| Y-hap C phylogeny and origins | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 6 2007, 05:57:24 AM (955 Views) | |
| black man | Nov 6 2007, 05:57:24 AM Post #1 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
got "J1"s among the close matches for sample 26 at www.ysearch.org . http://www.ysearch.org/search_search.asp?uid=&freeentry=true No close matches at http://www.ybase.org/shaplo.asp . These two aren't predictors but match finders which give the SNP markers of the matrches as well. They usually lack East Eurasian samples in their databases though at ftdna they must have lots of unpublished data from e.g. Japanese. Otherwise, they couldn't have predicted hg D2 some time ago. Essentially, it's all guess work, and a lot depends on whether one knows the location and the haplogroup distribution there. Then there are also the local variants of the haplogroups which have local modal haplotypes. E.g., Arabian, Balkanese, South Indian, Nepalese and Russian R1a1 modal haplotypes are probably different from each other. Depending on from where a haplotype is, it can be confused with a haplotype from a different haplogroup. Ideally, one would have about 20 slowly mutating loci to check. But for age estimates, forensics etc they also check quickly mutating loci so that one gets data from DYS389, DYS390, DYS439 etc which are relatively useless for haplogroup prediction. ------------- (Added the Siberian C(xC3c) above, btw. Lell's data don't contradict C(xC3) being found in the Altai. But I'll check the other papers later to be sure.) |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Nov 13 2007, 06:38:33 AM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now, back to the main topic of this thread: Y-DNA haplogroup C. AM Cadenas et al. ("Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of Oman") found 2/164 (1.2%) haplogroup C5-M356 in their sample of the population of the United Arab Emirates, but haplogroups C3-M217 and C-M130*(xC3-M217, C5-M356) were not found among any of their Arab samples (72 from Qatar, 164 from the United Arab Emirates, and 62 from Yemen). However, their sample from the United Arab Emirates also included 4/164 (2.4%) H-M69*(xH1-M52, H2-Apt), 3/164 (1.8%) H1a-M82, 6/164 (3.7%) F-M213*(xF1-M282, G-M201, H-M69, I-M258, J-M304, K-M9), 4/164 (2.4%) L1-M76, 1/164 (0.6%) Q6-M346, and 12/164 (7.3%) R1a1-M198, which suggests that the presence of haplogroup C5-M356 in the United Arab Emirates might be due to historical immigration from the Indian subcontinent. I think this reduces the likelihood of Southwest Asian haplogroup C (as also found in samples from Lebanon, etc.) being indigenous to the region and marking the original path of migration out of Africa; it seems more probable to me that various subclades of haplogroup C (C-M130* in Turkey, C3-M217 in Turkey and Iran, C5-M356 in southern Arabia, etc.) have been introduced into Southwest Asia quite recently as a result of migrations or invasions from the east. In addition, the United Arab Emirates sample also contained a number of haplogroups of uncertain affinity: 8/164 (4.9%) K2-M184, 2/164 Q-M242*(xQ6-M346), and singletons belonging to haplogroups L3-M357, O1a-M119, O-M175*(xO1a-M119, O3-M122), R1-M306*, and R1b1-P25*(xR1b1a-M18, R1b1c-M269). (Update: I have looked into the demography of the United Arab Emirates since I first made this post, and found that there is an overwhelming presence of South Asian migrant workers and immigrants in that country. I hope the researchers were careful enough not to take samples of recent South Asian immigrants or their descendants!) |
![]() |
|
| black man | Nov 23 2007, 09:20:58 PM Post #3 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The haplotype of grave 70 is a topic at rootsweb, now: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEA...7-11/1195695121 . Maybe they add more on the prediction of the other haplotypes in the follow-ups. |
![]() |
|
| black man | May 8 2010, 06:11:14 PM Post #4 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Zhong Hua et al. C*-M8-,M38-,M347-,M356-,P55-,M217-: Ningxia Hui: 5 times Xinjiang Xibe: twice Daics: 5 times Guangxi Yao: 9 times Hubei Tujia: twice Yunnan Han: once Guizhou Han: twice Msaidie et al. 2010: Genetic diversity on the Comoros Islands shows early seafaring as major determinant of human biocultural evolution in the Western Indian Ocean C*-M216+, M8-, M38-, M217-, M347-, M356-: found six times (1,6% of 381 Comorians) Edited by black man, Aug 27 2010, 03:51:01 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| black man | Jul 21 2012, 12:35:30 AM Post #5 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"C*" was found in one Zoroastrian: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/huge-study-on-y-chromosome-variation-in.html |
![]() |
|
| black man | Nov 11 2012, 03:49:13 PM Post #6 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
New marker "V20" detected by Scozzari et al. ("Molecular dissection of the basal clades in the human Y chromosome phylogenetic Tree" 2012 at the plosone site) in two samples "from southern Europe". |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Jun 16 2013, 04:01:02 AM Post #7 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to a member of Grigoriev's forum, the internal phylogeny of Haplogroup C-M130 (excluding C2-M38 and C4-M347, for which the poster seems to have insufficient data) should be as follows: *C-M130 **C3-M217 **C* ***C5-M356 ***C* ****C1-M8 ****C6-V20 Perhaps C6-V20 is a lesser component that has accompanied R1-M173 on its journey from (roughly) East Asia to West Asia/Europe. It is interesting that the nearest extant outgroup, C1-M8, is almost exclusively Japonic. Of course, there might be some other close relatives of C6-V20 lurking among members of the C*-M130 paragroup somewhere. |
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Jun 16 2013, 03:27:27 PM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I could never have imagined such a scenario before. But your take might be so. Or the divergence could've been with the original Eurasians, which would be there were already atleast 2 branches of C at that time. If not, and it is a later split, which is a more likely route, Central Asia or South Asia? As I remember, northern Asia seems to be only C3 while southern Asia seems to have C*. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Jun 17 2013, 11:09:24 AM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Judging from previously published median joining networks of STR variation among representatives of Y-DNA haplogroup C-M130, I would guess that at least "Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian" C2-M38 (common in most Austronesian-speaking populations from Sumba and Flores eastward) and Southeast+South Asian C*-M130 form a separate clade with only a very distant common ancestor with the other descendants of C-M130. Remember that the common ancestor of C-M130 as a whole is only marginally more recent than the common ancestor of CF-P143 as a whole; the available evidence suggests to me that "Northern" C (C3+C5+C1+C6(+some C*?)) is only about as closely related to "Southern" C (at least C2+SE Asian/South Asian C*) as, say, N-M231 is related to G-M201. The evidence regarding C4-M347 is not so clear to me, but I would guess, based on geography, that it is most likely to turn out to be an early branch off the stem that has yielded C2-M38 and Southeast Asian/South Asian C*-M130 (essentially all of which is most likely a monophyletic subclade with an SNP that has not been identified yet). It might be safer to suppose a tripartite division within C-M130 for now (Northern C (C3+C5+C1+C6), Southern C (C2+certain C*), and Australian C (C4)). Anyway, there seems to be a huge gap between Northern C and Southern C. The new phylogeny indicated by that poster on Grigoriev's forum is only relevant to Northern C, which extends across nearly all of Eurasia (but is rather sparse in the extreme southeast of the continent except Vietnam). The most ancient branch within Northern C seems to be C3-M217, which is found with high frequency in a belt that extends across northern Asia into America (interrupted a bit by the Eskimo-Aleuts), but is also found with lower frequency in many areas further south, particularly in East Asia (C3-M217 seems to be found in roughly 10% of modern Chinese and Vietnamese, for example). The spread of C5-M356 sort of mimics that of R2-M479 or L-M20 (highest frequencies in Central-South Asia, with a regular extension at somewhat lower frequencies into West Asia, and sporadic occurrences in northern East Asia/southern Siberia). The clade formed by C1-M8 and C6-V20 has a very odd distribution, with one branch being found in the Japanese Archipelago at the eastern extremity of Eurasia, and the other branch being found in Europe (or at least Italy, Spain, Ireland, Britain, Poland, and Ukraine as far as I know) at the western extremity of Eurasia. All extant branches of Northern C are rare "minority haplogroups" except the most divergent branch, C3-M217, which is very widespread and common among (especially North Asian) Mongoloids. However, C3-M217 also seems to split into at least two distinct subgroups, with one including an overwhelming majority of the C3-M217 representatives among North Asian Mongoloids, and the other including most of the C3-M217 representatives among East Asian Mongoloids (including Vietnamese). The split between the North Asian branch of C3-M217 and the East Asian branch of C3-M217 is not extremely old (probably about 10,000 years or so), so I would guess that the ancestor of extant C3-M217 Y-chromosomes had been limited to a fairly small region prior to an expansion approximately 10,000 years ago that reached even the Americas (perhaps coincident with the origin of modern/full-blown Mongoloids). |
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Jun 17 2013, 09:30:37 PM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's more like C(xC3) is a southern branch and C3 is a northern branch or vice versa. The link between C6 and C1 through CTS11043+ to the exclusion of C5 and C* is interesting. I can't understand how that can be unless there was some mass extinction of lineages. C* F3393+, F1370+ C5 F3393+, F1370+, CTS11043- C6 F3393+, F1370- , CTS11043+, CTS11798+, F993+, P53+, V20+, V222+ C1 F3393+ CTS11043+
Edited by skywalker, Jun 17 2013, 09:37:01 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| sahaliyan | Jun 18 2013, 04:29:01 AM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
However,the so-called East Asian branch C3 also found in north Asia,for example,M407 is a very important lineage of Mongols,Buryats and Kalmyks,as we know,M407 is subclade of Z1300,also it's worth noting the Manchu C3s are 50% Z1338,and 50% northern Asian branch. Also,it's worth nothing the internal phylogeny of NO is also binary,the O-M175 first separated as O1+O2 and O3,then O3 separated as two branches O3a and O3b,O3a separated as two branches O3a1 and O3a2,O3a2 separated as two branches M188(include Hmong-Mien M159+, M7+ and Japanese-Korean M188+,M159-) and P164.M134 is a subclade of P164,also separated as two branches F444 and M117.F444 also separated as two branches(one branch is F46,the mainstream suvvranch of F444),then F46 and M117 have star-like expansion.N also separated as two branches,a southern N2 and a Northern N1. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yhapo/default.aspx Edited by sahaliyan, Jun 18 2013, 04:29:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Jun 18 2013, 10:25:14 AM Post #12 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, I know that the geographical separation of the mainly North Asian subgroup of C3-M217 and the mainly East Asian subgroup of C3-M217 is not perfect, but Mongols and Manchus are very marginally "North Asian" (according to most definitions of "North Asia," only the Buryat subgroup of the Mongols is geographically "North Asian"), and other studies of their genetics have demonstrated their intermediate position between East Asia and North Asia in regard to mtDNA and autosomal DNA, too. So I think the significant presence of the East Asian subgroup of C3-M217 in the Buryats is a reflection of their connections with other Mongolic peoples, all of whom live further south, in areas that are part of East Asia according to the common American definition of that term (except for the Kalmyks, who live in what would be called Eastern Europe or the Northern Caucasus region). Also, you are correct about the binary divisions that have been discovered gradually in other haplogroups of Eastern Eurasia, but I think one must be cautious when comparing among them. For example, O1 and O2 may be phylogenetically closer to each other than to O3, but the relationship among these three is similar to that which pertains among N, O, Q, and R (all approximately equally related, though N and O are very slightly more closely related to each other vis-a-vis Q and R), and the time depth is much greater than that of the split between North Asian C3 and East Asian C3. In my opinion, the split between O1 and O2 is more comparable to the split between C3-M217 and the rest of "Northern C" (C5+{C1+C6}), though even the split between C3 and the rest of Northern C might be too recent; the subclades of O-M175 (and, more generally, the major subclades of MNOPS-M526) are very, very old. Do you know whether the C3-M217 Y-chromosomes found among Tibeto-Burmans are more closely related to North Asian C3 or to East Asian C3? I recall that Burusho C3 is more closely related to East Asian C3 (especially some Koreans and a Manchu), but Burusho O3 is not similar to the majority of Tibeto-Burman O3, so it seems like one might be misguided to assume that Burusho C3 and O3 have been introduced into the population by way of Tibeto-Burmans merely due to their present geographical proximity. Some samples of Tibeto-Burmans have yielded rather high frequencies of C3-M217 (e.g. Tujia from Jishou in northwestern Hunan, Hani, Garos). Tibeto-Burman C-M130 according to Wen et al. 2004: Tujia/Jishou, Hunan 12/49 = 24.5% C-M130 Bai/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 4/20 = 20.0% C-M130 Lahu/Simao, Yunnan 2/13 = 15.4% C-M130 Tujia/Western Hunan 10/68 = 14.7% C-M130 Tibetan/Qinghai 13/92 = 14.1% C-M130 Jino/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 5/36 = 13.9% C-M130 Hani/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 4/34 = 11.8% C-M130 Aini/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 6/52 = 11.5% C-M130 Yi/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 2/18 = 11.1% C-M130 Tibetan/Tibet 4/46 = 8.7% C-M130 Bai/Dali, Yunnan 5/61 = 8.2% C-M130 Yi/Shuangbai, Yunnan 4/50 = 8.0% C-M130 Pumi/Ninglang, Yunnan 3/47 = 6.4% C-M130 Tujia/Yongshun, Hunan 2/38 = 5.3% C-M130 Tibetan/Tibet 2/75 = 2.7% C-M130 Naxi/Lijiang, Yunnan 1/40 = 2.5% C-M130 Yi/Butuo, Sichuan 1/43 = 2.3% C-M130 Tibetan/Zhongdian, Yunnan 1/49 = 2.0% C-M130 Yi/Liangshan, Sichuan 0/14 Lahu/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 0/15 C-M130 Tibetan/Diqing, Yunnan 0/27 C-M130 Nu/Gongshan, Yunnan 0/28 C-M130 Lisu/Fugong, Yunnan 0/49 C-M130 18% of the sample of Tujia from Jishou, Hunan is C3-M217. I do not know how much of the C-M130 in the other Tibeto-Burman populations might be C3-M217, but I think it is probably present because it has been found even in the Garos, who live as far away as western Meghalaya in (the extreme west of) Northeast India. It would be nice to know how these far-flung Tibeto-Burman representatives of C3-M217, as well as representatives of C3-M217 in Western Eurasia and America, relate to the North Asian vs. East Asian dichotomy in C3-M217. |
![]() |
|
| sahaliyan | Jun 18 2013, 11:14:36 AM Post #13 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think some of their Cs are Hmong-Mien C*s(XC1,2,3,4,5,6),the Hmong-Mien C*'s closest relative is C5.Some of their Cs should be C3.The Pacific C2 and C4 maybe just one lineage,and I guess they are closer to C1,C5,C6 branch. The binary divisions mean that long genetic drift and bottlenecks,only after neolithic and brone ages,there can be star-like expansions.Can anyone make sure MS is more closer to NO,or P,or NO is closer to P?That's very important for early population clonization of the east Eurasia. Edited by sahaliyan, Jun 18 2013, 11:16:18 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Jun 18 2013, 12:28:59 PM Post #14 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The special relationship between C1 and C6 would suggest a northern connection through Siberia and Central Asia instead of through C5 and South Asia. |
![]() |
|
| sahaliyan | Jun 18 2013, 12:36:30 PM Post #15 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But the Y-SNPs tell another story,C1-C6 more closer to C5 than C3 |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Jun 18 2013, 12:45:52 PM Post #16 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think it is worth considering that C5-M356 is very possibly not South Asian (or at least not "Ancestral South Indian") in origin. Y-chromosomes with the M356 derived state have been found in many populations of West Asia, Afghanistan, and even the Huis of northern China if I remember correctly. I would like to see an estimate for the TMRCA for all extant samples of C5-M356, but pending such data, I am willing to entertain a hypothesis that C5-M356 has been carried into South Asia via ancient (but not too ancient) migrations from Central Asia. |
![]() |
|
| sahaliyan | Jun 18 2013, 12:53:22 PM Post #17 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Y-chromosomes with the M356 derived state have been found in Xibes from Yili,Xinjiang too and Han Chinese from Shaanxi,see Hua Zhong et al 2010 study,however the Hmong-Mien C* is difficult to explain |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Jun 18 2013, 01:05:09 PM Post #18 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for the additional data points. As for Hmong-Mien populations, I recall that some of them exhibit high frequencies of C*-M130 and/or O2-P31(xO2a1-M95, O2b-SRY465), but with a very patchy, localized sort of distribution and very recent TMRCA estimates (low STR variance). Many other Hmong-Mien populations do not exhibit these C*-M130 or O2-P31(xM95, SRY465) Y-chromosomes at all. I also recall that these currently Hmong-Mien C*-M130 or O2-P31(xM95, SRY465) individuals have STR haplotypes that seem to be very closely related to some members of some other, geographically distant populations, particularly some populations from the area of Manchuria (perhaps Manchus, Nanais, and Evenks or Oroqens from Xue et al. 2006, but I have not looked at this paper in any detail for many years). |
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Jun 18 2013, 01:38:30 PM Post #19 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Split all the C3 stuff into C3 thread. JCA, you never seem to care for mod actions even you are a "global mod". |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Jul 22 2013, 02:53:56 AM Post #20 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The link between the Hmong-Mien representatives of C*-M130 and O2*-P31 and the NE Chinese Tungusic representatives of these clades is so close that it makes me wonder whether it might be a result of the historically recorded forced relocation of able-bodied Gaogouli/Goguryeo people to the southern and western marches of Tang China. However, then the question remains: why have these clades become so frequent only among certain Hmong-Mien-speaking populations, such as the Yao people of Bama Yao Autonomous County, Hechi City, Guangxi? |
![]() |
|
| black man | Jul 22 2013, 03:48:57 AM Post #21 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Interesting. Some present-day Hmong-Mien are very patrilineal even though some people claimed that Hmong-Mien were once matrilineal. So maybe there is - one originally northern patrilineal/patrilocal tradition which caused these extreme y hg profiles in some Hmong-Mien populations and - one originally southern matrilineal tradition which caused less extreme y hg profiles. I don't know whether the extreme y hg profiles overlap with high frequencies of light pigmentation or marked epicanthic folds in Hmong-Mien. If so, there could be a relation between brown-haired Hmong-Mien and those Manchu-Tungus who were reported to have been brown-haired in old literature. |
![]() |
|
| 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)


