AJHG Volume 99, Issue 1, p163–173, 7 July 2016
Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup N: A Non-trivial Time-Resolved Phylogeography that Cuts across Language Families
Anne-Mai Ilumäe et al.
The paternal haplogroup (hg) N is distributed from southeast Asia to eastern Europe. The demographic processes that have shaped the vast extent of this major Y chromosome lineage across numerous linguistically and autosomally divergent populations have previously been unresolved. On the basis of 94 high-coverage re-sequenced Y chromosomes, we establish and date a detailed hg N phylogeny. We evaluate geographic structure by using 16 distinguishing binary markers in 1,631 hg N Y chromosomes from a collection of 6,521 samples from 56 populations. The more southerly distributed sub-clade N4 emerged before N2a1 and N3, found mostly in the north, but the latter two display more elaborate branching patterns, indicative of regional contrasts in recent expansions. In particular, a number of prominent and well-defined clades with common N3a3’6 ancestry occur in regionally dissimilar northern Eurasian populations, indicating almost simultaneous regional diversification and expansion within the last 5,000 years. This patrilineal genetic affinity is decoupled from the associated higher degree of language diversity.
Link
Hi Dienekes-
ReplyDeleteI did Dodecad V3 on GEDMatch and here were my results:
Population
East_European 15.18
West_European 48.39
Mediterranean 25.68
Neo_African -
West_Asian 8.36
South_Asian 0.59
Northeast_Asian -
Southeast_Asian -
East_African 0.58
Southwest_Asian 1.22
Northwest_African -
Palaeo_African
How accurate are these? Are they more accurate than my Ancestry.com results? What should I trust more? Thank you!
Please elaborate on the meaning of geographical distribution of HgN and its relation to Ust Ishim and HgO.
ReplyDeleteLook this: science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.full
ReplyDelete1. Indoeuropeans create the agriculture and civilized life
2. First inhabitants from Persia-Iran are not semites, nor asiatics; but indo-aryans, directly related to the actual Parsis, the iranians that rejected the Islam!
3. The second point shows that arabs are INVADERS to the Caucasus zone (History already proves that, but P.C. intellectual bots whine about how "the arabs where the owners of Middle East when the bad crusaders come there"), that they exterminated and asimilated native populations that are indo-aryans by origin (related to Parsis, and Pashtuns, Baluchis and Afghans from Pakistan and Afganistan)
4. The article speak about a separation between "Indos" and "Europeans" from the common tree of Indo-Europeans between 44k and 70k years!!
5. By the forth point: a) OutOfAfrica is REFUTED again; the indoeuropeans where alive as a genotipe and culture and language prior to the dates the OoA bots say the "men went out of Africa as a yet not diversified branch of the african protorace", when the OoA says there where just blacks coming out of their continent to then diversified as asiatics, europeans, australasians and americans, this study shows that it was already a totally diversified RACE AND CULTURE
b) the proto-indoeuropean language was PRIOR to all we knowd (cause it must be prior to the separation of the indos and europeans). This complex culture was not a recent creation. And was far more evolutioned and complex the time than the actual african "click" languages (the original black gutural speak).
6. Indoeuropean culture is older than was supposed and native to some "oriental" places that today P.C. science want to attribute to semites and asiatics, to fill than an agenda of "bad white men invading, peacefull natives". When it appear as the opposite: the natives being invaded where the "white" (indoeuropean) peoples, but the savages neightbours that P.C. defend today
Dienekes ,
ReplyDeleteThe reason of your silence regarding Iranian aDNA?.
You all sound like reporters hovering over him, asking questions unrelated to his article post.
ReplyDeleteTo Cosodehombres,
ReplyDeleteYou have seemed to have ignored this piece from the abstract about these "white" natives.
From the study's abstract.
"We sequenced Early Neolithic genomes from the Zagros region of Iran (eastern Fertile Crescent), where some of the earliest evidence for farming is found, and identify a previously uncharacterized population that is *neither ancestral to the first European farmers nor has contributed significantly to the ancestry of modern Europeans*. "
" they plot closest to modern-day Pakistani and Afghans and are well-separated from European hunter-gatherers (HG) and other Neolithic farmers."
"Consistent with this, outgroup f3 statistics indicate that Iranian Zoroastrians are the most genetically similar to all four Neolithic Iranians, followed by other modern Iranians (Fars), Balochi (SE-Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan), Brahui (Pakistan and Afghanistan), Kalash (Pakistan) and Georgians (figs. S12-S15). Interestingly, *WC1 most likely had brown eyes, relatively dark skin, and black hair*, although Neolithic Iranians carried reduced pigmentation-associated alleles in several genes and derived alleles at 7 of the 12 loci showing the strongest signatures of selection in ancient Eurasians (3) (tables S29-S33). "
"Given the evidence of domestic species movement from East to West across SW-Asia (21), it is surprising that EN human genomes from the Zagros are *not closely related to those from NW-Anatolia and Europe. Instead they represent a previously undescribed Neolithic population. Our data show that the chain of Neolithic migration into Europe does not reach back to the eastern Fertile Crescent, also raising questions about whether intermediate populations in southeastern and Central Anatolia form part of this expansion. On the other hand, it seems probable that the Zagros region was the source of an eastern expansion of the SW-Asian domestic plant and animal economy.* Our inferred persistence of ancient Zagros genetic components in modern day S-Asians lends weight to a strong demic component to this expansion."
So this paper mainly pertain to SW-Asians of both Ancient and Modern status, not "whites" or "Indoeuropeans".
Also, as for debunking OOA by dates alone, that's in correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Movement_out_of_Africa
Second, those dates you mentioned were based on when the ancestors had split, NOT when the cultures actually formed.
As for Your "Arabs" comments, Yemeni samples in the study were among the samples that had affinity to the ancient DNA.
"Modern groups from S-, C- and NW-Europe shared haplotypes predominantly with European Neolithic samples LBK and NE1, and European HGs, *while modern Near and Middle Eastern, as well as S-Asian samples had higher sharing with WC1 (figs. S28-S29). Modern Pakistani, Iranian, Armenian, Tajikistani, Uzbekistani and Yemeni samples were inferred to share >10% of haplotypes with WC1*."
So to me it's still looking like NO lived somewhere in Sundaland, and as it submerged N was in the population that ventured into mainland China. It likely left SE Asia from a source close to P, shortly after P left to venture into South and Central Asia. N was later pushed into the north by its sibling O, assimilating and following the retreat of the ice sheets with various cultures that already lived there, and which included C, D, and to a lesser extent, R.
ReplyDelete"So to me it's still looking like NO lived somewhere in Sundaland"
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is pretty obvious that K2 is basically a Sundaland haplotype to me it is unlikely that NO developed there. K2 haplotypes are spread from the Burma/South China/Northeast India region all the way to New Guinea and Australia. K2a, from which NO developed, is probably from the northern portion of that distribution. Adding to that is the almost certainty that O haplotypes are invasive into SE Asia, where they have largely replace the other K2 haplotypes as well as the earlier C Y-DNA lines. From that I would guess that O first developed in the region between the upper Yangtze and Yellow Rivers, and N somewhere north of there.