Mixing
Do siblings share 50% of their genes?
$begingroup$
(This is my first question on Maths Stack Exchange, I'm not sure if this is a maths question or a physics question ... or something else.)
I was watching this video about psychology, and it it the presenter asserts (at about 5:45) that:
Identical twins share ... 100% of their genes ... whereas non-identical twins, ... just like any brother and sister, share only 50% of their genes.
Now this doesn't seem quite right to me. I can accept that:
- Identical twins share 100% of each other's genes (being split from the same egg).
- Brothers and sisters (twins or not) share 50% of their parents' genes
Am I wrong in thinking that brothers and sisters don't necessarily share 50% of each other's genes?
probability
asked Jan 22 at 9:00
Nick GammonNick Gammon
1084
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
(This is my first question on Maths Stack Exchange, I'm not sure if this is a maths question or a physics question ... or something else.)
I was watching this video about psychology, and it it the presenter asserts (at about 5:45) that:
Identical twins share ... 100% of their genes ... whereas non-identical twins, ... just like any brother and sister, share only 50% of their genes.
Now this doesn't seem quite right to me. I can accept that:
- Identical twins share 100% of each other's genes (being split from the same egg).
- Brothers and sisters (twins or not) share 50% of their parents' genes
Am I wrong in thinking that brothers and sisters don't necessarily share 50% of each other's genes?
probability
asked Jan 22 at 9:00
Nick GammonNick Gammon
1084
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Considering the high percentage of genes a human has in common with, say, a chimpanzee or even a plant, I think we need to be careful about defining what counts as a common gene.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:02
$begingroup$
And it's obviously not necessarily a specific percentage, because it's not guaranteed that the same random combination doesn't occur again (just overwhelmingly unlikely).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:05
$begingroup$
Suppose one parent's copies of a particular gene are $AA$ and the other has $BB$. Then ignoring mutations, each offspring has $100$% probability of getting $AB$.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:21
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Yes, obviously humans share, say, 99% of genes. This is talking more about the genes that are in common variation relative to a control population.
$endgroup$
– Eff
Jan 22 at 12:17
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Biologists define relatedness between individuals $i, j$ as the $pto 0^+$ limit of the conditional probability for a gene to be in $i$'s genome given its presence in $j$'s, where $p$ is the gene's population frequency. In other words, it's intended for "rare" genes.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 22 at 12:36
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
(This is my first question on Maths Stack Exchange, I'm not sure if this is a maths question or a physics question ... or something else.)
I was watching this video about psychology, and it it the presenter asserts (at about 5:45) that:
Identical twins share ... 100% of their genes ... whereas non-identical twins, ... just like any brother and sister, share only 50% of their genes.
Now this doesn't seem quite right to me. I can accept that:
- Identical twins share 100% of each other's genes (being split from the same egg).
- Brothers and sisters (twins or not) share 50% of their parents' genes
Am I wrong in thinking that brothers and sisters don't necessarily share 50% of each other's genes?
probability
asked Jan 22 at 9:00
Nick GammonNick Gammon
1084
$endgroup$
(This is my first question on Maths Stack Exchange, I'm not sure if this is a maths question or a physics question ... or something else.)
I was watching this video about psychology, and it it the presenter asserts (at about 5:45) that:
Identical twins share ... 100% of their genes ... whereas non-identical twins, ... just like any brother and sister, share only 50% of their genes.
Now this doesn't seem quite right to me. I can accept that:
- Identical twins share 100% of each other's genes (being split from the same egg).
- Brothers and sisters (twins or not) share 50% of their parents' genes
Am I wrong in thinking that brothers and sisters don't necessarily share 50% of each other's genes?
probability
probability
asked Jan 22 at 9:00
Nick GammonNick Gammon
1084
asked Jan 22 at 9:00
Nick GammonNick Gammon
1084
asked Jan 22 at 9:00
Nick GammonNick Gammon
1084
asked Jan 22 at 9:00
Nick GammonNick Gammon
1084
asked Jan 22 at 9:00
Nick GammonNick Gammon
1084
1084
2
$begingroup$
Considering the high percentage of genes a human has in common with, say, a chimpanzee or even a plant, I think we need to be careful about defining what counts as a common gene.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:02
$begingroup$
And it's obviously not necessarily a specific percentage, because it's not guaranteed that the same random combination doesn't occur again (just overwhelmingly unlikely).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:05
$begingroup$
Suppose one parent's copies of a particular gene are $AA$ and the other has $BB$. Then ignoring mutations, each offspring has $100$% probability of getting $AB$.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:21
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Yes, obviously humans share, say, 99% of genes. This is talking more about the genes that are in common variation relative to a control population.
$endgroup$
– Eff
Jan 22 at 12:17
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Biologists define relatedness between individuals $i, j$ as the $pto 0^+$ limit of the conditional probability for a gene to be in $i$'s genome given its presence in $j$'s, where $p$ is the gene's population frequency. In other words, it's intended for "rare" genes.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 22 at 12:36
|
show 2 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Considering the high percentage of genes a human has in common with, say, a chimpanzee or even a plant, I think we need to be careful about defining what counts as a common gene.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:02
$begingroup$
And it's obviously not necessarily a specific percentage, because it's not guaranteed that the same random combination doesn't occur again (just overwhelmingly unlikely).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:05
$begingroup$
Suppose one parent's copies of a particular gene are $AA$ and the other has $BB$. Then ignoring mutations, each offspring has $100$% probability of getting $AB$.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:21
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Yes, obviously humans share, say, 99% of genes. This is talking more about the genes that are in common variation relative to a control population.
$endgroup$
– Eff
Jan 22 at 12:17
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Biologists define relatedness between individuals $i, j$ as the $pto 0^+$ limit of the conditional probability for a gene to be in $i$'s genome given its presence in $j$'s, where $p$ is the gene's population frequency. In other words, it's intended for "rare" genes.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 22 at 12:36
2
2
$begingroup$
Considering the high percentage of genes a human has in common with, say, a chimpanzee or even a plant, I think we need to be careful about defining what counts as a common gene.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:02
$begingroup$
Considering the high percentage of genes a human has in common with, say, a chimpanzee or even a plant, I think we need to be careful about defining what counts as a common gene.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:02
$begingroup$
And it's obviously not necessarily a specific percentage, because it's not guaranteed that the same random combination doesn't occur again (just overwhelmingly unlikely).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:05
$begingroup$
And it's obviously not necessarily a specific percentage, because it's not guaranteed that the same random combination doesn't occur again (just overwhelmingly unlikely).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:05
$begingroup$
Suppose one parent's copies of a particular gene are $AA$ and the other has $BB$. Then ignoring mutations, each offspring has $100$% probability of getting $AB$.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:21
$begingroup$
Suppose one parent's copies of a particular gene are $AA$ and the other has $BB$. Then ignoring mutations, each offspring has $100$% probability of getting $AB$.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:21
1
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Yes, obviously humans share, say, 99% of genes. This is talking more about the genes that are in common variation relative to a control population.
$endgroup$
– Eff
Jan 22 at 12:17
$begingroup$
@timtfj Yes, obviously humans share, say, 99% of genes. This is talking more about the genes that are in common variation relative to a control population.
$endgroup$
– Eff
Jan 22 at 12:17
1
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Biologists define relatedness between individuals $i, j$ as the $pto 0^+$ limit of the conditional probability for a gene to be in $i$'s genome given its presence in $j$'s, where $p$ is the gene's population frequency. In other words, it's intended for "rare" genes.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 22 at 12:36
$begingroup$
@timtfj Biologists define relatedness between individuals $i, j$ as the $pto 0^+$ limit of the conditional probability for a gene to be in $i$'s genome given its presence in $j$'s, where $p$ is the gene's population frequency. In other words, it's intended for "rare" genes.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 22 at 12:36
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First, think back to school biology and recall how inheritance works:
- Each parent has two versions of each gene.
- These two versions may or may not be identical.
- You inherit one from each parent, but it's random which you get.
So considering the copies as distinct, the two siblings will inherit about $50$% of the same copies of their mother's genes, and about $50$% of the same copies of their father's genes.
So in that sense, they'll have about $50$% of their genes in common.
Now, what if one of your parents has two identical copies of a gene? Does it make sense to distinguish between the two? Not really. So there's now $100$% probability (neglecting mutations) that both siblings inherit the same version of the gene from that parent.
And if the gene happens to be one where a difference in one copy would be fatal, each parent is guaranteed to have only the non-fatal version, as are the two children.
But in any case, the likelihood of a parent having two matching copies depends on how common each version is in the general population.
Finally there's the question of what constitute identical genes. Are they ones with identical base pairs throughout? Or merely ones whose resulting function is essentially the same? How different is their DNA allowed to be?
In fact, we have most of our DNA in common with all human beings, and a lot in common with all multicellular organisms. I'm unsure of the figures, but this is likely to mean that in that sense, the common DNA between the two siblings is far closer to $100$% than to $50$%.
So the answer is that, treating each parent's two copies as distinguishable, the two siblings inherit about $50$% of the same genes—but that a lot of the time, the inherired "different" genes won't actually be distinguishable.
answered Jan 22 at 12:02
timtfjtimtfj
2,458420
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assuming the parents share no common alleles , then each twin will inherit $50%$ of each parent's set. So for every gene, there is $50%$ probability of both twins inheriting the same allele from a parent. There for the expectation is that the twins share half of their alleles.
However, since it is likely that the parents actually do share some (indeed, rather many) alleles, the expectation should be somewhat higher than one half.
answered Jan 22 at 10:02
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.5k43479
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this also assume that for each gene, each parent has two different copies—which for many (most?) they won't? So the percentage in common will be significantly higher.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:11
$begingroup$
Yes. Indeed So.
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jan 22 at 20:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now, the specific mathematics - humans have $23$ chromosome pairs. If nothing goes funny (not at all a safe assumption), a person gets one chromosome from each parent in each pair, chosen at random. For simplicity, we will count on the chromosome level, and assume that none of the parents' chromosomes are the same as each other.
In each pair, then, a pair of full siblings get the same chromosome from their mother half the time and the same chromosome from their father half the time. $46$ chromosomes, an average of $23$ shared. But that's only an average; each chromosome is independent here, and random variation happens. That's a standard deviation of $sqrt{11.5}approx 3.6$, fairly large compared to the mean. About $1.3%$ of the time, two full siblings will share $15$ or fewer chromosomes, less than a third of the same genes.
[Edit] Recombination changes these numbers, significantly decreasing the variance in how much genetic material matches. I don't have enough data to put solid numbers on that.
For more distant relations, the matching genes drop by half for each degree of separation (either a parent, a child, or a full sibling relation) - grandparents or aunts/uncles are an average of $frac14$, first cousins are an average of $frac18$, and so on. At six degrees, it's an average of less than one matching chromosome - which is about the point that incest stops being a taboo anyone cares about.
answered Jan 22 at 12:29
jmerryjmerry
12.9k1628
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's not actually a full chromosome from each pair—at least as I learnt it, what's passed on is a chromosome made from fragments of the two originals (they align side by side and swap DNA, then the two shuffled versions end up in different cells after the cell divides).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 13:18
1
$begingroup$
To say nothing of triplet chromosomes, singlet chromosomes, identical twins - as I said, "not at all a safe assumption". Actually, a question - how much recombination? Answering myself - 30K hotspots, one in 1300 or so recombinations per hotspot per meiosis - that's on the order of one per chromosome pair. Enough to make a big difference - the mean will stay the same, the variance will decrease.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 22 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
The whole thing's a nightmare, isn't it? (Or "statistician's paradise", maybe . . .)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 14:58
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3082903%2fdo-siblings-share-50-of-their-genes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First, think back to school biology and recall how inheritance works:
- Each parent has two versions of each gene.
- These two versions may or may not be identical.
- You inherit one from each parent, but it's random which you get.
So considering the copies as distinct, the two siblings will inherit about $50$% of the same copies of their mother's genes, and about $50$% of the same copies of their father's genes.
So in that sense, they'll have about $50$% of their genes in common.
Now, what if one of your parents has two identical copies of a gene? Does it make sense to distinguish between the two? Not really. So there's now $100$% probability (neglecting mutations) that both siblings inherit the same version of the gene from that parent.
And if the gene happens to be one where a difference in one copy would be fatal, each parent is guaranteed to have only the non-fatal version, as are the two children.
But in any case, the likelihood of a parent having two matching copies depends on how common each version is in the general population.
Finally there's the question of what constitute identical genes. Are they ones with identical base pairs throughout? Or merely ones whose resulting function is essentially the same? How different is their DNA allowed to be?
In fact, we have most of our DNA in common with all human beings, and a lot in common with all multicellular organisms. I'm unsure of the figures, but this is likely to mean that in that sense, the common DNA between the two siblings is far closer to $100$% than to $50$%.
So the answer is that, treating each parent's two copies as distinguishable, the two siblings inherit about $50$% of the same genes—but that a lot of the time, the inherired "different" genes won't actually be distinguishable.
answered Jan 22 at 12:02
timtfjtimtfj
2,458420
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, think back to school biology and recall how inheritance works:
- Each parent has two versions of each gene.
- These two versions may or may not be identical.
- You inherit one from each parent, but it's random which you get.
So considering the copies as distinct, the two siblings will inherit about $50$% of the same copies of their mother's genes, and about $50$% of the same copies of their father's genes.
So in that sense, they'll have about $50$% of their genes in common.
Now, what if one of your parents has two identical copies of a gene? Does it make sense to distinguish between the two? Not really. So there's now $100$% probability (neglecting mutations) that both siblings inherit the same version of the gene from that parent.
And if the gene happens to be one where a difference in one copy would be fatal, each parent is guaranteed to have only the non-fatal version, as are the two children.
But in any case, the likelihood of a parent having two matching copies depends on how common each version is in the general population.
Finally there's the question of what constitute identical genes. Are they ones with identical base pairs throughout? Or merely ones whose resulting function is essentially the same? How different is their DNA allowed to be?
In fact, we have most of our DNA in common with all human beings, and a lot in common with all multicellular organisms. I'm unsure of the figures, but this is likely to mean that in that sense, the common DNA between the two siblings is far closer to $100$% than to $50$%.
So the answer is that, treating each parent's two copies as distinguishable, the two siblings inherit about $50$% of the same genes—but that a lot of the time, the inherired "different" genes won't actually be distinguishable.
answered Jan 22 at 12:02
timtfjtimtfj
2,458420
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, think back to school biology and recall how inheritance works:
- Each parent has two versions of each gene.
- These two versions may or may not be identical.
- You inherit one from each parent, but it's random which you get.
So considering the copies as distinct, the two siblings will inherit about $50$% of the same copies of their mother's genes, and about $50$% of the same copies of their father's genes.
So in that sense, they'll have about $50$% of their genes in common.
Now, what if one of your parents has two identical copies of a gene? Does it make sense to distinguish between the two? Not really. So there's now $100$% probability (neglecting mutations) that both siblings inherit the same version of the gene from that parent.
And if the gene happens to be one where a difference in one copy would be fatal, each parent is guaranteed to have only the non-fatal version, as are the two children.
But in any case, the likelihood of a parent having two matching copies depends on how common each version is in the general population.
Finally there's the question of what constitute identical genes. Are they ones with identical base pairs throughout? Or merely ones whose resulting function is essentially the same? How different is their DNA allowed to be?
In fact, we have most of our DNA in common with all human beings, and a lot in common with all multicellular organisms. I'm unsure of the figures, but this is likely to mean that in that sense, the common DNA between the two siblings is far closer to $100$% than to $50$%.
So the answer is that, treating each parent's two copies as distinguishable, the two siblings inherit about $50$% of the same genes—but that a lot of the time, the inherired "different" genes won't actually be distinguishable.
answered Jan 22 at 12:02
timtfjtimtfj
2,458420
$endgroup$
First, think back to school biology and recall how inheritance works:
- Each parent has two versions of each gene.
- These two versions may or may not be identical.
- You inherit one from each parent, but it's random which you get.
So considering the copies as distinct, the two siblings will inherit about $50$% of the same copies of their mother's genes, and about $50$% of the same copies of their father's genes.
So in that sense, they'll have about $50$% of their genes in common.
Now, what if one of your parents has two identical copies of a gene? Does it make sense to distinguish between the two? Not really. So there's now $100$% probability (neglecting mutations) that both siblings inherit the same version of the gene from that parent.
And if the gene happens to be one where a difference in one copy would be fatal, each parent is guaranteed to have only the non-fatal version, as are the two children.
But in any case, the likelihood of a parent having two matching copies depends on how common each version is in the general population.
Finally there's the question of what constitute identical genes. Are they ones with identical base pairs throughout? Or merely ones whose resulting function is essentially the same? How different is their DNA allowed to be?
In fact, we have most of our DNA in common with all human beings, and a lot in common with all multicellular organisms. I'm unsure of the figures, but this is likely to mean that in that sense, the common DNA between the two siblings is far closer to $100$% than to $50$%.
So the answer is that, treating each parent's two copies as distinguishable, the two siblings inherit about $50$% of the same genes—but that a lot of the time, the inherired "different" genes won't actually be distinguishable.
answered Jan 22 at 12:02
timtfjtimtfj
2,458420
edited Jan 22 at 12:09
answered Jan 22 at 12:02
timtfjtimtfj
2,458420
answered Jan 22 at 12:02
timtfjtimtfj
2,458420
answered Jan 22 at 12:02
timtfjtimtfj
2,458420
2,458420
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assuming the parents share no common alleles , then each twin will inherit $50%$ of each parent's set. So for every gene, there is $50%$ probability of both twins inheriting the same allele from a parent. There for the expectation is that the twins share half of their alleles.
However, since it is likely that the parents actually do share some (indeed, rather many) alleles, the expectation should be somewhat higher than one half.
answered Jan 22 at 10:02
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.5k43479
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this also assume that for each gene, each parent has two different copies—which for many (most?) they won't? So the percentage in common will be significantly higher.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:11
$begingroup$
Yes. Indeed So.
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jan 22 at 20:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assuming the parents share no common alleles , then each twin will inherit $50%$ of each parent's set. So for every gene, there is $50%$ probability of both twins inheriting the same allele from a parent. There for the expectation is that the twins share half of their alleles.
However, since it is likely that the parents actually do share some (indeed, rather many) alleles, the expectation should be somewhat higher than one half.
answered Jan 22 at 10:02
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.5k43479
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this also assume that for each gene, each parent has two different copies—which for many (most?) they won't? So the percentage in common will be significantly higher.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:11
$begingroup$
Yes. Indeed So.
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jan 22 at 20:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assuming the parents share no common alleles , then each twin will inherit $50%$ of each parent's set. So for every gene, there is $50%$ probability of both twins inheriting the same allele from a parent. There for the expectation is that the twins share half of their alleles.
However, since it is likely that the parents actually do share some (indeed, rather many) alleles, the expectation should be somewhat higher than one half.
answered Jan 22 at 10:02
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.5k43479
$endgroup$
Assuming the parents share no common alleles , then each twin will inherit $50%$ of each parent's set. So for every gene, there is $50%$ probability of both twins inheriting the same allele from a parent. There for the expectation is that the twins share half of their alleles.
However, since it is likely that the parents actually do share some (indeed, rather many) alleles, the expectation should be somewhat higher than one half.
answered Jan 22 at 10:02
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.5k43479
answered Jan 22 at 10:02
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.5k43479
answered Jan 22 at 10:02
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.5k43479
answered Jan 22 at 10:02
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.5k43479
86.5k43479
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this also assume that for each gene, each parent has two different copies—which for many (most?) they won't? So the percentage in common will be significantly higher.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:11
$begingroup$
Yes. Indeed So.
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jan 22 at 20:12
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this also assume that for each gene, each parent has two different copies—which for many (most?) they won't? So the percentage in common will be significantly higher.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:11
$begingroup$
Yes. Indeed So.
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jan 22 at 20:12
1
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this also assume that for each gene, each parent has two different copies—which for many (most?) they won't? So the percentage in common will be significantly higher.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:11
$begingroup$
Doesn't this also assume that for each gene, each parent has two different copies—which for many (most?) they won't? So the percentage in common will be significantly higher.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:11
$begingroup$
Yes. Indeed So.
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jan 22 at 20:12
$begingroup$
Yes. Indeed So.
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jan 22 at 20:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now, the specific mathematics - humans have $23$ chromosome pairs. If nothing goes funny (not at all a safe assumption), a person gets one chromosome from each parent in each pair, chosen at random. For simplicity, we will count on the chromosome level, and assume that none of the parents' chromosomes are the same as each other.
In each pair, then, a pair of full siblings get the same chromosome from their mother half the time and the same chromosome from their father half the time. $46$ chromosomes, an average of $23$ shared. But that's only an average; each chromosome is independent here, and random variation happens. That's a standard deviation of $sqrt{11.5}approx 3.6$, fairly large compared to the mean. About $1.3%$ of the time, two full siblings will share $15$ or fewer chromosomes, less than a third of the same genes.
[Edit] Recombination changes these numbers, significantly decreasing the variance in how much genetic material matches. I don't have enough data to put solid numbers on that.
For more distant relations, the matching genes drop by half for each degree of separation (either a parent, a child, or a full sibling relation) - grandparents or aunts/uncles are an average of $frac14$, first cousins are an average of $frac18$, and so on. At six degrees, it's an average of less than one matching chromosome - which is about the point that incest stops being a taboo anyone cares about.
answered Jan 22 at 12:29
jmerryjmerry
12.9k1628
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's not actually a full chromosome from each pair—at least as I learnt it, what's passed on is a chromosome made from fragments of the two originals (they align side by side and swap DNA, then the two shuffled versions end up in different cells after the cell divides).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 13:18
1
$begingroup$
To say nothing of triplet chromosomes, singlet chromosomes, identical twins - as I said, "not at all a safe assumption". Actually, a question - how much recombination? Answering myself - 30K hotspots, one in 1300 or so recombinations per hotspot per meiosis - that's on the order of one per chromosome pair. Enough to make a big difference - the mean will stay the same, the variance will decrease.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 22 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
The whole thing's a nightmare, isn't it? (Or "statistician's paradise", maybe . . .)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 14:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now, the specific mathematics - humans have $23$ chromosome pairs. If nothing goes funny (not at all a safe assumption), a person gets one chromosome from each parent in each pair, chosen at random. For simplicity, we will count on the chromosome level, and assume that none of the parents' chromosomes are the same as each other.
In each pair, then, a pair of full siblings get the same chromosome from their mother half the time and the same chromosome from their father half the time. $46$ chromosomes, an average of $23$ shared. But that's only an average; each chromosome is independent here, and random variation happens. That's a standard deviation of $sqrt{11.5}approx 3.6$, fairly large compared to the mean. About $1.3%$ of the time, two full siblings will share $15$ or fewer chromosomes, less than a third of the same genes.
[Edit] Recombination changes these numbers, significantly decreasing the variance in how much genetic material matches. I don't have enough data to put solid numbers on that.
For more distant relations, the matching genes drop by half for each degree of separation (either a parent, a child, or a full sibling relation) - grandparents or aunts/uncles are an average of $frac14$, first cousins are an average of $frac18$, and so on. At six degrees, it's an average of less than one matching chromosome - which is about the point that incest stops being a taboo anyone cares about.
answered Jan 22 at 12:29
jmerryjmerry
12.9k1628
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's not actually a full chromosome from each pair—at least as I learnt it, what's passed on is a chromosome made from fragments of the two originals (they align side by side and swap DNA, then the two shuffled versions end up in different cells after the cell divides).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 13:18
1
$begingroup$
To say nothing of triplet chromosomes, singlet chromosomes, identical twins - as I said, "not at all a safe assumption". Actually, a question - how much recombination? Answering myself - 30K hotspots, one in 1300 or so recombinations per hotspot per meiosis - that's on the order of one per chromosome pair. Enough to make a big difference - the mean will stay the same, the variance will decrease.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 22 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
The whole thing's a nightmare, isn't it? (Or "statistician's paradise", maybe . . .)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 14:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now, the specific mathematics - humans have $23$ chromosome pairs. If nothing goes funny (not at all a safe assumption), a person gets one chromosome from each parent in each pair, chosen at random. For simplicity, we will count on the chromosome level, and assume that none of the parents' chromosomes are the same as each other.
In each pair, then, a pair of full siblings get the same chromosome from their mother half the time and the same chromosome from their father half the time. $46$ chromosomes, an average of $23$ shared. But that's only an average; each chromosome is independent here, and random variation happens. That's a standard deviation of $sqrt{11.5}approx 3.6$, fairly large compared to the mean. About $1.3%$ of the time, two full siblings will share $15$ or fewer chromosomes, less than a third of the same genes.
[Edit] Recombination changes these numbers, significantly decreasing the variance in how much genetic material matches. I don't have enough data to put solid numbers on that.
For more distant relations, the matching genes drop by half for each degree of separation (either a parent, a child, or a full sibling relation) - grandparents or aunts/uncles are an average of $frac14$, first cousins are an average of $frac18$, and so on. At six degrees, it's an average of less than one matching chromosome - which is about the point that incest stops being a taboo anyone cares about.
answered Jan 22 at 12:29
jmerryjmerry
12.9k1628
$endgroup$
Now, the specific mathematics - humans have $23$ chromosome pairs. If nothing goes funny (not at all a safe assumption), a person gets one chromosome from each parent in each pair, chosen at random. For simplicity, we will count on the chromosome level, and assume that none of the parents' chromosomes are the same as each other.
In each pair, then, a pair of full siblings get the same chromosome from their mother half the time and the same chromosome from their father half the time. $46$ chromosomes, an average of $23$ shared. But that's only an average; each chromosome is independent here, and random variation happens. That's a standard deviation of $sqrt{11.5}approx 3.6$, fairly large compared to the mean. About $1.3%$ of the time, two full siblings will share $15$ or fewer chromosomes, less than a third of the same genes.
[Edit] Recombination changes these numbers, significantly decreasing the variance in how much genetic material matches. I don't have enough data to put solid numbers on that.
For more distant relations, the matching genes drop by half for each degree of separation (either a parent, a child, or a full sibling relation) - grandparents or aunts/uncles are an average of $frac14$, first cousins are an average of $frac18$, and so on. At six degrees, it's an average of less than one matching chromosome - which is about the point that incest stops being a taboo anyone cares about.
answered Jan 22 at 12:29
jmerryjmerry
12.9k1628
edited Jan 22 at 13:51
answered Jan 22 at 12:29
jmerryjmerry
12.9k1628
answered Jan 22 at 12:29
jmerryjmerry
12.9k1628
answered Jan 22 at 12:29
jmerryjmerry
12.9k1628
12.9k1628
$begingroup$
It's not actually a full chromosome from each pair—at least as I learnt it, what's passed on is a chromosome made from fragments of the two originals (they align side by side and swap DNA, then the two shuffled versions end up in different cells after the cell divides).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 13:18
1
$begingroup$
To say nothing of triplet chromosomes, singlet chromosomes, identical twins - as I said, "not at all a safe assumption". Actually, a question - how much recombination? Answering myself - 30K hotspots, one in 1300 or so recombinations per hotspot per meiosis - that's on the order of one per chromosome pair. Enough to make a big difference - the mean will stay the same, the variance will decrease.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 22 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
The whole thing's a nightmare, isn't it? (Or "statistician's paradise", maybe . . .)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 14:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's not actually a full chromosome from each pair—at least as I learnt it, what's passed on is a chromosome made from fragments of the two originals (they align side by side and swap DNA, then the two shuffled versions end up in different cells after the cell divides).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 13:18
1
$begingroup$
To say nothing of triplet chromosomes, singlet chromosomes, identical twins - as I said, "not at all a safe assumption". Actually, a question - how much recombination? Answering myself - 30K hotspots, one in 1300 or so recombinations per hotspot per meiosis - that's on the order of one per chromosome pair. Enough to make a big difference - the mean will stay the same, the variance will decrease.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 22 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
The whole thing's a nightmare, isn't it? (Or "statistician's paradise", maybe . . .)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 14:58
$begingroup$
It's not actually a full chromosome from each pair—at least as I learnt it, what's passed on is a chromosome made from fragments of the two originals (they align side by side and swap DNA, then the two shuffled versions end up in different cells after the cell divides).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 13:18
$begingroup$
It's not actually a full chromosome from each pair—at least as I learnt it, what's passed on is a chromosome made from fragments of the two originals (they align side by side and swap DNA, then the two shuffled versions end up in different cells after the cell divides).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 13:18
1
1
$begingroup$
To say nothing of triplet chromosomes, singlet chromosomes, identical twins - as I said, "not at all a safe assumption". Actually, a question - how much recombination? Answering myself - 30K hotspots, one in 1300 or so recombinations per hotspot per meiosis - that's on the order of one per chromosome pair. Enough to make a big difference - the mean will stay the same, the variance will decrease.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 22 at 13:46
$begingroup$
To say nothing of triplet chromosomes, singlet chromosomes, identical twins - as I said, "not at all a safe assumption". Actually, a question - how much recombination? Answering myself - 30K hotspots, one in 1300 or so recombinations per hotspot per meiosis - that's on the order of one per chromosome pair. Enough to make a big difference - the mean will stay the same, the variance will decrease.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 22 at 13:46
1
1
$begingroup$
The whole thing's a nightmare, isn't it? (Or "statistician's paradise", maybe . . .)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 14:58
$begingroup$
The whole thing's a nightmare, isn't it? (Or "statistician's paradise", maybe . . .)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 14:58
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3082903%2fdo-siblings-share-50-of-their-genes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Considering the high percentage of genes a human has in common with, say, a chimpanzee or even a plant, I think we need to be careful about defining what counts as a common gene.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:02
$begingroup$
And it's obviously not necessarily a specific percentage, because it's not guaranteed that the same random combination doesn't occur again (just overwhelmingly unlikely).
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:05
$begingroup$
Suppose one parent's copies of a particular gene are $AA$ and the other has $BB$. Then ignoring mutations, each offspring has $100$% probability of getting $AB$.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 22 at 10:21
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Yes, obviously humans share, say, 99% of genes. This is talking more about the genes that are in common variation relative to a control population.
$endgroup$
– Eff
Jan 22 at 12:17
1
$begingroup$
@timtfj Biologists define relatedness between individuals $i, j$ as the $pto 0^+$ limit of the conditional probability for a gene to be in $i$'s genome given its presence in $j$'s, where $p$ is the gene's population frequency. In other words, it's intended for "rare" genes.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 22 at 12:36