges to the Poisson distribution with variance            third cousins. Henry Wedgwood and his wife Jessie
equal to m. Negative binomial GLM can cope with                Wedgwood were double first cousins because their
overdispersion as a result of extra variation in               fathers, Josiah Wedgwood II and John Wedgwood,
the nonzero part of the data, whereas zero-inflated            were brothers and their mothers, Elizabeth Allen and
regression models are capable of dealing with                  Louisa Allen, were sisters, in such a way that their
overdispersion as a result of an excessive numbers of          progeny had an inbreeding coefficient of 0.1255,
zeros (Zeileis et al., 2008; Zuur et al., 2009). Zero          taking into account that their paternal grandparents
inflation models are two-component mixture models              were third cousins. On the other hand, two other
that combine a point mass at zero with a count                 Emma’s siblings, Charlotte and Francis, as well as
distribution such as Poisson or negative binomial. In          their cousin, Robert Wedgwood, contracted marriages
these models, the zeros are modelled as coming from            to unrelated individuals (Charles Langton, Frances
two different processes: the true zeros correspond to          Mosley, and Mary Hasley, respectively) and, there-
the count process and are modelled by a Poisson (ZIP)          fore, in these three cases, the progeny had an inbreed-
or negative binomial (ZINB) GLM, whereas the false             ing coefficient equal to zero. The offspring of these
zeros are modelled by a binomial GLM. It is reason-            seven couples involved a total number of 26 married
able to assume that zero inflation models are very             individuals (13 men and 13 women) who had a
appropriate for our particular situation because               common genetic background, the Wedgwood back-
a significant number of women (14/30; 46.7%) had               ground, and presented remarkable differences in their
zero children, in such a way that some of them                 inbreeding level (ranging from F = 0 to F = 0.1255).
could be biologically sterile and therefore they could         These 26 individuals contracted a total number of 30
correspond to false zeros. On the other hand, the              marriages (Table 1), taking into account that one man
likelihood-ratio test was used to choose between               married three times (Darwin’s son Francis), three
Poisson and negative binomial models and between               men married twice [Darwin’s son Leonard, Godfrey
ZIP and ZINB because Poisson and negative binomial             Wedgwood (Francis Wedgwood’s son) and Rowland
are nested models and the same is true for ZIP and             Wedgwood (Henry Wedgwood’s son)], and that
ZINB. Estimates of the dispersion parameter k of the           Godfrey Wedgwood’s second wife was Hope Wedgwood
negative binomial distribution were obtained by the            (Hensleigh Wedgwood’s daughter). These 30 mar-
maximum likelihood method and the likelihood-ratio             riages were considered for the fertility analysis and
test above mentioned was used for testing the                  included women born in the period from 1834 to 1875
statistical significance of a k estimate. The effective        and men born in the period 1832–1854.
reproductive span was considered as a count response              The inbreeding coefficient for husband and wife (Fh
variable and therefore it was analyzed by means of             and Fw) and the kinship of couple (θ), as well as the
the regression models for the count data mentioned             demographic variables number of children per woman
above. Protogenesic and intergenesic intervals were            (family size), age at marriage for husband and
response variables investigated through Gaussian               wife (AMh and AMw), duration of marriage (DM),
linear regression by ordinary least squares. All               protogenesic and intergenesic intervals, and repro-
the statistical analyses were conducted using the              ductive span from the 30 marriages of the Darwin–
statistical software R (R Development Core Team,               Wedgwood dynasty are given in Table 1. Mean ± SE
2011).                                                         values for Fh, Fw, and θ were 0.0437 ± 0.0092,

© 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
Table 1. Inbreeding coefficient for husband and wife (Fh and Fw), kinship coefficient of couple (θ), number of children, age at marriage for husband and wife (AMh,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              478

                                                                                                      AMw), duration of marriage (DM), protogenesic interval, intergenesic interval, and reproductive span from 30 marriages of the Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty

                                                                                                                                                                                         Number of                             Protogenesic    Intergenesic    Reproductive
                                                                                                      Husband                   Wife                      Fh        Fw        θ          children      AMh     AMw     DM      interval        interval        span

                                                                                                      Charles Darwin & Emma     Wedgwood’s children
                                                                                                       William Darwin           Sara Sedgwick             0.0630    0.0000    0.0000     0             38      38      25      –               –                –
                                                                                                       Richard Litchfield       Henrietta Darwin          0.0000    0.0630    0.0000     0             39      27      32      –               –                –
                                                                                                       George Darwin            Maud du Puy               0.0630    0.0000    0.0000     5             39      23      28      12              42.00           14
                                                                                                       Francis Darwin           Amy Ruck                  0.0630    –         –          1             26      26       2      28              –                0
                                                                                                       Francis Darwin           Ellen Wordsworth          0.0630    –         –          1             35      27      20      31              –                0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              G. ÁLVAREZ ET AL.

                                                                                                       Francis Darwin           Florence Fisher           0.0630    0.000     0.0000     0             65      48       7      –               –                –
                                                                                                       Leonard Darwin           Elisabeth Fraser          0.0630    0.0000    0.0392     0             32      32      16      –               –                –
                                                                                                       Leonard Darwin           Charlotte Massingberd     0.0630    0.0000    0.0000     0             50      36      40      –               –                –
                                                                                                       Horace Darwin            Emma Farrer               0.0630    0.0000    0.0000     3             29      25      48      22              23.00            4
                                                                                                      Josiah Wedgwood III & Caroline Darwin’s children
                                                                                                        Arthur Williams       Margaret Wedgwood           0.0000    0.0630    0.0000     3             33      24       5      19              18.00            3
                                                                                                        Matthew Harrison      Lucy Wedgwood               –         0.0630    –          3             28      27      45      21              15.00            3
                                                                                                      Charles Langton & Charlotte Wedgwood′s children
                                                                                                       Edmund Langton         Caroline Massingberd        0.000     0.000     0.0625     4             26      19       8      14              20.00            8
                                                                                                      Francis Wedgwood & Frances Mosley’s children
                                                                                                        Godfrey Wedgwood     Mary Hawkshaw                0.0000    –         –          1             29      26       1      12              –                0
                                                                                                        Godfrey Wedgwood     Hope Wedgwood*               0.0000    0.0625    0.0782     1             43      32      29      48              –                0
                                                                                                        John Hawkshaw        Cecily Wedgwood              –         0.0000    –          4             24      28      52      12              26.33            9
                                                                                                        Clement Wedgwood     Emilie Rendel                0.0000    0.0000    0.0000     6             26      26      23      12              24.80           10
                                                                                                        Lawrence Wedgwood    Emma Houseman                0.0000    –         –          6             27      30      42      27              19.80            9
                                                                                                        Johannes Franke      Constance Wedgwood           –         0.0000    –          0             33      34      23      –               –                –
                                                                                                        Arthur Parson        Fanny Wedgwood               –         0.0000    –          0             35      28      27      –               –                –
                                                                                                      Henry Wedgwood & Jessie Wedgwood’s children
                                                                                                       William Kempson       Louisa Wedgwood              –         0.1255    –          4             30      30      17      35              30.33            7
                                                                                                       John Wedgwood         Helen Tyler                  0.1255    0.0000    0.0000     2             26      21      16      18              28.00            3
                                                                                                       Ralph Carr            Anne Wedgwood                –         0.1255    –          0             37      29       7      –               –                –
                                                                                                       Rowland Wedgwood      Sophia Rudd                  0.1255    –         –          0             36      26      16      –               –                –
                                                                                                       Rowland Wedgwood      Agnes Harley                 0.1255    –         –          0             60      32      14      –               –                –
                                                                                                      Hensleigh Wedgwood & Frances Makintosh’s children
                                                                                                       Ernest Wedgwood       Mary Bell                 0.0625       –         –          1             50      22      11      74              –                0
                                                                                                       Thomas Farrer         Katherine Wedgwood        –            0.0625    –          0             34      33      26      –               –                –
                                                                                                       Alfred Wedgwood       Margaret Ingall           0.0625       0.0000    0.0000     3             31      19      19      36              96.00           16
                                                                                                      Robert Wedgwood & Mary Hasley’s children
                                                                                                        Reginald Hoskins    Eleanor Wedgwood              0.0000    0.0000    0.0000     0             30      33       3      –               –                –
                                                                                                        Clement Allen       Edith Wedgwood                0.0000    0.0000    0.0313     0             33      23      13      –               –                –
                                                                                                        Wilfred Allen       Anna Wedgwood                 0.0000    0.0000    0.0313     0             34      28      39      –               –                –
                                                                                                      Mean                                                0.0437    0.0246    0.0152     1.60          35.3    28.4    21.8    26.3            31.2             5.38
                                                                                                      SE                                                  0.0092    0.0086    0.0064     0.36           1.8     1.1     2.6     4.1             6.8             1.30

                                                                                                      *Hensleigh Wedgwood’s daughter.

© 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
                                                                                                      Inbreeding/coancestry coefficient was not computed for those individuals/marriages with incomplete genealogical information, which is indicated by a hyphen.
INBREEDING DEPRESSION IN THE DARWIN FAMILY                        479

0.0246 ± 0.0086 and 0.0152 ± 0.0064, respectively.             Table 2. Regression analysis of number of children per
The distribution of the number of children per woman           woman as a function of husband and wife inbreeding
presented a relatively low mean ± SE, 1.60 ± 0.36,             coefficient (Fh and Fw), kinship (θ), age at marriage for
mainly as a result of the high proportion of women             husband and wife (AMh and AMw) and duration of mar-
who had no children (14/30, 46.7%). In addition, the           riage (DM) through a zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model
distribution was overdispersed because the observed
ratio of variance to mean was 2.44 (3.90/1.60), a value                      Coefficient       SE            P
that is not very different from the ratio found in many
                                                               Regression analysis for 16 marriages (complete model)
human populations where variances in the number of
                                                                 Fh         −14.806            ±8.979       0.0496
progeny are from 1.5- to three-fold as great as their
                                                                 Fw          −1.388          ±13.335        0.459
means (Cavalli-Sforza & Bodmer, 1971). Indeed, the
                                                                 θ          −12.834            ±9.724       0.093
observed distribution significantly departs from the             AMh         −0.002            ±0.053       0.489
Poisson distribution with the same mean (χ2 = 24.39,             AMw         −0.172            ±0.075       0.011
d.f. = 3, P < 0.001), and it was mainly the result of            DM           0.027            ±0.023       0.120
excessive number of zero values because the number             Regression analysis for 23 marriages (Fw and θ removed)
of women who had no children was 14, whereas the                 Fh         −12.546            ±5.986       0.018
expected value according to Poisson was 6.1. The                 AMh         −0.031            ±0.036       0.195
mean ± SE duration of the Darwin–Wedgwood mar-                   AMw         −0.146            ±0.051       0.002
riages was 21.8 ± 2.6 years, and mean ± SE values for            DM           0.041            ±0.014       0.002
age at marriage for husband and wife were 35.3 ± 1.8
years and 28.4 ± 1.1 years, respectively. The repro-
ductive span of Darwin–Wedgwood women was
5.38 ± 1.30 years, an extremely short reproductive             GLM, respectively). Indeed, the dispersion parameter
period in comparison to values of contemporary popu-           k of the negative binomial distribution was not sta-
lations such as the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean popula-            tistically significant by the likelihood-ratio test in
tion in Canada, where recent research focusing on              both ZINB and negative binomial GLM. Conse-
182 women born in 1879 showed a mean reproductive              quently, the corresponding results for the ZIP model
period duration of 15.87 years (Robert et al., 2009).          are given in Table 2. A statistically significant adverse
Mean ± SD values for protogenesic and intergenesic             effect of the inbreeding coefficient of husband (Fh) on
intervals (both in months) were 26.3 ± 4.1 and                 the number of children was found (P = 0.0496). In
31.2 ± 6.8, respectively.                                      addition, a significantly negative effect of AMw on
   The effects of inbreeding (Fh and Fw) and kinship (θ)       family size was also detected. Those women who got
on the number of children per woman were investi-              married at an earlier age had a higher number of
gated through ZIP and ZINB regression models, as               progeny. The remaining explanatory variables did not
well as their classical counterparts, Poisson and nega-        have a statistical significant effect on the number of
tive binomial GLMs (Zeileis et al., 2008; Zuur et al.,         children. To maximize statistical power, we subse-
2009). These regression models for count data were             quently tested for an effect Fh on the number of
used because the distribution of number of children in         children per woman by removing both Fw and θ from
the Darwin–Wedgwood women was characterized by                 the analysis, in such a way that we had a sample
a high proportion of women who had no children and             size of 23 couples in the new regression analysis
overdispersion, as noted above. We first tested simul-         (see Supporting information, Table S1). According to
taneously for an effect of Fh, Fw, θ, AMh, AMw, and DM         the AIC criterion, the best model was ZIP and the
on the number of children per woman through ZIP,               next best was Poisson GLM (AICs were 72.511 and
ZINB, Poisson GLM, and negative binomial GLM (see              73.358, respectively), as in the previous analysis.
Supporting information, Table S1). Note that the               Accordingly, Table 2 (bottom) shows the results for
sample size (N = 16 couples) is greatly reduced for            the ZIP model. A significantly negative effect of Fh on
this analysis because only couples for which we have           the number of children was detected (P = 0.018). It is
sufficient pedigree information for both husband and           therefore confirmed that inbred husbands had signifi-
wife (and their kinship) could be included. According          cantly fewer children (Fig. 2). A significantly negative
to the AIC, the model that better fit to data was ZIP          effect of AMw on family size was also detected, as in
and the second better was Poisson GLM, although the            the previous analysis and, in addition, a significantly
difference between the two models was very small               positive effect of DM on the number of children
(AICs were 58.072 and 58.530, respectively). The               was also found. Because, in our data set, four men
regression models based on the negative binomial               married more than once (Francis and Leonard
distribution presented a poor fit to data (AICs were           Darwin and Godfrey and Rowland Wedgwood), a
60.073 and 60.295 for ZINB and negative binomial               pseudoreplication problem could be present in our

© 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
480    G. ÁLVAREZ ET AL.

                                                             Table 3. Regression analysis of effective reproductive
                                                             span as a function of husband and wife inbreeding coeffi-
                                                             cient (Fh and Fw), kinship (θ), age at marriage for husband
                                                             and wife (AMh and AMw) and duration of marriage (DM)
                                                             through a zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model

                                                                           Coefficient          SE                P

                                                             Fh            −16.732               ±5.748           0.002
                                                             Fw            −15.576              ±10.967           0.078
                                                             θ             −21.713               ±8.143           0.004
                                                             AMh             0.019               ±0.033           0.281
                                                             AMw            −0.243               ±0.065           0.009
                                                             DM              0.016               ±0.019           0.197

                                                             binomial GLM. ZIP was the regression model that
                                                             better fit to data in terms of the AIC values and the
                                                             corresponding results are given in Table 3 (the results
                                                             for the four regression models are provided in
                                                             the Supporting information, Table S3). Significantly
                                                             negative effects of both Fh and AMw on the effective
                                                             reproductive span were found (P = 0.002 and
                                                             P = 0.009, respectively). The higher inbreeding coeffi-
                                                             cient for husband, the lower reproductive period dura-
                                                             tion (Fig. 2) and, in the same way, the increase in
                                                             AMw led to lower effective reproductive span. In addi-
                                                             tion, a significantly negative effect of kinship of couple
                                                             (θ) on the effective reproductive span was also found.
Figure 2. Mean number of children and effective repro-       The higher kinship of the couple, the lower effective
ductive span for different values of husband inbreeding      reproductive span. Finally, it is interesting to note
coefficient (Fh) from 23 Darwin–Wedgwood marriages. The      that the effects of female inbreeding (Fw) were not
bars corresponding to Fh = 0.0630 represent fertility        detected on either the number of children per woman
values for Charles Darwin’s son.                             or effective reproductive span. It could be that female
                                                             inbreeding had no effect on fertility in the Darwin–
                                                             Wedgwood marriages, although it could be simply a
regression analyses. To circumvent this statistical          consequence of the low inbreeding of females com-
problem, we performed a new regression analysis by           pared to males in these marriages (the mean inbreed-
using the mean number of children per woman for              ing for men was nearly twice as high as for women:
each one of those four men. The results obtained were        0.0437 versus 0.0246).
very similar to those from the previous analysis
(results not shown). Thus, ZIP gave a better fit
than Poisson GLM in terms of AIC values (68.81
                                                                                  DISCUSSION
versus 69.90, respectively) and a statistical signifi-
cant adverse effect of Fh on number of children was          An adverse effect of male inbreeding on both number
detected (Fh = −12.257, P = 0.035).                          of children per woman and duration of reproductive
  The effects of inbreeding on protogenesic and              period was detected through zero-inflated regression
intergenesic intervals were investigated through             models from 30 Darwin–Wedgwood marriages. Inbred
regression analyses by ordinary least squares. The           men had significantly fewer children and shorter
analyses did not show statistical significant effects        reproductive span (Fh = −12.546, P = 0.018 for
for any explanatory variable (Fh, Fw, θ, AMh, AMw, and       number of children and Fh = −16.732, P = 0.002 for
DM) on either protogenesic or intergenesic interval          effective reproductive span). To our knowledge, this is
(see Supporting information, Table S2). On the other         the first time that inbreeding depression on male
hand, inbreeding effects on effective reproductive           fertility has been detected in humans. Although a
span were investigated through regression models for         number of studies have investigated the effect of
count data: ZIP, ZINB, Poisson GLM and negative              kinship or consanguinity between spouses on the total

                     © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
INBREEDING DEPRESSION IN THE DARWIN FAMILY                       481

number of offspring (Bittles et al., 2002; Helgason            number of long homozygous segments (exceeding 3
et al., 2008; Bittles, 2012), the impact of male and/or        cM) randomly distributed along their chromosomes
female inbreeding on human fertility has not been              (Woods et al., 2006). The number of homozygous
examined intensively and only a few studies have               segments ranged from seven to 32 segments per
produced conclusive evidence. Thus, inbred women,              individual (mean of 20 homozygous segments), and
but not inbred men, showed significantly fewer chil-           the proportion of the individual genome that was
dren in both the Hutterites from South Dakota and a            homozygous varied from 5% to 20%, with a mean
small and isolated Swiss village (Ober et al., 1999;           value of 11%. Therefore, the variation in family size
Postma et al., 2010). On the other hand, although              among Darwin’s sons is not unexpected from a
male inbreeding had no effect on total number of               genomic perspective of inbreeding. On the other hand,
offspring, high levels of male inbreeding were associ-         a significantly positive association between childhood
ated with a reduction of the productivity of parents           mortality and inbreeding coefficient among the off-
during the second half of their reproductive period            spring of 25 Darwin–Wedgwood marriages that
compared to the first half, in a cohort of Canadian            included Darwin’s children has been reported (Berra
women born in late 19th Century (Robert et al., 2009).         et al., 2010a). This finding suggests that the high
It was found that inter-birth intervals increase with          child mortality experienced by Darwin progeny (three
parental age and this increase was significantly               of his 10 children died at age 10 years or younger)
stronger for most inbred males. An increase in inter-          with respect to the mortality of non-inbred progeny
birth interval with age stronger for most inbred males         (9.34 ± 3.23) from other Darwin–Wedgwood families
was observed in the Darwin–Wedgwood marriages                  might be a result of increased homozygosity of del-
(results not presented), although this effect was not          eterious alleles due to cousin marriage (Berra et al.,
statistically significant because the number of women          2010a). The reasoning that inbreeding was involved
who had three or more children was very small in our           in childhood mortality in the Darwin progeny is con-
sample. The results reported in the present study for          sistent with the cause of death for two of Darwin’s
the Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty are not unexpected                 children. Anne Elizabeth most likely died of child
from a wide perspective because inbreeding depres-             tuberculosis (Keynes, 2001; Fenner, Egger &
sion on male fertility has been found in a number              Gagneux, 2009) and Charles Waring died of scarlet
of animal species including mammals (Roldan et al.,            fever (Burhardt & Smiths, 1991); recent evidence also
1998; Saccheri et al., 2005; Asa et al., 2007). The            reveals that inbreeding is an important risk factor in
inbreeding depression on male fertility in mammal              susceptibility to infectious diseases such as tubercu-
species such as the Cuvier’s gazelles and Mexican              losis and hepatitis (Lyons et al., 2009b). In addition,
grey wolves appears to be caused by an adverse effect          an association between homozygosity and childhood
of inbreeding on sperm quality (Roldan et al., 1998;           mortality resulting from invasive bacterial disease
Asa et al., 2007).                                             has been also reported (Lyons et al., 2009a). The evi-
   Our findings suggest that Charles Darwin’s sons             dence of inbreeding depression on child survival in
probably experienced an adverse effect of inbreeding           Charles Darwin’s offspring together with the findings
on fertility. Thus, the mean ± SE number of children           reported in the present study of an adverse effect of
per woman was 1.250 ± 0.648 for Darwin’s five sons,            inbreeding on fertility in his sons suggest that Dar-
whereas the mean ± SE family size for the non-inbred           win’s fears on the health of his children as a result of
men was 2.100 ± 0.781 (Fig. 2). However, the family            his marriage with his first cousin Emma Wedgwood
size was rather variable among Darwin’s sons.                  were neither unjustified nor exaggerated.
William and Leonard, who each married twice, had no
children; Francis had one child with each one of two
wives and no children with his third wife; and George
                                                                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
and Horace had five and three children, respectively.
The variation in family size among Darwin’s                    We thank Cesar Sánchez for help with the statisti-
sons may be partially attributed to the inherent               cal analyses and Frank Nicholas for comments on
stochasticity of inbreeding. Thus, the proportion of           an earlier version of the manuscript. We also thank
the autosomal genome expected to be homozygous by              two anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-
descent in Charles Darwin’s children computed from             ments. FCC and GA carried out the statistical
the genealogical information was 0.0630 with a rela-           analysis. GA, FCC and TMB helped conceive the
tively large standard error of 0.0244 (see Material            study, participated in its design and coordination,
and methods). Furthermore, a genome-wide scan                  and helped draft the manuscript. All authors read
based on 10 000 single nucleotide polymorphisms of             and approved the final manuscript submitted for
individuals whose parents were first cousins showed            publication. The authors declare that they have no
that those inbred individuals presented a variable             conflict of interest.

© 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
482     G. ÁLVAREZ ET AL.

                     REFERENCES                                   Freeman RB. 1982. The Darwin family. Biological Journal of
                                                                    the Linnean Society 17: 9–21.
Álvarez G, Quinteiro C, Ceballos FC. 2011. Inbreeding and         Freeman RB. 1984. Darwin pedigrees. London: Printed for
  genetic disorder. In: Ikehara K, ed. Advances in the study of     the Author.
  genetic disorders. Croatia: In Tech, 21–44.                     Gibson JN, Morton NE, Collins A. 2006. Extended tracts of
Asa C, Miller P, Agnew M, Rebolledo JAR, Lindsey SL,                homozygosity in outbred human populations. Human
  Callahan M, Bauman K. 2007. Relationship of inbreeding            Molecular Genetics 15: 789–795.
  with sperm quality and reproductive success in Mexican          Golubovsky M. 2008. Unexplained infertility in Charles
  gray wolves. Animal Conservation 10: 326–331.                     Darwin’s family: genetic aspect. Human Reproduction 23:
Berra TM. 2013. Darwin & his children: his other legacy.            1237–1238.
  New York, NY: Oxford University Press.                          Hayman J. 2013. Charles Darwin’s mitochondria. Genetics
Berra TM, Álvarez G, Ceballos FC. 2010a. Was the                    194: 1–5.
  Darwin/Wedgwood dynasty adversely affected by consan-           Hedrick PW. 2011. Genetics of populations. Sudbury, MA:
  guinity? BioScience 60: 376–383.                                  Jones and Bartlett.
Berra TM, Álvarez G, Shannon K. 2010b. The Galton                 Helgason A, Pálsson S, Gudbjarstsson DF, Kristjánsson
  –Darwin–Wedgwood pedigree of H. H. Laughlin. Biological           P, Stefánsson K. 2008. An association between the
  Journal of the Linnean Society 101: 228–241.                      kinship and fertility of human couples. Science 319: 813–
Bittles AH. 2009. Commentary: the background and outcomes           816.
  of the first-cousin marriage controversy in Great Britain.      Jones S. 2008. Darwin’s island: the Galapagos in the garden
  International Journal of Epidemiology 38: 1453–1458.              of England. London: Little Brown.
Bittles AH. 2012. Consanguinity in context. Cambridge: Cam-       Keynes R. 2001. Annie’s box: Charles Darwin, his daughter
  bridge University Press.                                          and human evolution. London: Fourth State.
Bittles AH, Black ML. 2010. Consanguinity, human evolu-           Kuper A. 2009. Commentary: a Darwin family concern.
  tion, and complex diseases. Proceedings of the National           International Journal of Epidemiology 38: 1439–1442.
  Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:        Lloyd-Smith JO. 2007. Maximum likelihood estimation
  1779–1786.                                                        of the negative binomial dispersion parameter for highly
Bittles AH, Grant JC, Sullivan SG, Hussain R. 2002. Does            overdispersed data, with applications to infectious diseases.
  inbreeding lead to decreases human fertility? Annals of           PLoS ONE 2: e180.
  Human Biology 29: 111–130.                                      Lyons EF, Amos W, Berkley JA, Mwangi I, Shafi M,
Browne J. 2002. Charles Darwin: the power of place. London:         Williams TN, Newton CR, Peshu K, Marsh K, Scott
  Jonathan Cape.                                                    JAG, Hill AVS. 2009a. Homozygosity and risk of childhood
Burhardt F, Smiths S. 1991. The correspondence of Charles           death due to invasive bacterial disease. BMC Medical
  Darwin, Vol. 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.            Genetics 10: 55.
Carothers AD, Rudan I, Kolcic I, Polasek O, Hayward C,            Lyons EF, Frodsham AJ, Zhang L, Hill AVS, Amos W.
  Wright AF, Campbell H, Teague P, Hastie ND, Weber                 2009b. Consanguinity and susceptibility to infectious dis-
  JL. 2006. Estimating human inbreeding coefficients: com-          eases in humans. Biology Letters 5: 574–576.
  parison of genealogical and marker heterozygosity               McQuillan R, Leutenegge AL, Abdel-Rahman R,
  approaches. Annals of Human Genetics 70: 666–676.                 Franklin CS, Pericic M, Barac-Lauc L, Smolej-
Cavalli-Sforza LL, Bodmer WF. 1971. The genetics of                 Narancic N, Janicijevic B, Polasek O, Tenesa A,
  human populations. San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman.                 MacLeod AK, Farrington SM, Rudan P, Hayward C,
Ceballos FC, Álvarez G. 2013. Royal dynasties as human              Vitart V, Rudan I, Wild SH, Dunlop MG, Wright AF,
  inbreeding laboratories: the Habsburgs. Heredity 111: 114–        Campbell H, Wilson F. 2008. Runs of homozygosity in
  121.                                                              European populations. American Journal of Human Genet-
Colp R Jr. 2008. Darwin’s illness. Gainesville, FL: University      ics 83: 359–372.
  Press of Florida.                                               Moore J. 2005. Good breeding: Darwin doubted his own
Darwin C. 1868. The variation of animals and plants under           family’s ‘fitness. Natural History 114: 45–46.
  domestication. London: John Murray.                             Ober C, Hyslop T, Hauck WW. 1999. Inbreeding effects on
Darwin C. 1876. The effects of cross and self fertilization in      fertility in humans: evidence for reproductive compensation.
  the vegetable kingdom. London: John Murray.                       American Journal of Human Genetics 64: 225–231.
Darwin GH. 1875. Marriages between first cousins in               Pannell JR. 2009. On the problems of a closed marriage:
  England and their effects. Fortnigh Rev 24: 22–41.                celebrating Darwin 200. Biology Letters 5: 332–335.
  Reprinted in Int J Epidemiol 2009, 38:1429–1439.                Postma E, Martini L, Martini P. 2010. Inbred women in a
Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. 1996. Introduction to quantita-            small Swiss village have fewer children. Journal of Evolu-
  tive genetics. Harlow: Longman Group.                             tionary Biology 23: 1468–1474.
Fenner L, Egger M, Gagneux S. 2009. Annie’s death, the            R Development Core Team: R. 2011. A language and envi-
  evolution of tuberculosis and the need for systems epidemi-       ronment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation
  ology. International Journal of Epidemiology 38: 1425–            for Statistical Computing, Available at: http://www.R
  1428.                                                             -project.org

                        © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
INBREEDING DEPRESSION IN THE DARWIN FAMILY                            483

Robert A, Toupance B, Tremblay M, Heyer E. 2009.                    data using the negative binomial distribution. Ecology 77:
  Impact of inbreeding on fertility in a pre-industrial popula-     2549–2557.
  tion. European Journal of Human Genetics 17: 673–681.           Woods CG, Cox J, Springell K, Hampshire DJ, Mohamed
Roldan ERS, Cassinello J, Abaigar T, Gomendio M.                    MD, McKibbin M, Raymond FL, Sanford R, Sharif SM,
  1998. Inbreeding, fluctuating asymmetry and ejaculate             Karbani G, Ahmed M, Bond J, Clayton D, Inglehearn
  quality in an endangered ungulate. Proceedings of the Royal       CF. 2006. Quantification of homozygosity in consanguineous
  Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 265: 243–         individuals with autosomal recessive disease. American
  248.                                                              Journal of Human Genetics 78: 889–896.
Saccheri IJ, Lloyd HD, Helyar SJ, Brakefield PM. 2005.            Zeileis A, Kleibe C, Jackman S. 2008. Regression models
  Inbreeding uncovers fundamental differences in the genetic        for count data in R. Journal of Statistical Software 27:
  load affecting male and female fertility in a butterfly. Pro-     1–25.
  ceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological    Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM.
  Sciences 272: 39–46.                                              2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R.
White GC, Bennetts RE. 1996. Analysis of frequency count            New York, NY: Springer Science.

                                            SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web-site:
Table S1. Regression analyses of the number of children per woman. The table reports the results correspond-
ing to the four regression models considered in the article: Zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) and zero-inflated negative
binomial (ZINB), Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) and negative binomial GLM.
Table S2. Regression analyses of protogenesic and intergenesic intervals. The table reports the results
corresponding to regression analyses of protogenesic and intergenesic intervals by ordinary least-squares.
Table S3. Regression analyses of the reproductive span. The table reports the results corresponding to the four
regression models considered in the article: Zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) and zero-inflated negative binomial
(ZINB), Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) and negative binomial GLM.

© 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114, 474–483
You can also read