Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Genetics and Genomics›Pedigree
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Pedigree

Genetics and Genomics · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 4 min read

The record of descent or ancestry, particularly of a particular condition or trait, indicating individual family members, their relationships, and their status with respect to the trait or condition.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (840 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

The record of descent or ancestry, particularly of a particular condition or trait, indicating individual family members, their relationships, and their status with respect to the trait or condition.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Identity, Genetic; Genetic Identities; Identities, Genetic; Genetic Identity; Family Tree; Family Trees; Tree, Family; Trees, Family.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Genetic Techniques
See also
Genetic Privacy

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 96,013 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Pedigree” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 10,894 of them (11.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 40,104 records.

Reviews account for 5,276 records (5.5%) and meta-analyses for 94. Randomized controlled trials number 90 (0.1%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 40,104 records; 2000-2009: 22,368 records; 2010-2019: 22,647 records; 2020 onward: 10,894 records40,104through 199922,3682000-200922,6472010-201910,8942020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 199940,104
2000-200922,368
2010-201922,647
2020 onward10,894
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 5.5 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.1 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 0.1 percentReviews5.5% (5,276)Meta-analyses0.1% (94)Randomized controlled trials0.1% (90)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 96,013 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews5,2765.5%
Meta-analyses940.1%
Randomized controlled trials900.1%

Method: PubMed query "Pedigree"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in genetics and genomics

Genetic findings vary widely in strength. A variant linked to a condition in one study may not replicate in other ancestries, and most common variants have small effects that are meaningful only in aggregate. Studies of rare, high-impact variants can support strong causal claims about a gene, while association studies describe statistical links that need functional and independent replication. Check the sample size, the ancestry of participants, whether results were replicated, and whether a laboratory or clinical outcome was actually measured.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Human de novo mutation rates from a four-generation pedigree reference
Porubsky D, Dashnow H, Sasani TA, Logsdon GA, Hallast P, Noyes MD, et al.
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
117cc by
PMID 40269156 · DOI · PMC12240836
How to estimate kinship
Goudet J, Kay T, Weir BS
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
105cc by
PMID 30107060 · DOI · PMC6220858
Fine-Scale Inference of Ancestry Segments Without Prior Knowledge of Admixing Groups
Salter-Townshend M, Myers S
2019Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
91cc by
PMID 31123038 · DOI · PMC6614886
Phantom epistasis through the lens of genealogies
Ignatieva A, Ferreira LAF
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
1cc by
PMID 40911511 · DOI · PMC12774852

Human de novo mutation rates from a four-generation pedigree reference [1]

Research article Porubsky D, Dashnow H, Sasani TA, Logsdon GA, Hallast P, Noyes MD, et al. · · 2025 · cited 117 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Understanding the human de novo mutation (DNM) rate requires complete sequence information1.
Closing excerpt
These near-telomere-to-telomere familial genomes provide a truth set to understand the most fundamental processes underlying human genetic variation.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (219 words)

Understanding the human de novo mutation (DNM) rate requires complete sequence information1. Here using five complementary short-read and long-read sequencing technologies, we phased and assembled more than 95% of each diploid human genome in a four-generation, twenty-eight-member family (CEPH 1463). We estimate 98-206 DNMs per transmission, including 74.5 de novo single-nucleotide variants, 7.4 non-tandem repeat indels, 65.3 de novo indels or structural variants originating from tandem repeats, and 4.4 centromeric DNMs. Among male individuals, we find 12.4 de novo Y chromosome events per generation. Short tandem repeats and variable-number tandem repeats are the most mutable, with 32 loci exhibiting recurrent mutation through the generations. We accurately assemble 288 centromeres and six Y chromosomes across the generations and demonstrate that the DNM rate varies by an order of magnitude depending on repeat content, length and sequence identity. We show a strong paternal bias (75-81%) for all forms of germline DNM, yet we estimate that 16% of de novo single-nucleotide variants are postzygotic in origin with no paternal bias, including early germline mosaic mutations. We place all this variation in the context of a high-resolution recombination map (~3.4 kb breakpoint resolution) and find no correlation between meiotic crossover and de novo structural variants. These near-telomere-to-telomere familial genomes provide a truth set to understand the most fundamental processes underlying human genetic variation.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40269156 · DOI · PMC12240836

How to estimate kinship [2]

Research article Goudet J, Kay T, Weir BS · · 2018 · cited 105 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The concept of kinship permeates many domains of fundamental and applied biology ranging from social evolution to conservation science to quantitative and human genetics.
Closing excerpt
We also show that our new marker-based kinship estimator has very good statistical properties and behaviour and is particularly well suited for situations where the source population is of small size, as will often be the case in conservation biology, and where high levels of kinship are expected, as is typical in social evolution studies.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (182 words)

The concept of kinship permeates many domains of fundamental and applied biology ranging from social evolution to conservation science to quantitative and human genetics. Until recently, pedigrees were the gold standard to infer kinship, but the advent of next-generation sequencing and the availability of dense genetic markers in many species make it a good time to (re)evaluate the usefulness of genetic markers in this context. Using three published data sets where both pedigrees and markers are available, we evaluate two common and a new genetic estimator of kinship. We show discrepancies between pedigree values and marker estimates of kinship and explore via simulations the possible reasons for these. We find these discrepancies are attributable to two main sources: pedigree errors and heterogeneity in the origin of founders. We also show that our new marker-based kinship estimator has very good statistical properties and behaviour and is particularly well suited for situations where the source population is of small size, as will often be the case in conservation biology, and where high levels of kinship are expected, as is typical in social evolution studies.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30107060 · DOI · PMC6220858

Fine-Scale Inference of Ancestry Segments Without Prior Knowledge of Admixing Groups [3]

Research article Salter-Townshend M, Myers S · · 2019 · cited 91 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
We present an algorithm for inferring ancestry segments and characterizing admixture events, which involve an arbitrary number of genetically differentiated groups coming together.
Closing excerpt
We make available an R and C++ software library, which we term MOSAIC (which stands for MOSAIC Organizes Segments of Ancestry In Chromosomes).
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (220 words)

We present an algorithm for inferring ancestry segments and characterizing admixture events, which involve an arbitrary number of genetically differentiated groups coming together. This allows inference of the demographic history of the species, properties of admixing groups, identification of signatures of natural selection, and may aid disease gene mapping. The algorithm employs nested hidden Markov models to obtain local ancestry estimation along the genome for each admixed individual. In a range of simulations, the accuracy of these estimates equals or exceeds leading existing methods. Moreover, and unlike these approaches, we do not require any prior knowledge of the relationship between subgroups of donor reference haplotypes and the unseen mixing ancestral populations. Our approach infers these in terms of conditional "copying probabilities." In application to the Human Genome Diversity Project, we corroborate many previously inferred admixture events (e.g., an ancient admixture event in the Kalash). We further identify novel events such as complex four-way admixture in San-Khomani individuals, and show that Eastern European populations possess [Formula: see text] ancestry from a group resembling modern-day central Asians. We also identify evidence of recent natural selection favoring sub-Saharan ancestry at the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region, across North African individuals. We make available an R and C++ software library, which we term MOSAIC (which stands for MOSAIC Organizes Segments of Ancestry In Chromosomes).

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31123038 · DOI · PMC6614886

Phantom epistasis through the lens of genealogies [4]

Research article Ignatieva A, Ferreira LAF · · 2026 · cited 1 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Phantom epistasis arises when, in the course of testing for gene-by-gene interactions, the omission of a causal variant with a purely additive effect on the phenotype causes the spurious inference of a significant interaction between two single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
Closing excerpt
This opens up the exciting possibility of distinguishing spurious interactions in cis from those reflecting real biological effects.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (219 words)

Phantom epistasis arises when, in the course of testing for gene-by-gene interactions, the omission of a causal variant with a purely additive effect on the phenotype causes the spurious inference of a significant interaction between two single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). This is more likely to arise when the two SNPs are in relatively close proximity, so while true epistasis between nearby variants could be commonplace, in practice there is no reliable way of telling apart true epistatic signals from false positives. By considering the causes of phantom epistasis from a genealogy-based perspective, we leverage the rich information contained within reconstructed genealogies (in the form of ancestral recombination graphs) to address this problem. We propose a novel method for explicitly quantifying the genealogical evidence that a given pairwise interaction is the result of phantom epistasis, which can be applied to pairs of SNPs regardless of the genetic distance between them. Our method uses only publicly available data and so does not require access to the phenotypes and genotypes used for detecting interactions. Using simulations, we show that the method has excellent performance at even low distances (around 0.5 Mb), and demonstrate its power to detect phantom epistasis using real data from previous studies. This opens up the exciting possibility of distinguishing spurious interactions in cis from those reflecting real biological effects.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40911511 · DOI · PMC12774852

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis [5]
    Dakin EE, Avise JC · Heredity (Edinb) · 2004 · cited 427 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Genealogical trees, coalescent theory and the analysis of genetic polymorphisms [6]
    Rosenberg NA, Nordborg M · Nat Rev Genet · 2002 · cited 383 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Meta-analysis of telomere length in 19,713 subjects reveals high heritability, stronger maternal inheritance and a paternal age effect [7]
    Broer L, Codd V, Nyholt DR, Deelen J, Mangino M, Willemsen G, et al. · Eur J Hum Genet · 2013 · cited 382 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations [8]
    Jones AG, Ardren WR · Mol Ecol · 2003 · cited 314 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies [9]
    Powell JE, Visscher PM, Goddard ME · Nat Rev Genet · 2010 · cited 262 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article A family history of fracture and fracture risk: a meta-analysis [10]
    Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, Johnell O, De Laet C, Eisman JA, et al. · Bone · 2004 · cited 251 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Porubsky D, Dashnow H, Sasani TA, Logsdon GA, Hallast P, Noyes MD, et al.. Human de novo mutation rates from a four-generation pedigree reference. . 2025. PMID 40269156 · DOI · PMC12240836
  2. Goudet J, Kay T, Weir BS. How to estimate kinship. . 2018. PMID 30107060 · DOI · PMC6220858
  3. Salter-Townshend M, Myers S. Fine-Scale Inference of Ancestry Segments Without Prior Knowledge of Admixing Groups. . 2019. PMID 31123038 · DOI · PMC6614886
  4. Ignatieva A, Ferreira LAF. Phantom epistasis through the lens of genealogies. . 2026. PMID 40911511 · DOI · PMC12774852
  5. Dakin EE, Avise JC. Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis. Heredity (Edinb). 2004. PMID 15292911 · DOI
  6. Rosenberg NA, Nordborg M. Genealogical trees, coalescent theory and the analysis of genetic polymorphisms. Nat Rev Genet. 2002. PMID 11988763 · DOI
  7. Broer L, Codd V, Nyholt DR, Deelen J, Mangino M, Willemsen G, et al.. Meta-analysis of telomere length in 19,713 subjects reveals high heritability, stronger maternal inheritance and a paternal age effect. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013. PMID 23321625 · DOI · PMC3778341
  8. Jones AG, Ardren WR. Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations. Mol Ecol. 2003. PMID 12969458 · DOI
  9. Powell JE, Visscher PM, Goddard ME. Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies. Nat Rev Genet. 2010. PMID 20877324 · DOI
  10. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, Johnell O, De Laet C, Eisman JA, et al.. A family history of fracture and fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Bone. 2004. PMID 15542027 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Genetic BackgroundGenetics and Genomics
  • Genetic EngineeringGenetics and Genomics
  • Genetic Risk ScoreGenetics and Genomics
  • Gene ExpressionGenetics and Genomics
  • Gene FlowGenetics and Genomics
  • Genetic LociGenetics and Genomics

All 95 articles in Genetics and Genomics →

At a glance

96,013
PubMed records on this heading
11%
published since 2020
5,276
review articles
90
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Genetic BackgroundGenetics and Genomics
  • Genetic EngineeringGenetics and Genomics
  • Genetic Risk ScoreGenetics and Genomics
  • Gene ExpressionGenetics and Genomics
  • Gene FlowGenetics and Genomics

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support