Human Nature

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 208–217 | Cite as

Estimating the Prevalence of Nonpaternity in Germany

  • Michael Wolf
  • Jochen Musch
  • Juergen Enczmann
  • Johannes Fischer
Article

Abstract

The prevalence of nonpaternity in human societies is difficult to establish. To obtain a current and fairly unbiased estimate of the nonpaternity rate in Germany, we analysed a dataset consisting of 971 children and their parents in whom human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing had been carried out in the context of bone marrow transplantation. In this sample, nine exclusions (0.93%) could be identified on the basis of more than 300 HLA-haplotypes defined by four HLA genes. Given this number of exclusions, a maximum likelihood estimate of the nonpaternity rate in the population of 0.94% was obtained with asymptotic 95% confidence limits of 0.33% and 1.55%, respectively. This result is in accordance with recent surveys as well as findings from Switzerland for a comparable sample, and it suggests that earlier estimates of the nonpaternity rate which were often in excess of 10% may have been largely exaggerated.

Keywords

Nonpaternity Cuckoldry Human leukocyte antigen Bone marrow transplantation Maximum likelihood 

References

  1. Aguilar-Martinez, P., Jourdan, E., Brun, S., Cunat, S., Giansily-Blaizot, M., Pissard, S., & Schved, J. F. (2007). A novel mutation of the beta-globin gene promoter (−102 C > A) and pitfalls in family screening. American Journal of Hematology, 82, 1088–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, K. G. (2006). How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Current Anthropology, 47, 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellis, M. A., & Baker, R. R. (1990). Do females promote sperm competition: Data for humans. Animal Behaviour, 40, 997–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellis, M. A., Hughes, K., Hughes, S., & Ashton, J. R. (2005). Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodmer, W. F., & Bodmer, J. G. (1978). Evolution and function of the HLA system. British Medical Bulletin, 34, 309–316.Google Scholar
  6. Bonaiti-Pellié, C., Poisson, N., Bechtel, Y., & Bechtel, P. (1992). Sensitivity of transmission probabilities to paternity exclusion in segregation analysis. Genetic Epidemiology, 9, 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brock, D. J. H., & Shrimpton, A. E. (1991). Non-paternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet, 338, 1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broman, K. W. (1999). Cleaning genotype data. Genetic Epidemiology, 17, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cerda-Flores, R. M., Barton, S. A., Marty-Gonzalez, L. F., Rivas, F., & Chakraborty, R. (1999). Estimation of nonpaternity in the Mexican population of Nuevo Leon: Validation study with blood group markers. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 109, 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chakravarti, A., & Li, C. C. (1983). The probability of exclusion based on the HLA locus. American Journal of Human Genetics, 35, 1048–1052.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1977). Reproduction. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  14. Dockerty, J. D., Draper, G., Vincent, T., Rowan, S. D., & Bunch, K. J. (2001). Case-control study of parental age, parity and socioeconomic level in relation to childhood cancers. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 1428–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doll, R. (1989). The epidemiology of childhood leukaemia. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 152, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, J. H. (1957). A critical examination of the reputed primary influence of ABO phenotype on fertility and sex ratio. British Journal of Preventive & Social Medicine, 11, 79–89.Google Scholar
  17. Euler, H. A., & Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 7, 39–59.Google Scholar
  18. Gaulin, J. C., McBurney, D. H., & Brakeman-Wartell, S. L. (1997). Matrilateral biases in the investment of aunts and uncles: A consequence and measure of paternity uncertainty. Human Nature, 8, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hemminki, K., & Mutanen, P. (2001). Birth order, family size, and the risk of cancer in young and middle-aged adults. British Journal of Cancer, 84, 1466–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henke, L., Fimmers, R., Josephi, E., Cleef, S., Dülmer, M., & Henke, J. (1999). Usefulness of conventional blood groups, DNA-mini-satellites, and short tandem repeat polymorphisms in paternity testing: A comparison. Forensic Science International, 103, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoier, S., Euler, H. A., & Hänze, M. (2001). Diskriminative Fürsorglichkeit von Tanten und Onkeln: Eine empirische Untersuchung aus evolutionspsychologischer Perspektive [Discriminative solicitude of aunts and uncles: An empirical investigation from an evolutionary psychology perspective]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 3, 206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). (1997). Social inequalities and cancer. IARC Scientific Publications 138. Lyon.Google Scholar
  23. Jobling, M. A., Hurles, M. E., & Tyler-Smith, C. (2004). Human evolutionary genetics. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  24. Johnstone, J. M. (1954). Heterospecific pregnancy. British Journal of Preventive & Social Medicine, 8, 117–123.Google Scholar
  25. Krawczak, M., Böhm, I., Nürnberg, P., Hampe, J., Hundrieser, J., Pöche, H., Peters, C., Slomski, R., Kwiatkowska, J., Nagy, M., Pöpper, A., Epplein, J. T., & Schmidtke, J. (1993). Paternity testing with oligonucleotide multilocus probe (CAC)5/(GTG)5: A multicenter study. Forensic Science International, 59, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lathrop, G. M., Hooper, A. B., Huntsman, J. W., & Ward, R. H. (1983). Evaluating pedigree data. I. The estimation of pedigree error in the presence of marker mistyping. American Journal of Human Genetics, 35, 241–262.Google Scholar
  27. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. MacIntyre, S., & Sooman, A. (1991). Non-paternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet, 338, 869–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Philipp, E. E. (1973). Comment in discussion: Moral, social, and ethical issues. In G. E. W. Wolstenholme & D. W. Fitzsimons (Eds.), Law and ethics of A.I.D. and embryo transfer (pp. 663–666). Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Platek, S. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Procopio, M. (2005). Misattributed paternity: A bias in the family studies in schizophrenia? Medical Hypotheses, 64, 1046–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ritz, E. (1985). The clinical spectrum of hereditary nephritis. Nephrology forum, Kidney International, 27, 83–92.Google Scholar
  33. Sasse, G., Müller, H., Chakraborty, R., & Ott, J. (1994). Estimating the frequency of nonpaternity in Switzerland. Human Heredity, 44, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schacht, L. E., & Gershowitz, H. (1963). Frequency of extramarital children as determined by blood groups. In F. Brockington, J. Francois, & L. Gedda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Human Genetics (pp. 894–897). Rome: Instituto G. Mendel.Google Scholar
  35. Stewart, A. D. (1989). Screening for cystic fibrosis. Nature, 341, 696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sykes, B., & Irven, C. (2000). Surnames and the Y chromosome. American Journal of Human Genetics, 66, 1417–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Voracek, M., Haubner, T., & Fisher, M. L. (2008). Recent decline in nonpaternity rates: A cross-temporal meta-analyses. Psychological Reports, 103, 799–811.Google Scholar
  38. Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. WMA (World Medical Association) (2008). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for research involving human subjects. Adopted by the 18th WMA, Helsinki, Finland, June, 1964. Amended by the 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, Korea, October, 2008. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf
  40. ZEKO (Zentrale Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer). (1999). Zur Verwendung von patientenbezogenen Informationen für die Forschung in der Medizin und im Gesundheitswesen [On the use of patient-based information in medical research and the health care system]. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 96, A-3201–A-3204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Wolf
    • 1
  • Jochen Musch
    • 1
  • Juergen Enczmann
    • 2
  • Johannes Fischer
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Experimental PsychologyHeinrich-Heine-University of DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Transplantation Diagnostics and Cell TherapeuticsHeinrich-Heine-University of Duesseldorf Medical SchoolDuesseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations