Source: Public Library of Science
Date: 16 April 2009
Inbreeding Was Major Cause Of Fall Of Spanish Habsburg Dynasty
The powerful Habsburg dynasty ruled Spain and its empire from 1516 to 1700 but when King Charles II died in 1700 without any children from his two marriages, the male line died out and the French Bourbon dynasty came to power in Spain.
Gonzalo Alvarez and colleagues at the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain have provided genetic evidence to support the historical evidence that the high frequency of inbreeding (mating between closely related individuals) within the dynasty was a major cause for the extinction of its male line.
Using the genealogical information for Charles II and 3,000 of his relatives and ancestors across 16 generations, the researchers calculated the inbreeding coefficient (F) for each individual; this value indicates the probability that an individual receives, at a given locus, two genes identical by descent due to the common ancestry of its parents. They found that F increased considerably down the generations—from 0.025 for Philip I, the founder of the dynasty, to 0.254 for Charles II—as the Habsburg kings tended to marry close relatives more frequently in order to preserve their heritage. Several members of the dynasty had inbreeding coefficients higher than 0.20, which means that more than 20% of the genome is expected to be homozygous in these individuals.
The authors cite three lines of evidence to support the theory that inbreeding was a major factor in the extinction of the male Habsburg line, on the death of Charles II.
Firstly, there was a very high level of marriage between biological relatives (consanguineous marriage) within the Habsburg dynasty: nine of the 11 marriages over 200 years were consanguineous, including two uncle-niece marriages, one double-first-cousin marriage and one first-cousin marriage.
The two individuals with the highest inbreeding coefficient were Charles II and his grandfather Philip III. Although both were the sons of uncle-niece marriages, their F values were almost as high as the expected value for the offspring of an incestuous (parent-child or brother-sister) marriage. The researchers explain that this is likely to be due to multiple remote ancestors of these individuals (remote inbreeding), on top of the high degree of relatedness of their parents.
Secondly, there was a high rate of infant and child mortality in the Habsburg families with only half of the children born in the dynasty during the years studied surviving to age one, compared to about 80% in Spanish villages of the time. Alvarez and colleagues calculated that inbreeding at the level of first cousin (F = 0.0625) exerted an adverse effect on the survival to age 10 of offspring of 17.8 % ± 12.3, which could explain the high levels of infant and child mortality.
Thirdly, Charles II, dubbed El Hechizado ("The Hexed"), suffered from many different disorders and illnesses, some of which may result from the consanguineous marriage of his parents. According to contemporary writings he was short and weak and suffered from intestinal problems and sporadic hematuria. Children of closely consanguineous couples often have an increased incidence of detrimental health effects due to rare deleterious recessive alleles inherited from common ancestors, although this will depend on how inbred their pedigree is already.
Based on this clinical genetic knowledge and on information gathered by historians on the health of Charles II, Alvarez and colleagues speculate that the simultaneous occurrence of two different genetic disorders (combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis), determined by recessive alleles at two unlinked loci, could explain much of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility, which led to the extinction of the dynasty.
* * *
Journal reference:
1.Alvarez et al. The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4 (4): e5174 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005174
"'I'll make old vases for you if you want them—will make them just as I made these.' He had visions of a room full of golden brown beard. It was the most appalling thing he had ever witnessed, and there was no trickery about it. The beard had actually grown before his eyes, and it had now reached to the second button of the Clockwork man's waistcoat. And, at any moment, Mrs. Masters might return! "Worth stealing," a Society journalist lounging by remarked. "I could write a novel, only I can never think of a plot. Your old housekeeper is asleep long ago. Where do you carry your latchkey?" "Never lose your temper," he said. "It leads to apoplexy. Ah, my fine madam, you thought to pinch me, but I have pinched you instead." How does that strike you, Mr. Smith? Fancy Jerusha Abbott, (individually) ever pat me on the head, Daddy? I don't believe so-- The confusion was partly inherited from Aristotle. When discussing the psychology of that philosopher, we showed that his active Nous is no other than the idea of which we are at any moment actually conscious. Our own reason is the passive Nous, whose identity is lost in the multiplicity of objects with which it becomes identified in turn. But Aristotle was careful not to let the personality of God, or the supreme Nous, be endangered by resolving it into the totality of substantial forms which constitute Nature. God is self-conscious in the strictest sense. He thinks nothing but himself. Again, the subjective starting-point of305 Plotinus may have affected his conception of the universal Nous. A single individual may isolate himself from his fellows in so far as he is a sentient being; he cannot do so in so far as he is a rational being. His reason always addresses itself to the reason of some one else—a fact nowhere brought out so clearly as in the dialectic philosophy of Socrates and Plato. Then, when an agreement has been established, their minds, before so sharply divided, seem to be, after all, only different personifications of the same universal spirit. Hence reason, no less than its objects, comes to be conceived as both many and one. And this synthesis of contradictories meets us in modern German as well as in ancient Greek philosophy. 216 "I shall be mighty glad when we git this outfit to Chattanoogy," sighed Si. "I'm gittin' older every minute that I have 'em on my hands." "What was his name?" inquired Monty Scruggs. "Wot's worth while?" "Rose, Rose—my dear, my liddle dear—you d?an't mean——" "I'm out of practice, or I shouldn't have skinned myself like this—ah, here's Coalbran's trap. Perhaps he'll give you a lift, ma'am, into Peasmarsh." Chapter 18 "The Fair-pl?ace." "Yes," replied Black Jack, "here they are," drawing a parchment from his pocket. "This is the handwriting of a retainer called Oakley." HoME大桥未久AV手机在线观看
ENTER NUMBET 0016hpqibeng.com.cn www.lfddz.com.cn www.iegvc.com.cn www.ghvf.com.cn www.gjqcwj.com.cn fyinpk.com.cn www.qkxchs.com.cn www.two-l.net.cn www.voam.com.cn xfde.com.cn
