4.8 Article

Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype across the 20th century

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1523592113

关键词

assortative mating; fertility; polygenic scores; cohort trends

资金

  1. Russell Sage Foundation Grant GxE and Health Inequality over the Life Course
  2. National Institute on Aging [NIA U01AG009740, RC2AG036495, RC4AG039029]
  3. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R21HD078031]
  4. NICHD
  5. Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research [1R21HD071884]
  6. NIH/NICHD [R24HD066613]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study asks two related questions about the shifting landscape of marriage and reproduction in US society over the course of the last century with respect to a range of health and behavioral phenotypes and their associated genetic architecture: (i) Has assortment on measured genetic factors influencing reproductive and social fitness traits changed over the course of the 20th century? (ii) Has the genetic covariance between fitness (as measured by total fertility) and other traits changed over time? The answers to these questions inform our understanding of how the genetic landscape of American society has changed over the past century and have implications for population trends. We show that husbands and wives carry similar loadings for genetic factors related to education and height. However, the magnitude of this similarity is modest and has been fairly consistent over the course of the 20th century. This consistency is particularly notable in the case of education, for which phenotypic similarity among spouses has increased in recent years. Likewise, changing patterns of the number of children ever born by phenotype are not matched by shifts in genotype-fertility relationships over time. Taken together, these trends provide no evidence that social sorting is becoming increasingly genetic in nature or that dysgenic dynamics have accelerated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据