Inbreeding (mating between relatives) is a major concern for conservation as it decreases individual fitness and can increase the risk of population extinction. We used whole-genome resequencing of 97 grey wolves (Canis lupus) from the highly inbred Scandinavian wolf population to identify ‘identical-by-descent’ (IBD) chromosome segments as runs of homozygosity (ROH). This gave the high resolution required to precisely measure realized inbreeding as the IBD fraction of the genome in ROH (F ROH). We found a striking pattern of complete or near-complete homozygosity of entire chromosomes in many individuals. The majority of individual inbreeding was due to long IBD segments (>5 cM) originating from ancestors ≤10 generations ago, with 10 genomic regions showing very few ROH and forming candidate regions for containing loci contributing strongly to inbreeding depression. Inbreeding estimated with an extensive pedigree (F P) was strongly correlated with realized inbreeding measured with the entire genome (r 2 = 0.86). However, inbreeding measured with the whole genome was more strongly correlated with multi-locus heterozygosity estimated with as few as 500 single nucleotide polymorphisms, and with F ROH estimated with as few as 10,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms, than with F P. These results document in fine detail the genomic consequences of intensive inbreeding in a population of conservation concern.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Saccheri, I. et al. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392, 491–494 (1998).

  2. 2.

    Frankham, R. Genetics and extinction. Biol. Conserv. 126, 131–140 (2005).

  3. 3.

    Keller, L. F. & Waller, D. M. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 230–241 (2002).

  4. 4.

    Fountain, T., Nieminen, M., Sirén, J., Wong, S. C. & Hanski, I. Predictable allele frequency changes due to habitat fragmentation in the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2678–2683 (2016).

  5. 5.

    Charlesworth, D. & Willis, J. H. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 783–796 (2009).

  6. 6.

    Hedrick, P. W. & Garcia-Dorado, A. Understanding inbreeding depression, purging, and genetic rescue. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 940–952 (2016).

  7. 7.

    Kardos, M., Taylor, H. R., Ellegren, H., Luikart, G. & Allendorf, F. W. Genomics advances the study of inbreeding depression in the wild. Evol. Appl. 9, 1205–1218 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Malécot, G. The Mathematics of Heredity (Freeman, San Francisco, 1969).

  9. 9.

    Wright, S. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am. Nat. 56, 330–338 (1922).

  10. 10.

    Pemberton, J. M. Wild pedigrees: the way forward. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 613–621 (2008).

  11. 11.

    Taylor, H. R., Kardos, M. D., Ramstad, K. M. & Allendorf, F. W. Valid estimates of individual inbreeding coefficients from marker-based pedigrees are not feasible in wild populations with low allelic diversity. Conserv. Genet. 16, 901–913 (2015).

  12. 12.

    Franklin, I. The distribution of the proportion of the genome which is homozygous by descent in inbred individuals. Theor. Popul. Biol. 11, 60–80 (1977).

  13. 13.

    Hedrick, P. W., Kardos, M., Peterson, R. O. & Vucetich, J. A. Genomic variation of inbreeding and ancestry in the remaining two Isle Royale wolves. J. Hered. 108, 120–126 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Knief, U., Kempenaers, B. & Forstmeier, W. Meiotic recombination shapes precision of pedigree- and marker-based estimates of inbreeding. Heredity 118, 239–248 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Forstmeier, W., Schielzeth, H., Mueller, J. C., Ellegren, H. & Kempenaers, B. Heterozygosity–fitness correlations in zebra finches: microsatellite markers can be better than their reputation. Mol. Ecol. 21, 3237–3249 (2012).

  16. 16.

    Fisher, R. A. The Theory of Inbreeding 2nd edn (Academic, New York, 1965).

  17. 17.

    Wang, J. Pedigrees or markers: which are better in estimating relatedness and inbreeding coefficient? Theor. Popul. Biol. 107, 4–13 (2016).

  18. 18.

    Leary, R. F., Allendorf, F. W. & Knudsen, K. L. Developmental stability and enzyme heterozygosity in rainbow trout. Nature 301, 71–72 (1983).

  19. 19.

    Pierce, B. A. & Mitton, J. B. Allozyme heterozygosity and growth in the tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum. J. Hered. 73, 250–253 (1982).

  20. 20.

    Coltman, D. W., Pilkington, J. G., Smith, J. A. & Pemberton, J. M. Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a free-living, island population. Evolution 53, 1259–1267 (1999).

  21. 21.

    Slate, J. et al. Understanding the relationship between the inbreeding coefficient and multilocus heterozygosity: theoretical expectations and empirical data. Heredity 93, 255–265 (2004).

  22. 22.

    Miller, J. M. et al. Estimating genome-wide heterozygosity: effects of demographic history and marker type. Heredity 112, 240–247 (2014).

  23. 23.

    Balloux, F., Amos, W. & Coulson, T. Does heterozygosity estimate inbreeding in real populations? Mol. Ecol. 13, 3021–3031 (2004).

  24. 24.

    Szulkin, M., Bierne, N. & David, P. Heterozygosity–fitness correlations: a time for reappraisal. Evolution 64, 1202–1217 (2010).

  25. 25.

    Huisman, J., Kruuk, L. E. B., Ellis, P. A., Clutton-Brock, T. & Pemberton, J. M. Inbreeding depression across the lifespan in a wild mammal population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3585–3590 (2016).

  26. 26.

    Chen, N., Cosgrove, E. J., Bowman, R., Fitzpatrick, J. W. & Clark, A. G. Genomic consequences of population decline in the endangered Florida scrub-jay. Curr. Biol. 26, 2974–2979 (2016).

  27. 27.

    Kardos, M., Luikart, G. & Allendorf, F. W. Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees. Heredity 115, 63–72 (2015).

  28. 28.

    Hoffman, J. I. et al. High-throughput sequencing reveals inbreeding depression in a natural population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3775–3780 (2014).

  29. 29.

    Kardos, M., Qvarnström, A. & Ellegren, H. Inferring individual inbreeding and demographic history from segments of identity by descent in Ficedula flycatcher genome sequences. Genetics 205, 1319–1334 (2017).

  30. 30.

    Åkesson, M. et al. Genetic rescue in a severely inbred wolf population. Mol. Ecol. 25, 4745–4756 (2016).

  31. 31.

    Bensch, S. et al. Selection for heterozygosity gives hope to a wild population of inbred wolves. PLoS ONE 1, e72 (2006).

  32. 32.

    Flagstad, Ø. et al. Two centuries of the Scandinavian wolf population: patterns of genetic variability and migration during an era of dramatic decline. Mol. Ecol. 12, 869–880 (2003).

  33. 33.

    Vilà, C. et al. Rescue of a severely bottlenecked wolf (Canis lupus) population by a single immigrant. Proc. R. Soc. B 270, 91–97 (2003).

  34. 34.

    Liberg, O. et al. Severe inbreeding depression in a wild wolf (Canis lupus) population. Biol. Lett. 1, 17–20 (2005).

  35. 35.

    Haglund, B. De stora rovdjurens vintervanor II. Viltrevy 5, 213–361 (1969).

  36. 36.

    Wabakken, P., Sand, H., Liberg, O. & Bjärvall, A. The recovery, distribution, and population dynamics of wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978–1998. Can. J. Zool. 79, 710–725 (2001).

  37. 37.

    Seddon, J. M., Sundqvist, A. K., Björnerfeldt, S. & Ellegren, H. Genetic identification of immigrants to the Scandinavian wolf population. Conserv. Genet. 7, 225–230 (2006).

  38. 38.

    Szpiech, Z. A. et al. Long runs of homozygosity are enriched for deleterious variation. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 93, 90–102 (2013).

  39. 39.

    Thompson, E. A. Identity by descent: variation in meiosis, across genomes, and in populations. Genetics 194, 301–326 (2013).

  40. 40.

    García-Dorado, A. Understanding and predicting the fitness decline of shrunk populations: inbreeding, purging, mutation, and standard selection. Genetics 190, 1461–1476 (2012).

  41. 41.

    Crow, J. F. & Kimura, M. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory (The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, 1970).

  42. 42.

    Kardos, M., Allendorf, F. W. & Luikart, G. Evaluating the role of inbreeding depression in heterozygosity–fitness correlations: how useful are tests for identity disequilibrium? Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 519–530 (2014).

  43. 43.

    Pemberton, T. J. et al. Genomic patterns of homozygosity in worldwide human populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 91, 275–292 (2012).

  44. 44.

    Hedrick, P. W., Hellsten, U. & Grattapaglia, D. Examining the cause of high inbreeding depression: analysis of whole-genome sequence data in 28 selfed progeny of Eucalyptus grandis. New Phytol. 209, 600–611 (2016).

  45. 45.

    Bérénos, C., Ellis, P. A., Pilkington, J. G. & Pemberton, J. M. Genomic analysis reveals depression due to both individual and maternal inbreeding in a free-living mammal population. Mol. Ecol. 25, 3152–3168 (2016).

  46. 46.

    McQuillan, R. et al. Runs of homozygosity in European populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 83, 359–372 (2008).

  47. 47.

    Chapron, G. et al. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519 (2014).

  48. 48.

    Laikre, L., Olsson, F., Jansson, E., Hossjer, O. & Ryman, N. Metapopulation effective size and conservation genetic goals for the Fennoscandian wolf (Canis lupus) population. Heredity 117, 279–289 (2016).

  49. 49.

    Chapron, G. et al. Estimating wolf (Canis lupus) population size from number of packs and an individual based model. Ecol. Model. 339, 33–44 (2016).

  50. 50.

    Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).

  51. 51.

    Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).

  52. 52.

    McKenna, A. et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010).

  53. 53.

    Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).

  54. 54.

    Campbell, C. L., Bhérer, C., Morrow, B. E., Boyko, A. R. & Auton, A. A pedigree-based map of recombination in the domestic dog genome. G3 6, 3517–3524 (2016).

  55. 55.

    Sargolzaei, M., Iwaisaki, H. & Colleau, J. J. A fast algorithm for computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 122, 325–331 (2005).

  56. 56.

    Kalinowski, S. T., Taper, M. L. & Marshall, T. C. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 16, 1099–1106 (2007).

Download references


Financial support was obtained from the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council Formas, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Research Council of Norway, Norwegian Environment Agency and Marie-Claire Cronstedts Foundation. We thank the National Veterinary Institute (Sweden), Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Swedish Museum of Natural History, County Administrative Boards in Sweden, Wildlife Damage Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences for contributing with samples. The preparation of samples was conducted by A. Danielsson and E. Hedmark at Grimsö Wildlife Research Station at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Bioinformatic computations were performed on resources provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing through the Uppsala Multidisciplinary Center for Advanced Computational Science.

Author information


  1. Department of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden

    • Marty Kardos
    • , Toby Fountain
    •  & Hans Ellegren
  2. Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, MA, 59860, USA

    • Marty Kardos
  3. Department of Ecology, Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-730 91, Riddarhyttan, Sweden

    • Mikael Åkesson
    • , Olof Liberg
    • , Håkan Sand
    •  & Camilla Wikenros
  4. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, PO Box 5685, Sluppen, NO-7485, Trondheim, Norway

    • Øystein Flagstad
  5. Wallenberg Advanced Bioinformatics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 75123, Uppsala, Sweden

    • Pall Olason
  6. Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural Sciences, Campus Evenstad, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, NO-2480, Elverum, Norway

    • Petter Wabakken


  1. Search for Marty Kardos in:

  2. Search for Mikael Åkesson in:

  3. Search for Toby Fountain in:

  4. Search for Øystein Flagstad in:

  5. Search for Olof Liberg in:

  6. Search for Pall Olason in:

  7. Search for Håkan Sand in:

  8. Search for Petter Wabakken in:

  9. Search for Camilla Wikenros in:

  10. Search for Hans Ellegren in:


H.E. conceived the project. M.K., M.Å., Ø.F., H.S., C.W. and H.E. initiated the project. H.E., M.K. and M.Å. designed the project. M.K. and T.F. performed the data analysis. O.L. performed the original reconstruction of the pedigree. O.L., M.Å. and Ø.F. maintained, updated and refined the pedigree. M.Å. performed the calculations of F P. O.L., H.S., P.W. and C.W. coordinated the field work and sampling. P.O. performed the variant calling. The first draft of the paper was written by M.K. with input from H.E. and T.F. All authors contributed to discussing the results and editing the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Ellegren.

Electronic supplementary material

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary tables and figures.

  2. Life Sciences Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Data

    Detailed plots of heterozygosity and identified ROH are provided for each chromosome in each of the individuals sampled.

About this article

Publication history