| Japanese/Jomon Y-chromosones | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 4 2006, 03:08:02 AM (1,250 Views) | |
| Ibra | Jan 4 2006, 03:08:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Global Mod
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes Michael F. Hammer1, 2, Tatiana M. Karafet1, Hwayong Park3, Keiichi Omoto4, Shinji Harihara5, Mark Stoneking6 and Satoshi Horai Abstract: Historic Japanese culture evolved from at least two distinct migrations that originated on the Asian continent. Hunter-gatherers arrived before land bridges were submerged after the last glacial maximum (>12,000 years ago) and gave rise to the Jomon culture, and the Yayoi migration brought wet rice agriculture from Korea beginning ~2,300 years ago. A set of 81 Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was used to trace the origins of Paleolithic and Neolithic components of the Japanese paternal gene pool, and to determine the relative contribution of Jomon and Yayoi Y chromosome lineages to modern Japanese. Our global sample consisted of >2,500 males from 39 Asian populations, including six populations sampled from across the Japanese archipelago. Japanese populations were characterized by the presence of two major (D and O) and two minor (C and N) clades of Y chromosomes, each with several sub-lineages. Haplogroup D chromosomes were present at 34.7% and were distributed in a U-shaped pattern with the highest frequency in the northern Ainu and southern Ryukyuans. In contrast, haplogroup O lineages (51.8%) were distributed in an inverted U-shaped pattern with a maximum frequency on Kyushu. Coalescent analyses of Y chromosome short tandem repeat diversity indicated that haplogroups D and C began their expansions in Japan ~20,000 and ~12,000 years ago, respectively, while haplogroup O-47z began its expansion only ~4,000 years ago. We infer that these patterns result from separate and distinct genetic contributions from both the Jomon and the Yayoi cultures to modern Japanese, with varying levels of admixture between these two populations across the archipelago. The results also support the hypothesis of a Central Asian origin of Jomonese ancestors, and a Southeast Asian origin of the ancestors of the Yayoi, contra previous models based on morphological and genetic evidence. |
![]() |
|
| Ibra | Jan 4 2006, 03:13:05 AM Post #2 |
|
Global Mod
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Japanese have two Paleolithic lineages (D-P37.1 and C-M8), a sure indicator of Paleolithic ancestry in Ainu and Japanese, while O is linked to the Yayoi; nothing new here. Ainu SNP D
NO* and C8
South East Asian origin for O (?):
Conclusion:
|
![]() |
|
| ren | Jan 4 2006, 04:03:55 AM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You beat me to it. I was gonna post this but forgot.
This is very interesting. This would suggest D in Japan could be as old as 30,000 years old, the start of archaeological evidence of modern man there.
I find this logic backwards. If the greatest % of D-M174* (in fact they only have M-174* and nothing else AFAIK) is found among the Andamanese, then that's the logical source, as already concluded in other studies, not the other way around. This association of D with a NW origin is also puzzling, since D is not found further west.
Hehe.. C-M8, AFAIK, is mainly located in E. Asia, since when was it in India? If they just mean that it's related to C3 in Altaics and C* in India, then it's misleading, since C3 reaches its greatest concentration and diversity in coastal Siberia above Japan, Manchuria, and Korea. And it's generally agreed that C3 was carried westwards in recent times by the Altaic expansions. And why not mention the C* in Australia and other C types in SE Asia but only mention India and "central Asia"? I find this rather biased and baseless.. basically forcing the issue of a Central Asian origin of Jomon: "The results also support the hypothesis of a Central Asian origin of Jomonese ancestors, and a Southeast Asian origin of the ancestors of the Yayoi, contra previous models based on morphological and genetic evidence." Uh no.. besides being "contra" to "previous models based on morphological and genetic evidence".
Wow, they found NO* in the Japanese.
Yeah, this was covered in the Tanaka paper, likely a stratum before neolithic expansion. Covered here I guess: http://journeyofman.info/index.php?showtopic=427 Things I'd add, -SE Asia or southern China are not the same. O's presence in India and Oceania seems to be recent, so it's unlikely from SE Asia. -O*/M-175, AFAIK, is highest % in Korea -highest % doesn't necessarily tell anything, though % STR and haplotype diversity would tell more
The problem is that in archaeology, the neolithic expansion went from north to south but this keeps getting ignored. The earliest rice cultivation is in Korea, followed by central China (southern half). That's not SE Asia.
The Koreans and Japanese, to any Asian familiar with Asian faces, have a decidedly Siberian look. Archaeology and mtDNA also points to Korea, not SE Asia. And again, the origin of agriculture is in northern Asia. Besides rice, other crops show up earliest in the arcaheology of Inner Mongolia.
Talked about this in hypothesizing about spread of rice from Korea 15,000: http://journeyofman.info/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=2080811 |
![]() |
|
| black man | Jan 5 2006, 11:34:54 AM Post #4 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
C1-M8 is a very special case. Tajima reported: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...3&dopt=Citation
Ibra, if you have the frequency/diversity/age estimate data for C-M8 and the other hgs in Ryukyuans, mainland Japanese etc, please post them. In Hammer's table there is no hint for undifferentiated C or even the Australian-specific type of it in Japanese. Yet, e.g. Ainus sometimes have a pseudo-Australian appearance. Generalising, I'd say C1 could have been brought by people with a relationship to the aborigines of "Sahul"/Australia to the Japanese archipelago. |
![]() |
|
| Ibra | Jan 5 2006, 12:37:42 PM Post #5 |
|
Global Mod
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here are the frequencies of various haplogroups across Japan North East Asia (NEA) South East Asia (SEA) Central Asia (CAS) South Asia (SAS) Oceania (OCA) img438.imageshack.us/my.php?image=japan9zr.gif Median-joining microsatellite networks ![]() They add, "Fig. 4 Median-joining microsatellite networks for lineages O-47z [a], O-SRY465* , O-M95* [c], and C* [d] (the position of the M8 mutation is denoted by a black line and the open circle represents a single central Asian haplotype). Microsatellite haplotypes are represented by circles with area proportional to the number of individuals with that haplotype. Branch lengths are proportional to the number of one-repeat mutations separating the two haplotypes. Haplotypes are color-coded by geographic region (see key), with haplotype sharing indicated by pie chart divisions" Age Estimates
|
![]() |
|
| ren | Jan 5 2006, 08:46:28 PM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't see any logic here in there conclusions.. in placing Japanese D and C1-M8 together, when C1-M8 isn't found in the Jomon, who have C3-M217 AFAIK, which is percentage and diversity-wise concentrated in Siberia and the Pacific Northwest. C1-M8 is mainly East Asian in distribution and since it's found in Japanese but not Ainu, it would make sense that it came in with NO lineages.
Since "C*" is also present in India, that is another likely source for C1. Both places had plesiomorphic native populations not long ago. One wave going south and one going north as they ventured east into SE Asia from India. This likely happened long ago, and such people could've led, in part or whole, through isolation mechanisms, selection, random change to what is referred to as "Mongoloids". |
![]() |
|
| black man | Jan 6 2006, 04:21:38 AM Post #7 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think that C3 can be associated with the stereotypical (pre-)Jomon. In contrast to D2, it's very rare in mainland Japanese (see Hammer's table). So mainstream Japanese C3 probably arrived together with O from Korea. The Ainu, however, are a different case because they mixed with Nivkhs, whose genetic presence in Ainu is also supported by mtDNA hg Y. The collected genetic material (Tajima 2004) apparently refutes the thesis that Ainu have a mainstream Japanese admixture. Instead, it is more likely that the Nivkhs contributed the modern mainstream East Asian phenotypes as well as y hg C3 to the Ainus. Anyway, I don't know the age estimates of C3 (on Hokkaido and in Siberia).
Yes, that's why the data of Ryukyuans are necessary for a comparison. (Btw, there could be other South Japanese islands in the Pacific with a larger percentage of pre-Yayoi phenotypes than e.g. Okinawa. They should be tested, too.) |
![]() |
|
| ren | Jan 9 2006, 10:57:40 PM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Something funny I've noticed. O* in this study: .7 in NE Asia .1 in SE Asia, .5 in Central Asia There conclusions (O from SE Asia, C and D from Central Asia) seems to be very arbitrary. I could use their same argument, only switch C/D with O. It just seems to me it's about forcing a "Caucasoid" origin for Jomon/Ainu.
Opps, might've made a mistake. On this map I see that C3-M8 isn't found anywhere but Japan (I thought it was in China and the rest of East Asia). If it's only found in Japan, then it's likely Paleothic and indigenous prior to Yayoi. However, its lack in Ainu is puzzling. Yes, it seems that C-M217 is very rare in Japan, so the high % of C-M217 in Ainu does seem like a recent admixture with Siberian groups. I'll have to change some topics regarding Ainu when I have time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ibra's upload of the study: http://rapidshare.de/files/12916849/japan.ainu.pdf.html http://rapidshare.de/files/12916849/japan.ainu.pdf.html |
![]() |
|
| black man | Apr 8 2006, 07:28:22 PM Post #9 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to the data, C1-M8 can be traced back to a bottleneck event in Jomon age. I'd say, that's why it doesn't correlate with Australian-like morphology: at some point of local history the C1-M8 population was severely reduced, maybe due to new diseases brought from somewhere else. The remaining carriers were mixed by origin and assimilated by a mainstream population. In Hammer's table there are only 20 Ainus tested. Concerning the non-Ainus, when we ignore those who carry Y(xD), C1-M8 is carried by every sixth Aomorian and every tenth or so Okinawan. But also those samples (including Y[xD] ) are quite small (26 and 45), especially when you want to estimate the percentages of rare substrata.
Paragroup D* was found in Altaians. However, that is only a paragroup. The root of D could equally be found in Thailand, from where they reported DE* without any results regarding high resolution. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 12 2006, 06:37:59 AM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't know for sure what ren's problem with the results of Hammer et al's study is, but I have a feeling it has something to do with certain antagonistic feelings toward the Japanese.
The reason these researchers came to the conclusion that Y-chromosomes belonging to Haplogroup C1-M8 represent a minor component of the male ancestry of a polymorphic Jomon Era population of the Japanese Archipelago is quite evident: first, Haplogroup C1-M8 has not been detected in any population outside of the Japanese Archipelago; second, the STR profiles associated with the Y-chromosomes that belong to Haplogroup C1-M8 most closely resemble those of certain Haplogroup C* Y-chromosomes that have been sampled from populations of South and Central Asia; third, the STR diversity of Haplogroup C1-M8 Y-chromosomes is astounding and rivals that of the closely associated Y-chromosome Haplogroup D2, despite the overall rare occurrence of the C1-M8 lineage in modern human populations, even in Japan, the only country where it has been found so far. These three facts taken together suggest that the M8 mutation that defines Haplogroup C1 occurred on a Haplogroup C* Y-chromosome of ultimately South Asian or Central Asian origin at a very early date after the bearer of this ancestral Haplogroup C* Y-chromosome had migrated to (what would become) the Japanese Archipelago from South or Central Asia (or, less parsimoniously, from some hypothetical source region from which the populations of South Asia, Central Asia, and Jomon Era Japan ultimately sprang), and since that early founding event, the C1-M8 Y-chromosomes have diversified within the Japanese Archipelago along with the evolution of the Paleolithic-Mesolithic human inhabitants (i.e., the Jomon race) of that region. The slightly lower diversity of the C1-M8 lineage when compared to the D2 lineage, whose distribution is also limited to the Japanese Archipelago, can be explained as a side effect of the lower frequency of the C1-M8 lineage compared to the D2 lineage among an already polymorphic Jomon population that possessed a major D2 component and a minor C1 component, or else it can be explained as the trace of a hypothetical population bottleneck that might have occurred when some Paleolithic population in which Haplogroup C1 had become fixed as the sole male lineage became merged with a numerically dominant population that carried Haplogroup D2 Y-chromosomes. Personally, I find the first hypothesis, which is also that of the researchers who published the article in question, i.e. that haplogroups D2 and C1 represent a major and a minor component of the male ancestry of a single polymorphic Paleolithic population that occupied the land that is now the Japanese Archipelago, to be more parsimonious and therefore more likely to be the true explanation. The fact that Haplogroup C1-M8 has not yet been detected in the modern Ainu population could be the result of a severe population bottleneck associated with the foundation of the group ancestral to the modern Ainu population, probably coincident with the separation of the Jomonic ancestors of the modern Japanese from the Jomonic ancestors of the modern Ainu (perhaps identical with the event related in the ancient Japanese chronicles, Nihon Shoki and Kojiki, as the separation of the niki-emishi, or "Soft/Gentle Ainu," who submitted to the authority of the Yamato Emperor, from the ara-emishi, or "Rough/Violent Ainu," who stubbornly maintained their independence). This would make some sense, since it is likely that a greater number of the Jomonic people(s) have become ancestors of the modern Japanese as opposed to ancestors of the modern Ainu; i.e., the fact that the modern Japanese show evidence of such major Jomonic ancestry, coupled with the fact that the Japanese population is spread over a much larger geographical area and is numerically much greater than the Ainu population, suggest that the majority of the Jomonic people(s) have been merged into the ancestral pool of the modern Japanese population, and that the ancestral pool of the modern Ainu was just a small subset of the greater Jomonic population of ancient times. However, there is also a strong possibility that C1-M8 Y-chromosomes will eventually be found in a sample from the modern Ainu population, considering that (as far as I know) this population has not been thoroughly surveyed for Y-chromosome haplogroup data. On a side note, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but numerous studies of autosomal DNA have shown that the Ainu, and to a somewhat lesser extent the Japanese population in general, are genetically much more similar to European populations than Chinese or Southeast Asian populations are to European populations. This data on autosomal DNA by itself would be enough to support a hypothesis that the ancestors of the Jomon Era aborigines of the Japanese Archipelago originated from a source population that was relatively genetically similar, and therefore probably located geographically more closely, to (at least one of) the source population(s) from which the modern European populations have derived. On the basis of various lines of genetic, archeological, and anthropological evidence, a very ancient South Central Asian (Pamir Mountain region, or some place close to what is now Tajikistan or Afghanistan) origin of the Paleolithic ancestors of the (pre-)Jomonic people(s), followed by a migration through the Altai Mountain region and the Mongolian Plateau to the Korean Peninsula and thence to the land that would become the Japanese Archipelago, seems most likely. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Aug 18 2006, 05:56:41 AM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I stated some of my problems with the study to anyone who can read.
How does the word "polymorphic" play into this and what implies it?
I'm not sure what this means; comparing STR is usually within a single lineage; to compare Japanese STR C-M8 to Indian C types that are not C-M8 would be meaningless; and furthermore, can you quote from something?
This is a pretty meaningless statement. 1. The C types of SE Asia and Oceania as well as E and NE Asia also presumably came from India/South Asia. 2. "central Asia" here refers to Mongolia, Tibet, and Uygurs, and following the convention of other studies the C of these places followed a east-west migration pattern with dispersal of "Altaic" peoples.
I haven't said otherwise, but I don't understand how you arrived at C from A. What logic are you using?
Yes, everyone in NE Asia are, according to many studies, closer to West Eurasian populations than to SE Asian populations (I think most of the genes have to do with immune system responses so it's a matter of environmental selection) but the importance of that depends on your assumptions. IN FACT, the Ainu in Cavalli-Sforza's studies are the most un-Western of the bunch. Does it make sense a SE Asian "Mongoloid" population, mixing with a "proto-Caucasoid" population, became closer to Europeans in NE Asia? If so, wouldn't the average Korean look less "Mongoloid" than the average southern Chinese, half of whom can pass for Hispanics if you've ever been worldly enough to step outside your house? I dunno.
I trust that you are intelligent, and thus can see the faultiness of this "logic", given my above response.
What basis? You just cited some random facts and non-facts that doesn't automatically imply, even, anything. It only makes sense in your mind because, when twisted, it supports your assumptions. This is a case where seeing something golden does not mean it is "gold". :rolleyes: If you already smell "gold", then seeing something golden may further entrench your faith in what you smell, but it may be something else golden and shiny besides gold. I trust you know what I mean. And cite sources. What you've posted above are incomplete or inaccurate or non-factual or uncontexted "points" which, when pasted together, contradicts itself. Any lineage of C is derived from C in South Asia; this doesn't mean it came from "Central Asia" and certainly doesn't mean it is related to Europeans. C is not indigenous to Europe. In fact, European lineages are either phylogenetically closer to E in Africa or O in SE Asia than to C. "central Asia" in the paper refers to Mongolians, Tibetans, and Uygurs. A historically documented movement of east-west nomads is most likely responsible for this, not prehistoric west-to-east migrations of proto-Europeans. As for genetic affinity, as I said, the Ainu do not stand out from the rest of NE Asians, some of whom are the benchmark of "Mongoloid" physiological, osteology, and anthropometric definitions in legit anthropology. There is no earlier "Asian" morphology in SE Asia and it's modern presence is most likely a spread from north to south, NOT south-to-north. If indeed there were "proto-Caucasoids" that mixed with "SE Asians" in prehistoric times, then both groups developed into "Mongoloids". It's not that hard a concept to understand. An Australian aboriginal doesn't look like a Japanese sumo wrestler. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Aug 19 2006, 03:32:19 AM Post #12 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
JCA has chosen to reply via personal message/PM:
Here's a bigger picture of the C network Ibra had posted earlier,
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Y-chromosome: CF · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




