Study of Relation between Consanguinity and Somato- Physical Malformations

Document Type : Original Article


1 Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women’s Health Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Genetic, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.


Introduction: Preventing the birth of malformed neonates has been the aim of scientists for a long time. It has revealed that the risk of such children, especially with recessive inheritance diseases is much common among consanguineous marriages. Because of high frequency of familial marriages in Iran, this survey was done with the aim of investigating the relation between consanguinity and somato–physical malformations.
Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was done on 30 malformed children, derived of familial marriage, referred to Ghods rehabilitation center in Mashhad city in 2009. The survey was held on two stages on these 30 pedigrees. First, all malformed children in these pedigrees were compared according to the relationship between parents. Then, all marriages in the pedigrees were divided into two groups: familial and non familial and their relationship with somato–physical malformations was evaluated. Statistical analysis performed by SPSS software (version 19) and T-test. P less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: There were 158 familial marriage and 59 malformed children in the 30 pedigrees. Among malformed children, 47 children (79.6%) were born from the three degree familial marriage, 8 children (13.6%) from the four degree and 4 children (6.8%) from non-familial marriages. Children malformation rate was significantly higher in familial marriage than non-familial (p=0.002) and in the three degree familial marriage compared to the four degree (p=0.035). In the next step, comparing the malformation between two familial and non-familial marriages, the difference was significant (p=0.003).
Conclusion: Somato–physical malformations are more probable in familial marriages. Besides, among familial marriages, somato- physical malformations are more in third degree ones.


1. Behrman RE, Kilegman RM, Jenson HB. Nelson textbook of pediatrics. 18th ed. Philadelphia:WB
2. Goldenberg RL, Humphrey JL, Hale CB, Wayne JB. Lethal congenital anomalies as a cause of birth-weightspecific
neonatal mortality. JAMA 1983 Jul 22-29; 250(4):513-5.
3. Asindi AA, Al Hifzi I, Bassuni WA. Major congenital malformations among Saudi infants admitted to Asir
Central Hospital. Ann Saudi Med 1997 Mar; 17(2):250-3.
4. Nussam RL, McInnes RR, Williard HF, Thompson MW. Thompson & Thompson genetics in medicine. 6th ed.
Philadelphia: Saunders; 2001.
5. McKusick VA. Mendelian inheritance in man, 11th ed. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Univesity Press;1994.
6. Madi SA, Al-Naggar RL, Al-Awadi SA, Bastaki LA. Profile of major congenital malformations in neonates in
Al-Jahra region of Kuwait. East Mediterr Health J 2005 Jul; 11(4):701-6.
7. Mosayebi Z, Movahedian AH. Patterns of congenital malformations in consanguinous versus nonconsanguinous
marriages in Kashan, Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J 2007 Jul;13(4):868-75.
8. Kahyaoglu S, Turgay I, Ertas IE, Ceylaner S, Danisman N. Neu-Laxova syndrome, grossly appearing normal on
20 weeks ultrasonographic scan, that manifested late in pregnancy: a case report. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2007
9. Dilli D, Yasar H, Dilmen U, Ceylaner G. Neu-Laxova syndrome in an appropriate for gestational age newborn.
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2008 Sep-Oct; 74(5):487-9.
10. Wilson G. Clinical genetics: a short course. New York:Wiley-Liss;2000:23-44
11. Cunningham GF, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rouse DJ, Spong CY. Williams Obstetrics. 23rd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 2011:266-86.
12. Akrami SM. The importance of genetic counceling befor marriage. J Med Council Islam Repub Iran 2009
Spring; 105(1):128-31. [Article in Persian]
13. Saadat M, Ansari-Lari M, Farhud DD. Consanguineous marriage in Iran. Ann Hum Biol 2004 MarApr;31(2):263-9.
14. Van Allen MI, Myhre S. New multiple congenital anomalies syndrom in a stillborn infant of consanguinous
parents and a prediabetic pregnancy. Is J Med Genet 1991 Mar 15; 38(4):523-8.
15. Qureshi N, Gilbert P, Raeburn JA. Consanguinity and genetic morbidity in a British primary care setting: a pilot
study with trained linkworkers. Ann Hum Biol 2003 Mar-Apr;30(2):140-7
16. Schulpen TW, van Wieringen JC, van Brummen PJ, van Riel JM, Beemer FA, Westers P, et al. Infant mortality,
ethnicity, and genetically determined disorders in The Netherlands. Eur J Public Health 2006 Jun;16(3):291-4.
17. Donbak L. Consanguinity in Kahramanmaras city, Turkey, and its medical impact. Saudi Med J 2004
18. Demirel S, Kaplanoglu N, Acar A, Bodur S, Paydak F. The frequency of consanguinity in Konya, Turkey, and
its medical effects. Genet Couns 1997; 8(4):295-301.
19. Harper PS. practical genetic counselling. 5th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998:121-34.
20. Al-Gazali LI, Dawodu AH, Sabarinathan K, Varghese M. The profile of major congenital abnormalities in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) population. J Med Genet 1995 Jan;32(1):7-13