| C2,K29+ | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 13 2013, 09:46:59 AM (838 Views) | |
| sahaliyan | Nov 13 2013, 09:46:59 AM Post #1 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Chaplogroup/default.aspx?section=ysnp See 273616 Heu K29 is positive in N66830 Rivas García(V20+),N16907 Reehal(M356+) That means C3 separated first from C-M130(We lack the C4 samples) |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Nov 14 2013, 07:14:38 AM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Interesting. Thanks for the information. However, C2-M38 is very distinct from the rest of C-M130 (including C3-M217) on the basis of Y-STRs, so K29, if it is a proper SNP, must have occurred very shortly after the split from the branch that has produced C3-M217. |
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Nov 14 2013, 06:08:26 PM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This makes more sense. C1: Otherwise, we would need to make C1 go through Central Eurasia/Siberia and ending up in Japan without leaving any trace. Now, we can explain it as branching off from C2'4'5'6 somewhere along the coastal southern route. C3: This suggests it went the Central Eurasian route into Siberia. There's possibly 50,000 years of Modern human presence and at least 2 cold events on this route. Who knows what may have happened. Pre-C3 may have been a few hundred people (the size of Native American founders) and left no ensuing trace during first wave migrations through this route until it expanded in the eastern part of Siberia. Origin of C: It may have developed somewhere on the Iranian Plateau where C3 and C1'2'4'5 possibly split off, then followed by the split of C6. Edited by skywalker, Nov 16 2013, 05:29:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Nov 15 2013, 12:24:07 PM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What do you mean by "C7"? The position of C4 in the phylogeny under C-M130 is still completely uncertain. However, it has been known for a while already that C1-M8, C5-M356, and C6-V20 form a monophyletic clade vis-a-vis C3-M217, and within that clade, C1-M8 and C6-V20 are more closely related to each other than either is related to C5-M356. To me, this seems to suggest an origin of C-M130 in eastern Asia, with C3-M217 (or its ancestor) early spreading north to the area of northern China, Manchuria, or Korea and eventually into Siberia and America, and C2-M38 (or its ancestor) shortly thereafter spreading southeastward into Wallacea. Of course, it is impossible to pinpoint the region of origin of the {C1-M8+C6-V20}+C5-M356 clade, but its modern representatives have a rather western tendency. I suppose the westward movement of C5-M356 and C6-V20 might have been parallel to the westward movement of R1-M173 and R2-M479, which may have occurred in approximately the same era. |
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Nov 15 2013, 10:03:05 PM Post #5 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry I meant C6. A back migration through the Bay of Bengal region, a hilly, watery choking point, with populations already established all through South Asia and beyond is hard to imagine. Plus, it would imply C and F split in East Asia, which is just as or even more unlikelier. Edited by skywalker, Nov 16 2013, 05:21:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Nov 15 2013, 10:35:34 PM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
C6-V20, a lineage that has been found with low frequency throughout Europe, is relatively closely related to C1-M8, a lineage that has been found in Japan. These lineages coalesce with C5-M356, a lineage that has been found in a vast region of Asia stretching from the Arabian Peninsula to northwestern China and including South Asia, before coalescing with Wallacean/Oceanian C2-M38. Also, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts, C2-M38 is even more divergent from {C1-M8+C6-V20}+C5-M356 than C3-M217 is divergent in terms of Y-STRs, so the period of shared evolution implied by the K29 SNP must have been very brief, suggesting a rapid expansion of ancestral C-M130 and split into ancestral C3-M217, ancestral C2-M38, and ancestral {C1-M8+C6-V20}+C5-M356. C3-M217 is distributed across Central Asia, East Asia, North Asia, and the Americas, C2-M38 is distributed across Wallacea and Oceanic Austronesia, and {C1-M8+C6-V20}+C5-M356 is distributed across East Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, Southwest Asia, and Europe, so the most central and likely region of origin of C-M130 should be East Asia. It would be nice to have someone confirm the position of aboriginal Australian C4-M347. |
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Nov 16 2013, 05:20:49 PM Post #7 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My mistake again. I forgot everything and checked out Wiki where it listed P55 (a Papua New Guinea marker) and V-20 next to each other. I thought they both belonged to C6. If the phylogeny is this, C1'2'5'6 _C1'5'6 __C1'6 __C5 _C2 (and perhaps 4) then it would suggest a northern, Central Eurasian route for C1, and still an origin for C on the Iranian Plateau, and still a Central Eurasian route for C3, as it split first and would have left marks in South Asia if it had gone the southern, coastal route. Edited by skywalker, Nov 16 2013, 05:26:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| black man | Nov 16 2013, 06:18:29 PM Post #8 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
update: Judging from fig. S21 of Karmin et al. 2015, the K29+ branches relevant today are the K30+ branch in SE Asia, Oceania and South Asia and the CTS824+ branch in Japan and Europe. As far as I remember, M8+ is present in Korea as well. Further, a few samples of Xue et al. 2006 might belong to CTS824+: 1 Daur, 3 Hezhes, 4 Huis, 2 Uygurs and 6 Yaos. Most of these men have hts which seem to be rather similar to each other with the ancestors of the Yao men apparently having split from a northern population to which the ancestors of one Uygur, one Hezhen and four Hui men belonged. In contrast of their hts, the hts of one two other Hezhens and one Daur have relatively high values concerning DYS389i, DYS390 and DYS393 more or less like three of the four Japanese M8+ samples. As for modern North Asians, their C samples are mostly in the branches typically for modern Amerindians and Han Chinese. Possibly, one of Pakendorf's "Sebjan" Even samples re-tested by Duggan et al. 2013 belongs to it. But, e.g., Kharkov et al. don't seem to have detected any C-M217- in North Asians. So certain Amur Tungus populations might have contributed relatively much to the survival of CTS824+ hts. The first to split from the community of their ancestors might have been certain ancestors of the Yaos, who migrated to the south. Thereafter, two or more Tungus men from the according hg(s) might first have joined Turkic-speakers, then became Muslims in the Tarim Basin and eventually migrated back to eastern Asia becoming Hui. That might confirm the impressions that modern human y hg distributions are primarily the results of rather recent events and that hgs like C-CTS824+ are just minor contributors to modern population. I don't plan to check the other hts possibly relevant in this context thoug the latter might be interesting, too. Correct me if necessary... V222+ seems to be downstream to V20+... "86042" (Englishman): V20+, V77+, V183+, V199+, V232+ "164416" (Englishman): "V20+, V222+, M217-, M347-, M356-, M38-, P122-, P55-" "171250" (Ukrainian?): V9+, V20+, V77+, V183+, V199+, V222+, V232+ "178065" (Arab): "M217-, M347-, M356-, M38-, P122-, P55-" "197535" (Arab?): F1370+, "M217-, M347-, M356-, M38-, P122-, P55-" "210650" (Japanese): M217+, V20-, V71-, V182-, V184- "218881" (German): "V20+, V86+, M217-" "247213" ("C1"): M8+, V9+, V77+, "M217-, P122-" (P122+ being within C1 according to Karafet et al. 2008) "259500" (German): "V86+, M217-" "286661" (Korean): M217+, V9+, V52+, V77+, V183+, V189+, V199+, V232+ "295003" (Irish): V20+ "B1468" (Englishman): V20+, V222+ "N16907" (Indian): M356+, "V183+, V189+, V199+, V232+, V52+, V77+, V9+" "N57881" (Korean): CTS2457- "N113861" (Korean): M217+, CTS2457+, K29-, "V183+, V189+, V199+, V232+, V52+, V77+, V9+" "N66830" (Spaniard): "K29+, M130+, M216+, V20+, M217-, M347-, M356-, M38-, P122-, P55-" "N113863" (Japanese): P44+ (associated with C3 by Karafet et al. 2008), V9+, V52+, V77+, V183+, V189+, V199+, V232+ "N113953" (Greek): "V183+, V189+, V199+, V20+, V222+, V232+, V52+, V77+, V9+" "N113974": (Irish): "V183+, V189+, V199+, V20+, V232+, V52+, V77+, V9+, V222-" "N115067" (Indian): "V186+, V189+, V205+, V52+, V9+" |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Oct 29 2017, 12:34:52 AM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
An update regarding the phylogenetic position of YCH251, a Han Chinese from Hunan, PRC whose Y-DNA has been classified as C-M130(xM105, M38, M217, M347) by Yan et al. (2014): The current version of the ISOGG tree has a haplogroup C1b1a2b-AM00848/AMM009/F725. Karmin et al. (2015) have found C-F725, which they have named C7b1, in three Murut and one Aeta, and they also have predicted that two Singapore Malay individuals should belong to this haplogroup. All the C-F725 individuals in the data set of Karmin et al. (2015) should belong to the C1b1a2b1-B465 subclade except one Murut, who should belong to the C1b1a2b2-B72 subclade instead. The Han individual from Hunan, YCH251, whose phylogenetic position below C-M130 previously has been poorly resolved, exhibits the derived state for the F725 SNP as well as several other SNPs that currently are considered to be phylogenetically equivalent to F725, so it now is clear that he must belong to the same subclade as some Austronesian speakers from Singapore (Malay), Borneo (Murut), and the Philippines (Aeta). Karmin et al. have found Y-DNA that belongs to C1b1a2a-B67, another branch of C1b1a2-B65, in two Lebbo, another Austronesian-speaking population on the island of Borneo. (However, if I am not mistaken, the Lebbo live mostly in East Kalimantan province of Indonesia, whereas the Murut live mostly in parts of the island that currently are governed by Malaysia, though some live in Brunei or in North Kalimantan province of Indonesia instead.) Furthermore, the current version of the YFull YTree includes id:YF10870 (with origin reported as Guangdong, PRC) and id:YF10861 (with origin reported as Shaanxi, PRC) in C1b1a-Z16458/B66(xC1b1a1-M356). These two Chinese individuals also may turn out to belong to C1b1a2-B65, although I cannot say with certainty whether they should belong to C1b1a2b-F725, like YCH251, the Singapore Malays, the Muruts, and the Aeta, or to C1b1a2a-B67, like the Lebbos. However, previous studies of Y-STRs have hinted that perhaps all unclassified C-M130 in China (except perhaps a few from the Northeast who may belong to C1a1 instead) should have a relatively low coalescence age, so I think it is likely that all (or nearly all) of them should belong to C1b1a2b-F725 (assuming that YCH251 is not just a one-off who happens to belong to a different subclade from the overwhelming majority of Chinese unclassified C-M130). (Alternatively, YF10870 and/or YF10861 potentially might belong to C1b1a3-Z16582, but that clade apparently has been attested so far only in samples from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and, again, there is some reason to believe that an overwhelming majority of previously unclassified cases of C-M130 in China should cluster fairly closely together and therefore most likely should belong to a subclade that is not extremely rare.) O2a2b2-N6, another Y-DNA haplogroup that is found with notable frequency and broad distribution among present-day Austronesians, also has been found among people in Hunan. Note that C1b1a2b-F725, which has been attested so far in individuals from Borneo, Singapore, the Philippines, and Hunan, is more closely related to subclades of haplogroup C that have been found among South Asians and Arabs than it is related to subclades of C1b2-B477/Z31885, which have been found among people in eastern Indonesia and Oceania. The linkage between C1b1 and C1b2 vis-à-vis C1a (supported by eight SNPs according to YFull YTree v5.06) appears to be even weaker than the linkage between C1a and C1b vis-à-vis C2 (supported by twelve SNPs according to YFull YTree v5.06); C1b1 and C1b2 share a total of only twenty SNPs since the MRCA of all known members of C-M130. They almost certainly have been separate since the initial range expansion of C-M130 approximately 45,000 to 52,000 ybp. This is a nice parallel in my estimation for the deep split between Oceanian and non-Oceanian subclades of Y-DNA haplogroup K2. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Nov 5 2017, 08:13:11 AM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Update: According to YFull YTree v5.07 (published 05 November 2017), the phylogenetic position of the Y-DNA of id:YF10870 (origin reported to be Guangdong, PRC) and id:YF10861 (origin reported to be Shaanxi, PRC) has been resolved as far as C1b1a2b-F725/F884. As I have predicted, the TMRCA of these two Chinese individuals' Y-DNA has been estimated to be quite small (3,600 [95% CI 2,700 <-> 4,700] ybp), indicating that they may share a common ancestor in the Bronze Age of China. Their MRCA with now mainly South Asian C1b1a1-M356 may date back to the initial range expansion of C-M130; YFull YTree v5.07 has estimated their TMRCA to be 49,100 [95% CI 46,700 <-> 51,600] ybp. (However, note that C1b1a1-M356 and C1b1a2-B65 are linked by 82 SNPs vis-à-vis C1b2-B477/Z31885 according to YFull YTree v5.07; that is a substantial number of SNPs. In this case, YFull may have overestimated the TMRCA.) YCH251, the previously mentioned Han Chinese from Hunan, PRC whose Y-DNA has been examined by Yan et al. (2014), also belongs to C1b1a2b-F725/F884. I expect that his Y-DNA will eventually be confirmed to share a common ancestor with id:YF10870 from Guangdong and id:YF10861 from Shaanxi within roughly the same time frame (ca. the Chinese Bronze Age). |
![]() |
|
| 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)


