Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:02:04.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONSANGUINITY BY RANDOM ISONYMY AND SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN ARGENTINA: A POPULATION STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

José Edgardo Dipierri ,
Alvaro Rodríguez-Larralde ,
Italo Barrai ,
Esperanza Gutiérrez Redomero ,
Concepción Alonso-Rodríguez  and
Emma Laura Alfaro
José Edgardo Dipierri
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas (INECOA), Universidad Nacional de Jujuy, San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina
Alvaro Rodríguez-Larralde
Affiliation:
Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientifcas, Venezuela
Italo Barrai
Affiliation:
University of Ferrara, Italy
Esperanza Gutiérrez Redomero
Affiliation:
Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Spain
Concepción Alonso-Rodríguez
Affiliation:
Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Spain
Emma Laura Alfaro*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas (INECOA), Universidad Nacional de Jujuy, San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina
*
1Corresponding author. Email: ealfaro@inbial.unju.edu.ar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In human populations various flexible, labile and interdependent structures (genetic, demographic, socioeconomic) co-exist, each of which can be organized in an hierarchical order corresponding to administrative entities. The relationship between consanguinity, as estimated by random isonymy (FST), and socioeconomic conditions was analysed at different levels of political and administrative organization in Argentina. From the surnames of 22,666,139 voters from the 2001 electoral roll, FST was estimated for 510 Argentinian departments. Using a principal component analysis, a Socio-Demographic and Economic Indicator (SDEI), summarizing the effect of 22 socioeconomic and demographic variables at the departmental level, was computed. The relationship between departmental FST and SDEI values was analysed for the whole nation and within regions using multiple regression analysis. The FST presented a clinal distribution with the highest values in the north and west of the country, while SDEI expressed the opposite behaviour. A negative and significant correlation was observed between FST and SDEI, accounting for 46% of the variation in consanguinity in Argentina. The strongest correlations of FST with SDEI were observed in the Central, Patagonia and Cuyo regions, i.e. those with the highest values of SDEI and lowest values of FST.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , May 2017 , pp. 322 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abuqamar, M., Coomans, D. & Louckx, F. (2011) Correlation between socioeconomic differences and infant mortality in the Arab World (1990–2009). International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 3(1), 15–21.Google Scholar
Ariza, M. & De Oliveira, O. (2001) Familias en transición y marcos conceptuales en redefinición. Papeles de Población 28, 9–39.Google Scholar
Ashraf, Q. & Galor, O. (2013) The Out of Africa hypothesis: human genetic diversity, and comparative economic development. American Economic Review 103(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Barrai, I. (1971) Subdivision and inbreeding. American Journal of Human Genetics 23, 95–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Benencia, R., Devoto, F., Míguez, E., Moreno, J. L. & Nabel, P. (2003) Migraciones de ayer y de Hoy. Ciencia Hoy 12(72), 46–60.Google Scholar
Bildirici, M., Kὄkdener, M. & Ersin, O. (2010) An empirical analysis of the effects of consanguineous marriages on economic development. Journal of Family History 35(4), 368–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bittles, A. H. (1994) The role and significance of consanguinity as a demographic variable. Population and Development Review 20(3), 561–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittles, A. H. (2005) Endogamy, consanguinity and community disease profiles. Community Genetics 8(1), 17–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Bittles, A. H. (2010) Time to get real: investigating potential beneficial genetic aspects of consanguinity. Public Health Genomics 14(3), 169–171.Google Scholar
Bittles, A. H. & Black, M. L. (2010) Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(1), 1779–1786.Google Scholar
Bronberg, R., Dipierri, J. E., Alfaro, E. L., Barrai, I., Rodríguez-Larralde, A., Castilla, E. et al. (2009) Isonymy structure of Buenos Aires city. Human Biology 8(14), 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronberg, R. A., Gutiérrez Redomero, E., Alonso, M. C. & Dipierri, J. E. (2012) Mortalidad infantil por malformaciones congénitas y condición socioeconómica, el caso de la Argentina. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica 31(6), 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colantonio, S. E., Lasker, G. W., Kaplan, B. A. & Fuster, V. (2003) Use of surname models in human population biology: a review of recent developments. Human Biology 75, 785–807.Google Scholar
Collado, M. D., Ortuño Ortiz, I. & Romeo, A. (2008) Surnames and social status in Spain. Investigaciones Económicas XXXII(3), 259–287.Google Scholar
Crow, J. E. & Mange, A. P. (1965) Measurements of inbreeding from the frequency of marriages between persons of the same surnames. Eugenics Quarterly 12, 190–203.Google Scholar
d’Alpoim Guede, J., Bestor, T. C., Carrasco, D., Flad, R., Fosse, E., Herzfeld, M. et al. (2013) Is poverty in our genes? A Critique of Ashraf and Galor: “The ‘Out of Africa’ Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development”. Current Anthropology 54(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
Denic, S., Naglekerke, N. & Agarwal, M. M. (2011) On some novel aspects of consanguineous marriages. Public Health Genomics 14(3), 162–168.Google Scholar
Dipierri, J. E. (2014) Consanguinidad por isonimia y factores socioeconómicos en Argentina, análisis poblacional y espacial. Doctoral Thesis, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Google Scholar
Dipierri, J. E., Alfaro, E. L., Scapoli, C., Mamolini, E., Rodríguez-Larralde, A. & Barrai, I. (2005) Surnames in Argentina: a population study through isonymy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128(1), 199–299.Google Scholar
Dipierri, J. E., Rodríguez-Larralde, A., Barrai, I., López-Camelo, J., Gutierrez-Redomero, E., Rodríguez, C. A. et al. (2014) Random inbreeding, isonymy, and population isolates in Argentina. Journal of Community Genetics 5(3), 241–248.Google Scholar
DEyC-Corrientes (Dirección de Estadísticas y Censos de la Provincia de Corrientes) (2014) Tercer Censo Nacional de la República Argentina. URL: http://www.deyc–corrientes.gov.ar/files_provincias/421.pdf (accessed 9th December 2014).Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., Corbet, S. & Williams, C. B. (1943) The relation between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. Journal of Animal Ecology 12(1), 42–58.Google Scholar
Gasparini, L., Marchionni, M. & Sosa Escudero, W. (2003) La distribución del ingreso en la argentina. Evidencia, determinantes y políticas. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. UNLP. URL: http://cedlas.econo.unlp.edu.ar/archivos_upload/20090701064441PM_premioarcor.pdf (accessed 1st June 2016).Google Scholar
Girbal de Blacha, N. (2003) La política inmigratoria del estado argentino 1830–1930. De la inmigración a las migraciones internas. CONICET/UNLP/UNQ.Google Scholar
Guell, M., Rodríguez Mora, J. V. & Telmer, C. (2007) Intergenerational Mobility and the Informative Content of Surnames. Carnegie Mellon University Research Showcase at the CMU Tepper School of Business. URL: http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1491&context=tepper (accessed 10th May 2016).Google Scholar
Harlap, S., Kleinhaus, K., Perrin, M. C., Calderon-Margalit, R., Paltiel, O., Deutsch, L. et al. (2008) Consanguinity and birth defects in the Jerusalem Perinatal Study Cohort. Human Heredity 66(3), 180–189.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. A. & Boyce, A. J. (1972) The Structure of Human Populations. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos) (2000) Anuario Estadístico de la República Argentina 2000. Secretaría de programación Económica y Regional, Ministerio de Economía.Google Scholar
INDEC (2001) Censo Nacional de población y vivienda 2001. URL: www.indec.gov.ar.com/censo2001 (accessed 22nd April 2016).Google Scholar
INDEC (2003) El estudio de la pobreza con datos censales, Índice de Privación Material de los Hogares (IPMH). Dirección de Estadísticas Poblacionales, Desarrollo de nuevas metodologías para el estudio de la pobreza con datos censales. Documento de Trabajo No. 61, Buenos Aires Dirección de Estadísticas Poblacionales-Desarrollo de Nuevas Metodologías para el estudio de la pobreza con datos censales, INDEC.Google Scholar
Kerkeni, E., Monastiri, K., Guediche, M. & Ben Cheikh, H. (2007) Interplay of socio-economic factors, consanguinity, fertility, and offspring mortality in Monastir, Tunisia. Croatian Medical Journal 48(5), 701–707.Google ScholarPubMed
Khlat, M. (1997) Endogamy in the Arab World. In Teebi, A. S. & Farag, T. I. (eds) Genetic Disorders among Arab Populations. Oxford University Press, pp. 63–80.Google Scholar
Kiranmala, N., Asghar, M. & Saraswathy, K. N. (2011) A Study of isonymy and some socio-demographic variables among Koms and Meiteis of Manipur, India. International Journal of Human Sciences 8, 2.Google Scholar
Lattes, A. E. & Recchini de Lattes, Z. (1994) International migration in Latin America: patterns, determinants and policies. In Macura, M. & Coleman D. (eds) International Migration, Regional Process and Responses. Economic Studies No. 7. United Nations, New York, pp. 109–126.Google Scholar
Lasker, G. W. (1985) Surnames and Genetic Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, L. H., Ho, S. F., Chen, C. H., Wei, C. Y., Wong, W. C., Li, L. Y. et al. (2006) Long continuous stretches of homozygosity in the human genome. Human Mutation 27, 1115–1121.Google Scholar
Little, B. B. & Malina, R. M. (2005) Inbreeding avoidance in an isolated indigenous Zapotec community in the valley of Oaxaca, southern Mexico. Human Biology 77(3), 305–316.Google Scholar
Macbeth, H. & Collison, P. (2002) Human Populations Dynamics. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McQuillan, R., Leutenegger, A. L., Abdel-Rahman, R., Franklin, C. S., Pericic, M., Barac-Lauc, L. et al. (2008) Runs of homozygosity in European populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 83, 359–372.Google Scholar
Nei, M. & Imaizumi, J. (1966) Genetic structure of human populations. I. Local differentiation of blood groups gene frequencies in Japan. Heredity 21, 9–36.Google Scholar
Relethford, J. H. (1988) Estimation of kinship and genetic distance from surnames. Human Biology 60, 475–492.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Larralde, A., Dipierri, J. E., Alfaro, E. L., Scapoli, C., Mamolini, E., Salvatorelli, G. et al. (2011) Surnames in Bolivia. A study of the population of Bolivia through isonymy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144, 177–184.Google Scholar
Sawchuk, L. A. & Herring, D. A. (1989) A socioeconomic analysis of secular trends in isonymy in the Jewish community of Gibraltar, 1820 to 1939. International Journal of Anthropology 4(3), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scapoli, C., Mammolini, E., Carrieri, A., Rodriguez-Larralde, A. & Barrai, I. (2007) Surnames in Western Europe: a comparison of the subcontinental populations through isonymy. Theoretical Population Biology 71(1), 37–48.Google Scholar
Simon-Sanchez, J., Scholz, S., Fung, H. C., Matarin, M., Hernandez, D., Gibbs, J. R. et al. (2007) Genome-wide SNP assay reveals structural genomic variation, extended homozygosity and cell-line induced alterations in normal individuals. Human Molecular Genetics 16, 1–14.Google Scholar
Weinreb, A. (2008) Characteristics of women in consanguineous marriages in Egypt, 1988–2000. European Journal of Population 24(2), 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodley, M. A. & Bell, E. (2013) Consanguinity as a major predictor of levels of democracy: a study of 70 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44(2), 263–280.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1951) The genetical structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics 15, 323–354.Google Scholar