# The dominant findings of a recessive man: from Mendel’s kid pea to kidney

## TL;DR

Mendel's foundational work on dominant and recessive traits remains relevant in understanding kidney disorders and their genetic inheritance patterns.

## Contribution

The paper highlights how Mendelian principles apply to monogenic kidney disorders while acknowledging their limitations in non-Mendelian contexts.

## Key findings

- Mendelian inheritance helps distinguish monogenic from multifactorial kidney disorders.
- Non-Mendelian features like genetic heterogeneity and incomplete penetrance complicate inheritance patterns.
- Mendel's principles remain a foundation despite the complexity of modern genetic disorders.

## Abstract

The research of Mendel, born two centuries ago, still has many direct implications for our everyday clinical work. He introduced the terms “dominant” and “recessive” characters and determined their 3:1 ratio in the offspring of heterozygous “hybrid” plants. This distribution allowed calculation of the number of the phenotype-determining “elements,” i.e., the alleles, and has been used ever since to prove the monogenic origin of a disorder. The Mendelian inheritance of monogenic kidney disorders is still of great help in distinguishing them from those with multifactorial origin in clinical practice. Inheritance of most monogenic kidney disorders fits to Mendel’s observations: the equal contribution of the two parents and the complete penetrance or the direct correlation between the frequency of the recessive character and the degree of inbreeding. Nevertheless, beyond the truth of these basic concepts, several observations have expanded their genetic characteristics. The extreme genetic heterogeneity, the pleiotropy of the causal genes and the role of modifiers in ciliopathies, the digenic inheritance and parental imprinting in some tubulopathies, and the incomplete penetrance and eventual interallelic interactions in podocytopathies, reflect this expansion. For all these reasons, the transmission pattern in a natural setting may depend not only on the “character” but also on the causal gene and the variant. Mendel’s passion for research combined with his modest personality and meticulous approach can still serve as an example in the work required to understand the non-Mendelian universe of genetics.