| Y hg founder event in one Akha population | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2012, 03:07:09 PM (792 Views) | |
| black man | Nov 29 2012, 03:07:09 PM Post #1 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A high percentage of an Akha sample was reported to be in y hg Q by Trejaut et al. in Taiwan Y-chromosomal DNA variation and its relationship with Island Southeast Asia. The hts indicate that they have the M120+ mutation. Since M120+ is extremely rare in Tibetans but relatively common in northern Han, some of the ancestors of the Akha might have been geographically in between Tibetans and northern Han, possibly having been closer to the ancestors of northern Han than to the ancestors of Tibetans. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 6 2014, 07:47:52 AM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I found the rarity of O3-M122 in that study's sample of Akha from Changmai, Thailand to be just as interesting as the high frequency of Q-M242. The Y-DNA distribution of the sample is as follows: Akha (Changmai, Thailand) 15/27 = 55.6% Q-M242 7/27 = 25.9% O2a1a-M88 1/27 = 3.7% O2a1*-M95(xM88) 1/27 = 3.7% O3a2c1a-M133(xM162) 1/27 = 3.7% O3a1c-JST002611 1/27 = 3.7% R1a1a-M17 1/27 = 3.7% F-M89(xG-M201, H1-M69, J-P209, K-M9) As you may see, this sample of Akha also has a very high frequency of haplogroup O2a1a-M88. Really, only the single O3a2c1a-M133(xM162) individual has a Y-DNA haplogroup that has been found with particularly high frequency in other published samples of Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups. O3a1c-JST002611 is rather a typical "circum-East China Sea" haplogroup as far as I can tell. The F-M89(xG-M201, H1-M69, J-P209, K-M9) individual might be related to the F2-M427/M428 haplogroup found in some Tibeto-Burman-speaking populations in Southwest China, but I don't know for sure. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 9 2014, 02:41:11 AM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In the same study, they also have reported finding R1-M173(xR1a1-SRY10831.2, R1b-M343) in Taiwan (Han) and the Philippines and P-M45(xQ-M242, R-M207) in Taiwan (Amis and Bunun aborigines). These are extremely rare paragroups, so it would be nice to have some confirmation of these results. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Aug 11 2014, 02:06:21 PM Post #4 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Afaik, there is a tendency to focus on patriclans in TB ethnological studies because the patrilocality of TB small-scale populations allows that kind of research. In theory, Trejaut's Akhas should have a y hg profile like Wen Bo's Aini (Analyses of Genetic Structure of Tibeto-Burman Populations Reveals Sex-Biased Admixture in Southern Tibeto-Burmans), which seems to be by far more heterogenous. But this is not the case... So maybe Trejaut's sample simply reflects the diversity of two traditionally allied clans, while Wen's sample possibly reflects a kind of 'agglomeration' of such clans due to minzu politics. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 13 2014, 07:08:38 AM Post #5 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hani (Xue et al. 2006; dot on map is placed near the border between Jiangcheng Hani and Yi Autonomous County, Pu'er City, Yunnan and Honghe Hani and Yi Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan) 1/34 = 2.9% Y*(xA, C, DE, J, K) 6/34 = 17.6% C2-M217(xM48) 4/34 = 11.8% N1-LLY22g(xN1c2a-M128, N1c2b-P43, N1c1-Tat) 2/34 = 5.9% O2a1*-M95(xO2a1a-M88) 15/34 = 44.1% O2a1a-M88 17/34 = 50.0% O2a1-M95 total 1/34 = 2.9% O3-M122(xM159, M7, M134) 3/34 = 8.8% O3a2c1-M134(xO3a2c1a-M117) 2/34 = 5.9% O3a2c1a-M117 5/34 = 14.7% O3a2c1-M134 total 6/34 = 17.6% O3-M122 total Aini/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan (Wen et al. 2004) 6/52 = 11.5% C-M130 1/52 = 1.9% F-M89(xK-M9) 18/52 = 34.6% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 14/52 = 26.9% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 7/52 = 13.5% O3a2c1-M134 21/52 = 40.4% O3-M122 total 2/52 = 3.8% O1a-M119 4/52 = 7.7% O2a1-M95 Hani/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan (Wen et al. 2004) 4/34 = 11.8% C-M130 12/34 = 35.3% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 11/34 = 32.4% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 5/34 = 14.7% O3a2c1-M134 16/34 = 47.1% O3-M122 total 1/34 = 2.9% O1a-M119 1/34 = 2.9% O2a1-M95 Jino/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan (Wen et al. 2004) 5/36 = 13.9% C-M130 2/36 = 5.6% F-M89(xK-M9) 13/36 = 36.1% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 7/36 = 19.4% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 7/36 = 19.4% O3a2c1-M134 14/36 = 38.9% O3-M122 total 2/36 = 5.6% O2a1-M95 (The Jino are not Hani per se, but their language is considered to be a basal branch from the root of the Hanoish (Hani and Hani-like) languages, so I have included data regarding the Y-DNA of a sample of Jino here.) The genotyping of Wen et al. 2004 is a bit insufficient, but it seems that all the Hanoish groups in southern Yunnan have a significant amount of haplogroup N and haplogroup C (probably C2-M217, at least for the most part), and some sort of F(xK) is also found with low frequency in most of these populations (except the Xishuangbanna Hani sample of Wen et al.). Neither C nor N was found in the sample of Akha from Changmai, Thailand. F-M89(xG-M201, H1-M69, J-P209, K-M9) was found in one individual, but it is uncertain whether it is of a type closely related to the F(xK) individuals found in samples of Hanoish speakers in Yunnan. No sort of P-M45, let alone Q-M242 in particular, has been found in the Hanoish samples from Yunnan. The sample of Hani from southern Yunnan (apparently not Xishuangbanna, but the precise location of sampling is unclear) in Xue et al. 2006 shares with the Akha from Thailand a high frequency of O2a1a-M88. However, O2a1-M95 of any sort (and not necessarily its O2a1a-M88 subclade) has been found in at most 7.7% of any Hanoish sample from Xishuangbanna. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 14 2014, 08:21:25 AM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Hanoish languages, which include Hani-Akha, Jino, etc., may also be viewed as a sort of "Southern Yi." Therefore, I have collected some data regarding the Y-DNA of speakers of other Yi languages (Yi, Lisu, and Lahu) from Yunnan and southern Sichuan: Yi/Butuo, Sichuan 1/43 = 2.3% C2-M217(xM86) 7/43 = 16.3% D1-M15 2/43 = 4.7% F-P14(xG-M201, H1-M69, I-P19, J-12f2, K-M9) 1/43 = 2.3% NO-M214(xLLY22g, M128, P43, M178, O-M175) 13/43 = 30.2% N1-LLY22g(xM128, P43, M178) 1/43 = 2.3% O2-P31(xO2a1-M95, O2b-SRY465) 15/43 = 34.9% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) total 2/43 = 4.7% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 12/43 = 27.9% O3a2c1-M134 14/43 = 32.6% O3-M122 total 3/43 = 7.0% O2a1*-M95(xO2a1a-M111) 1/43 = 2.3% O2a1a-M111 4/43 = 9.3% O2a1-M95 total Yi/Liangshan, Sichuan 2/14 = 14.3% D1-M15 6/14 = 42.9% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 3/14 = 21.4% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 1/14 = 7.1% O3a2c1-M134 4/14 = 28.6% O3-M122 total 2/14 = 14.3% O2a1-M95 Yi/Shuangbai, Yunnan 4/50 = 8.0% C-M130 1/50 = 2.0% DE-YAP(xD1-M15) 5/50 = 10.0% D1-M15 6/50 = 12.0% DE-YAP total 19/50 = 38.0% F-M89(xK-M9) 8/50 = 16.0% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 5/50 = 10.0% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 5/50 = 10.0% O3a2c1-M134 10/50 = 20.0% O3-M122 total 1/50 = 2.0% O1a-M119 2/50 = 4.0% O2a1-M95 Yi/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 2/18 = 11.1% C-M130 1/18 = 5.6% F-M89(xK-M9) 6/18 = 33.3% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 5/18 = 27.8% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 3/18 = 16.7% O3a2c1-M134 8/18 = 44.4% O3-M122 total 1/18 = 5.6% O2a1-M95 Lisu/Fugong, Yunnan 1/49 = 2.0% F-M89(xK-M9) 11/49 = 22.4% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 2/49 = 4.1% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 30/49 = 61.2% O3a2c1-M134 32/49 = 65.3% O3-M122 total 4/49 = 8.2% O2a1-M95 1/49 = 2.0% P-M45 Lahu/Simao, Yunnan 2/13 = 15.4% C-M130 4/13 = 30.8% F-M89(xK-M9) 2/13 = 15.4% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 2/13 = 15.4% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 2/13 = 15.4% O3a2c1-M134 4/13 = 30.8% O3-M122 total 1/13 = 7.7% O2a1-M95 Lahu/Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 1/15 = 6.7% F-M89(xK-M9) 3/15 = 20.0% K-M9(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O3-M122, P-M45) 5/15 = 33.3% O3-M122(xO3a2c1-M134) 1/15 = 6.7% O3a2c1-M134 6/15 = 40.0% O3-M122 total 3/15 = 20.0% O1a-M119 2/15 = 13.3% O2a1-M95 The distribution of DE-YAP, nearly all of which belongs to the D-M15 subclade, appears to be limited to the Yi of southern Sichuan and northern Yunnan. It has not been found in the more southerly groups of Loloish speakers. However, it cannot be ascribed to recent Tibetan influence without invoking a major founder effect because the modern Tibetans and closely associated peoples who inhabit places nearest the Loloish peoples (the Khampa, Pumi, Naxi, etc. of the mountainous areas of western Sichuan and northwestern Yunnan) possess D-P47 with high frequency rather than D-M15. Besides the Northern Yi of the vicinity of Liangshan (the southernmost "bulge" of Sichuan), D-M15 is also quite common among the Qiang of northern Sichuan and among some Hmong-Mien peoples of Guizhou, Guangxi, etc. Some sort of F(xK) (probably mostly, though not necessarily all, F2-M427/M428) seems to have its centroid in Yunnan, but it does seep out a bit around the edges. O2a1-M95 is found in all the Loloish populations, though generally with low frequency (approx. 10% or less). The sample of Yi from Butuo County, Sichuan shows that not all of this necessarily belongs to the O2a1a-M88/M111 subclade. I suppose some Hani-speaking population in some area between south-central Yunnan and northern Thailand (i.e. the vicinity of the area where Yunnan, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand converge) has undergone a founder effect (or assimilated some substratum) that has sharply increased the frequency of O2a1a-M88/M111. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Aug 15 2014, 01:46:19 AM Post #7 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
D-M15 in HM and TK seems to point to origins of the according lineages in somewhere like Sichuan, too. Btw, there is a new paper on the y hg distribution in Qiangic-speakers featuring information about hts. F-M427 might have been present in an archaelogical sample from the upper Yangzijiang basin(?) and could have been forced to migrate to what is now Yunnan; in case that O2a lineages were forced to migrate away from the Huanghe basin, most O2a lineages might have knowingly avoided extremely high altitudes like those of the Himalayan Plateau. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 15 2014, 06:30:49 AM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you have intended to refer to the paper by Chuan-Chao Wang, Ling-Xiang Wang, Rukesh Shrestha et al., "Genetic Structure of Qiangic Populations Residing in the Western Sichuan Corridor," I have read it already. It has decent information regarding the mtDNA of Horpas from two different localities, and even more bountiful data regarding the mtDNA of Khampa Tibetans. However, its Y-DNA data are really only relevant for the Khampas. The Horpa Y-DNA samples are so meager (only 34 individuals in total) that I think they are not very significant. They do hint at the possibility of a distinction between D-M15-heavy localities and D-P47-heavy localities, however. That paper's Y-DNA data do help to fill a lacuna regarding the gene pool of Khams Tibetans (Khampas): Khampa/Xinlong County, Garzę Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan 1/46 = 2.2% C-M130(xC1a1-M105, C1b-M356?, C1c-M38, C1d-M347, C2-M217) 4/46 = 8.7% D1a1-N1 1/46 = 2.2% D1c*-P99(xD1c1-P47) 10/46 = 21.7% D1c1-P47 15/46 = 32.6% D total 1/46 = 2.2% F-M89(xG-M201, I-M258, J-M304, K-M9) 1/46 = 2.2% N1c1a-M178 4/46 = 8.7% O1a1-P203 1/46 = 2.2% O2*-M268 (P31-?) 2/46 = 4.3% O2a*-PK4(xO2a1-M95) 1/46 = 2.2% O2a1*-M95(xO2a1a-M88) 1/46 = 2.2% O2b-M176 5/46 = 10.9% O2-M268 total 1/46 = 2.2% O3a-M324(xO3a1-L127/KL1, O3a2-P201) 7/46 = 15.2% O3a1c-JST002611 1/46 = 2.2% O3a2b-M7 3/46 = 6.5% O3a2c1*-M134(xM117) 5/46 = 10.9% O3a2c1a-M117 17/46 = 37.0% O3-M122 total 2/46 = 4.3% Q1a1a1-M120/N14 Khampa/Hekou Town, Yajiang County, Garzę Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan 5/47 = 10.6% C2-M217(xC2a-M93, C2b1-P39, C2b2-M48, C2c-P53, C2e1a-M407) 3/47 = 6.4% D1a1-N1 9/47 = 19.1% D1c1-P47 12/47 = 25.5% D total 1/47 = 2.1% J-M304 10/47 = 21.3% O1a1-P203 1/47 = 2.1% O2*?-M268/P31 (listed as "M95+?") 1/47 = 2.1% O2a1*-M95(xO2a1a-M88) 1/47 = 2.1% O2a1a-M88 3/47 = 6.4% O2-M268 total 1/47 = 2.1% O3a-M324(xO3a1-L127/KL1, O3a2-P201) 1/47 = 2.1% O3a1-L127/KL1/KL2(xO3a1a-M121, O3a1c-JST002611) 2/47 = 4.3% O3a2b-M7 3/47 = 6.4% O3a2c1*-M134(xM117) 9/47 = 19.1% O3a2c1a-M117 16/47 = 34.0% O3-M122 total One of the paper's weirder findings is the presence of O2b-M176 Y-DNA in a Khampa Tibetan from Xinlong County of Garzę Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, along the Yalong River in northwestern Sichuan. Other conspicuous findings: *Q1a1a1-M120 in 2/46 Khampas from Xinlong (Yes, that mysterious "East Asian" subclade of haplogroup Q is here, too...) *N1c1a-M178 in 2/16 Horpas from Bamei Town, Daofu County, Garzę Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan and in 1/46 Khampas from Xinlong County ("The 17-STR haplotype of N1c1a individuals in Horpa-Daofu is exactly the same with some Komi people in Russia [79,80]. However, the haplotype of N1c1a individual in Xinlong shows more similarity with samples of its surrounding populations (unpublished data).") *J-M304 in 1/47 Khampas from Hekou Town, Yajiang County, Garzę Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan *R2a-M124 in 1/16 Horpas from Daofu County *C-M130(xC1a1-M105, C1b-M356?, C1c-M38, C1d-M347, C2-M217) in 1/18 Horpas from Danba County, Garzę Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan and 1/46 Khampas from Xinlong County (These two individuals seem to belong to the widespread but rare subgroup of haplogroup C-M130 that has been found with notable frequency only in a couple samples of Hmong-Mien speakers, but is also present among Manchu-Tungus, etc.) *O1a1-P203 in 10/47 Khampas from Yajiang County (Perhaps this might be related to the prevalence of O1a1-P203 lineages among Han Chinese. If I remember correctly, Austronesians, such as the people of Nias Island, tend to have O1a2-M50 or O1a*-M119 rather than O1a1-P203. However, O1a1-P203 also has been found in 4/46 Khampas from Xinlong and 1/16 Horpas from Daofu, so it is not too extremely out of place here in western Sichuan. It is notable that the Khampas seem to have a much higher frequency of this haplogroup in comparison to other Tibetans, who generally seem to lack O1a-M119 altogether, though.) |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 15 2014, 10:46:12 PM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Does anyone know whether (or how much of) the D1a-M15 Y-DNA found in various Hmong, Mien, Dai, etc. peoples is positive for the N1 mutation? It seems that the D-M15 Y-DNA found in Horpas and Khampas all carries the N1 mutation in addition to M15. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Aug 16 2014, 12:07:49 PM Post #10 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is a good question. There are a few Zhuang potentially in this hg according to the paper to which you refer at http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/single/?p=112390&t=528904 . However, Deng Wei et al. did not find N1+ in any of their "southern" samples according to the paper Evolution and migration history of the Chinese population inferred from Chinese Y-chromosome evidence. Qi et al. (Genetic Evidence of Paleolithic Colonization and Neolithic Expansion of Modern Humans on the Tibetan Plateau) detected the M15+, N1- combination in the region close to Nam Co Lake. So it's not restricted the regions to the east of the Himalayas. Rather, N1+ primarily profitted from Tibetan expansion, and it cannot be said to what extent it profitted from HM expansions. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 16 2014, 10:28:33 PM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank you for reminding me, black man. Unfortunately, the Zhuang paper by Chen Jing, Li Hui, Qin Zhen-Dong et al. does not clearly identify the SNPs used to determine haplogroup assignments (e.g. "D" vs. "D1a"). If they have faithfully adhered to the nomenclature that was generally accepted at the time of publication, then their "D" category should refer to D-M174(xM15), and their "D1a" category should refer to D-N1, but that is not totally clear; they might have (unjustifiably) used the "D1a" label for any D-M15 Y-chromosome without typing for any SNP downstream of M15. It might be interesting to investigate whether the (northern) Yi in D-M15 belong to the subclade marked by N1 or not. If they are positive for the N1 mutation, then there is a slight possibility that the presence of D-M15 in the northernmost Loloish populations may be ascribable to recent influence from nearby Tibetans and a concurrent founder effect (that has sharply reduced the frequency of DE(xD1-M15)). If the Yi D-M15 are negative for N1, then it would be even more unlikely that they might have a recent genealogical connection with Tibetans. The Loloish peoples geographically separate the Tibetans in D1 from the Hmongs, Miens, Dais, etc. in this haplogroup, so they might help to reveal something about the relationships among these populations. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Aug 17 2014, 01:02:13 AM Post #12 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think that this has something to do with the social organisation of the Nuosu. Their clans apparently having strived for powerful alliances, they might have managed to assimilate Tibetans. E.g., the name of Yangjuan, a predominately Nuosu village, is Tibetan according to some people. This could point to contacts with Tibetans (see Nuosu and Neighbouring Ethnic Groups: Ethnic Groups and Ethnic Relations in the Eyes and Ears of Three Generations of the Mgebbu Clan, the English version of an article originally written in Chinese). The more heterogenous certain minorities are, the more powerful they are, it seems to me. Similarly, Qiangic-speakers having linguistically survived under the influences of powerful Tibetan elites from the west and Han elites from the east, they might have been forced to mix with people of non-Qiangic ancestry in order to survive in the long run. HMs aren't necessarily aboriginal to Guangxi and Guangzhou regions. M7+ having been detected in the Daxi site, M95+ having been detected in both the Daxi and the Wucheng sites and M134+ having been detected in neither of these according to Li Hui et al. (Y chromosomes of prehistoric people along the Yangtze River, 2007), present-day HM populations could be composites of earlier and later migrants from different parts of the Yangzi river basin as well as of migrants from elsewhere. The Chiyou legend in contemporary Shandong as well as O2(xO2a, O2b) in the Bama Yao sample of Xue et al. might even indicate rather far northeastern origins as for some of their ancestors. Edited by black man, Aug 17 2014, 01:46:21 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 18 2014, 08:30:14 AM Post #13 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have been looking over the data table from Trejaut et al. (2014), and I have noticed that O1a1-P203 does seem to be the predominant type of O1a-M119 Y-DNA in some parts of Austronesia as it is in mainland China. Notably, the Northern Formosans (Atayal, Saisiyat, Thao, etc.), the Austronesian isolate Tsou of the central mountains of Taiwan, and some people group in the Indonesian-controlled part of Borneo seem to have very high ratios of O1a1-P203 to other types of O1a-M119. (The absolute frequencies are also very high in the aforementioned Formosan populations.) The Karafet team's large sample of males from Flores also seems to contain only this subclade of O1a-M119, though with much lower overall frequency (36/394 = 9.1% O1a1-P203). So, it appears that the Chinese are not the only population that exhibits a very high ratio of O1a1-P203 to O1a-M119(xP203). |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 30 2014, 08:28:00 AM Post #14 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yan S, Wang C-C, Zheng H-X, Wang W, Qin Z-D, et al. (2014) "Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Descend from Three Neolithic Super-Grandfathers." From "Supporting Discussions" (Discussion_S1.docx):
According to Table S1, the haplogroup D1a-M15 individuals are as follows: 2 Han from Shandong (YCH25 and YCH383) 1 Han from Anhui (AA5) 2 Yi from Sichuan (YCH260 and YCH404) 1 Zhuang from Guangxi (YCH177) So, D1a-M15(xD1a1-N1) has been found in at least one Zhuang from Guangxi. They also found D1c1-P47 in one Han from Shandong (YCH49) and one Tibetan from Qinghai (YCH267). Let me check how many individuals they have sampled from Shandong... By the way, they have found three SNPs shared between O2 and O3, which they have claimed to be recurrent, including the well-known PK4: F3051 PK4 F1915 They have found the following SNP to be shared between O1 and O3: F1145 They have found the following four SNPs to be shared between O1 and O2: F75 F265 F429 F465 They have decided to group O1 and O2 together in opposition to O3. However, I recall that another study in the past has grouped O1 and O3 together in opposition to O2. On the other hand, they do seem to have uncovered some clear substructure within O1a1-M307.1/P203.1. O1a1 apparently splits into one subclade marked by F78, F81, F140, F157, F168, F206, F343, F424, F446, F492, F518, F533, F560, F571, and F619 and another subclade marked by F4051, F4056, F4084, F1056, F4090, F4093, F1256, F4118, F1479, F1881, F4182, F2210, F4239, F4243, F4244, and F2772. The O1a1-F78 clade subsequently splits into one subclade marked by F707, F1305, F1702, F285, F1989, F2106, F469, F2932, F3154, F3486, F3529, F3548, and F3655 and another subclade marked by F794, F1297, F1732, F1916, and F2575. Among the SNPs that mark the F707+ subclade, F285 and F469 appear to have occurred earlier than the others; this is supported by the existence of an F285+/F469+ individual who has tested negative for the other SNPs of that group. There is only one ambiguity: F333, which Table S6 shows as being shared between the F78+/F707+ subclade and the F4051+ subclade. I do not know whether this is an error in tabulation, an error in genotyping, or a bonafide recurrent SNP. F333 is not derived in O1a2-M110, so I suppose that, assuming it is genuine, it is probably an SNP that has occurred at the proto-O1a1 stage and later reverted to the ancestral state in the F78+/F794+ lineage. I look forward to seeing how these new SNPs subdivide the O-M307.1/P203.1 Y-DNA that is quite common in some regions of China. |
![]() |
|
| sahaliyan | Aug 30 2014, 09:14:28 AM Post #15 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nope,O1 and O2 is one clade,it's already well known,just no paper published |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 30 2014, 09:45:53 AM Post #16 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let me check the correspondences in Table S6... As for F1145 (found in O1 and O3), it was found positive (derived) in an O1a2 individual and in an O3a3c*(xO3a3c1) individual, but it was found negative in all tested O1a1, O3(xO3a3c), and O3a3c1 individuals. Therefore, it is certainly a recurrent mutation that has occurred once in a certain subset of O3a3c-M134(xM117) and once again in a certain subset of O1a2-M50. As for F1915 (found in O2 and O3), it was found positive (derived) in two O2b individuals (a Henan Han and a Korean), an O3a*-L127 individual, and an O3a1 individual, but in no representative of any other subclade of O2 or O3. Therefore, it is certainly a recurrent mutation that has occurred once in a certain subset of O2b-SRY465 and at least once again in a certain subset or subsets of O3a-L127 (at least one of which is the subset that includes O3a1). This SNP may turn out to be phylogenetically useful as a marker for "proto-O3a1." As for F3051 (found in O2 and O3), it was found positive (derived) in a Chimpanzee, an O2a(xO2a1) individual, and an O3a4 individual, but in no representative of any other subclade of O2 or O3. Therefore, it is certainly a recurrent mutation that has occurred once in a certain subset of O2a(xO2a1), once again in a certain subset of O3a4, and once more in a certain subset of Chimpanzees; alternatively, the condition of these particular O2a(xO2a1) and O3a4 individuals may represent a reversion to the ancestral state at this locus. As for PK4 (found in O2 and O3), it was found positive (derived) in an O2* individual, an O2a(xO2a1) individual, and an O2a1 individual. It was not found in one other O2* individual, nor in any O2b or O3 individuals in Table S6. This is completely consistent with the currently accepted view that PK4 is a subclade of O2-P31, and M95 is a subclade of PK4. I do not know why the authors have tabulated this SNP as being "inside O2,O3." Perhaps it might be a mere typographical error. As for F75, F265, F429, and F465, each of these four SNPs has been found positive (derived) in four O1a1 individuals, an O1a2 individual, an O2* individual, an O2-PK4(xM95) individual, an O2a(xO2a1) individual, an O2a1 individual, and two O2b individuals. None of these four SNPs has been found derived in any representative of any other clade, but the test for F265 apparently has failed on one C3* individual's Y-DNA. On the basis of the genotyping results in Table S6, O1 and O2 do form a clade to the exclusion of O3, but this linkage may be demonstrated by as few as four SNPs: F75, F265, F429, and F465. (According to the authors' TMRCA estimates, these SNPs should indicate a branch length of about 1,300 years [95% CI 0 years to 4,900 years] of common ancestry between O1 and O2 subsequent to the MRCA of {O3 + {O1 + O2}}.) The linkage seems to be robust but quite brief, and therefore not very significant in regard to theories of the dispersal of modern humans in East Asia. (For comparison, note that the authors have found three SNPs shared by IJ and K in contrast to G and seven SNPs shared by NO and P in contrast to IJ.) |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Aug 30 2014, 11:42:05 AM Post #17 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
These are the results for the individuals from Shandong: D1a1-N1 (x2) D1c1-P47 (x1) C2e1a-M407 (x1) N-M231/LLY22g(xM128, P43, Tat) (x1) N1c1a-M178 (x1) Q1a1a1-M120/N14 (x1) O3a1c-002611 (x1) O3a1-L127/KL1/KL2(xM121, 002611) (x1) O3a2c1-M134(xM117) (x2) ...for a total of 11 individuals. However, I am quite certain that this study's samples have been selected from a database in order to be as phylogenetically informative as possible, so these should not be considered to represent a random sample from Shandong. They do present an interesting picture of the diversity of Y-DNA present in that province in any case. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Sep 6 2014, 05:08:26 AM Post #18 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
By the way, ranhaer (of Chinese language genetics discussion forum fame) claims to be D1a*-M15(xN1) with an origin in Liuzhou (north-central or slightly northeastern Guangxi). Of course, that is not a scientifically valid data point, but it does seem to harmonize with the finding by Yan et al. of D1a*-M15(xN1) Y-DNA in a Zhuang individual from Guangxi. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Sep 9 2014, 07:44:25 AM Post #19 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Liuzhou belongs to those locations which are connected to the Pearl River system. I.e., premodern people might have moved along the Hongshui and Nanpan river banks in order to get to the (meanwhile formerly) Yi-dominated region near Kunming. However, the Liuzhou region belongs to the Nanyue realm according to the wikipedia article on the Yelang tribes, which seem to have been to the west of present-day Liuzhou. So, in the light of D-M15+, N1- having been detected relatively close to Lhasa (together with another rare paragroup), its isolated incidences or its its accumulation in northern Guangxi might derive from the cut-throat competitions of lineages in the northwest. Then again, D1 could have withdrawn from the Hubei/Hunan lake area, from where we generally don't have much information in terms of both ethnography and human genetics. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Sep 19 2014, 10:28:36 AM Post #20 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The genotyping data in Table S6 of Yan et al. (2014) clearly demonstrate several bifurcations of the phylogeny under D1a1-N1. The first split distinguishes one of the D-N1 Han from Shandong (YCH25) from the D-N1 Han from Anhui (AA5) and the two D-N1 Yi from Sichuan (YCH260 and YCH404). This split is marked by at least 21 reliable SNPs that are positive in YCH25 and negative in the others (F3828, F737, F738, F828, F836, F3839, F926, F3849, F3865, F3875, F4122, F3893, F1603, F2001, F2033, F3941, F3956, F3958, F3987, F2892, F3990) and by at least 17 reliable SNPs that are negative in YCH25 and positive in the others (F3852, F3876, F1635, F1691, F1784, F3933, F3940, F2200, F2384, F3984, F3992, F3267, F3365, F3401, F4033, F3562, F3571). This split is superficially contradicted by F1649, which is positive in YCH25, AA5, and YCH260 but negative in YCH404 and in every tabulated representative of Y(xD-M15); however, I think that F1649 is probably an SNP that has occurred in D-M15 prior to the split of YCH25 from AA5, YCH260, and YCH404, and later reverted to the ancestral state in YCH404. A second split distinguishes the D-N1 Han from Anhui from the two D-N1 Yi from Sichuan. This split is marked by F1038 and F3247, which are positive in YCH260 and YCH404 but negative in AA5 (and YCH25), and by F3858, F3957, F3727, and F3965, which are positive in AA5 but negative in YCH260 and YCH404 (and YCH25); however, F3727 appears to be an unreliable SNP, as it is noted to have occurred also under C2-M217, G-M201, and O3a1c-JST002611. Finally, a third split distinguishes the two D-N1 Yi from Sichuan from each other. This split is marked by F3943 and F2354, which are positive in YCH260 but negative in YCH404, and by F2009 and F4315, which are positive in YCH404 but negative in YCH260. The aforementioned reversion of F1649 in YCH404 also distinguishes it from YCH260. Unfortunately, the sequences obtained from the other D-N1 Han from Shandong (YCH383), the D-M15(xN1) Zhuang from Guangxi (YCH177), the D-P47 Tibetan from Qinghai (YCH267), and the D-P47 Han from Shandong (YCH49) were of "bad" quality, and therefore were not included in Table S6. In summary: D-M15(xN1) has been found in the Tibet Autonomous Region (31/214 Damxung County, 1/180 Shigatse proper, 1/70 Nędong County? in Shannan) and in Guangxi (YCH177/Zhuang from Guangxi and ranhaer from Liuzhou, Guangxi). According to vadu on molgen.org, D-M15(xN1) also has been found in at least one Noghay individual and at least one Kazakh individual. (The figure for Damxung County in the data set of Qi et al. (2013) is very curious, all the more so since the sample also has been reported to have a uniquely high frequency of D-P99(xP47); it seems that the data points for D-M15(xN1) and D-N1 on the one hand and D-P99(xP47) and D-P47 on the other might have been reversed in the case of the Damxung County sample.) D-N1(xF3852) has been found in a Han from Shandong (YCH25). D-F3852(xF1038) has been found in a Han from Anhui (AA5). D-F1038 has been found in two Yi from Sichuan (YCH260 and YCH404). So, at least in the case of these two Yi individuals from Sichuan, the D-M15 Y-DNA in the Yi belongs to a subclade of a subclade of D1a1-N1. In fact, the Yi subclade(s) appear as if they might be derived from a (Han?) subclade from East China. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Sep 19 2014, 07:58:42 PM Post #21 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I previously described this odd y-chromosomal sample in detail at http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/8789958/1 . And it's not just their rare major y hgs as such but also the quantity of their minor mtDNA categories... Minor mtDNA categories (more than 1% but less than 5%) detected by Qi et al.: "LSDX" (n=792): 1) A4 2) A11 3) B4 (xB4a, B4c, B4e) 4) F1(xF1a, F1b, F1c) 5) F1b 6) T1a 7) U2e 8) G(xG1a, G2a, G2b, G3) 9) G2a 10) G2b 11) G3(xG3a1) 12) G3a1 13) M8a 14) C4a 15) Z 16) M9a1b1 17) M13a1 18) M13a2 19) M62b "LSDQ" (n=625): 1) F1b 2) F1c 3) D5a2 4) G2a 5) G3(xG3a1) 6) G3a1 7) Z 8) M9a1b1 9) M11a 10) M13a1 11) M13a2 12) M62b all Lhasan regional samples pooled (n=2736) 1) B4(xB4a, B4c, B4c) 2) F1b 3) F1c 4) D5a2 5) G(xG1a, G2a, G2b, G3) 6) G2a 7) G3(xG3a1) 8) G3a1 9) C4a 10) Z 11) M9a 12) M13a1 13) M13a2 14) M62b all Shigatse regional samples pooled (n=1050): 1) F1b 2) F1c 3) D5a2 4) G2a 5) Z 6) M9a 7) M10a 8) M13a1 9) M13a2 10) M62b ... I.e., the "LSDX" y hg and mtDNA hg profiles seem to be evidence for an extremely patrilocal community of "wife takers." When I ignored the mtDNA profile, it seemed to me as if that y hg profile implied a kind of aboriginal Himalayan continuity. But the mtDNA profile IMO almost proves the opposite: everything could be more or less recent. If most representatives of y hg D once chose to collectively leave the Huanghe region, that could explain why y hg D is now by far more common in the Himalayas than it is along the lower Huanghe although its frequency is in very high in Japan. Moreover, such a scenario could explain why Tibetans are physiologically by far more similar to Han than to Ainus or Ryukyuans: i.e., if so, their ancestors would have lived more or less next to the ancestors of the Han (without the isolation due to high altitudes and extreme climatic conditions in the Himalayas) and would probably have mixed with them a lot. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Sep 20 2014, 04:23:25 AM Post #22 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As I have noted in my previous post, the D-F738 (part of N1(xF3852)) clade that is represented by YCH25 (a Han from Shandong) is well-distinguished from the D-F3852/F1635 clade that is represented by AA5 (a Han from Anhui) and YCH260 and YCH404 (two Yi from Sichuan). The most recent common ancestor of these two clades should have lived approximately 12,000 years before present, at around the time of the earliest known Neolithic cultures in China (e.g. the culture represented by the Nanzhuangtou site in Baoding, Hebei, roughly 120 km southwest of the center of Beijing). However, those three representatives of the D-F3852/F1635 clade have a much more recent common ancestor, who has lived approximately 2,200 years before present; considering the margin of error, one might presume that he has lived at some time during the Warring States, Qin, or Han period of Chinese history. I am not sure where the ethnolinguistic ancestors of the Yi should have resided at that time. If the MRCA of the clade was a proto-Yi (some Loloish sort of person, or perhaps even some non-Loloish sort of local tribesman who was assimilated by the ethnolinguistic ancestors of the Yi), then he or one of his descendants must have relocated to the Han heartland and managed to leave a direct patrilineal descendant among the Han in Anhui Province. If, on the other hand, the MRCA of the clade was a proto-Han Chinese (from Qin or Han or whatever), then he or one of his descendants should have migrated to Sichuan (or wherever the contemporary ancestors of the Yi were living) prior to the MRCA of the two modern Sichuan Yi (who should have lived roughly around the 8th century CE or, more loosely, the latter half of the first millennium CE) and left a disproportionately successful genetic legacy among the Yi. Which scenario is more plausible? I suppose it physically should be easier to take a boat down the Yangtze from southernmost Sichuan to southern Anhui than the reverse, and perhaps socioculturally easier as well. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Sep 20 2014, 06:37:50 PM Post #23 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Certain lineages of hg O already migrated to the east earlier on, M117+ possibly having been kind of an omen of the Warring States period. See Y Chromosome analysis of prehistoric human populations in the West Liao River Valley, Northeast China by Cui Yinqiu et al., table 1. So M117+ guys might have contributed to technological and cultural features which facilitated the sinification of the east later on. By contrast, most guys within y hg D-M15+ might already have been in the Chu realms during the Warring States period. The reason is that there had already been some expansions (related to y hgs C and O3) in the northeast due to which refugees might have went to what is now Shandong etc, themselves causing others to flee to the Yangzi River valley. O3 without the M117+ mutation occurs in one of six men at the Niuheliang site between 5000 and 6500 years ago and in two of five men at the Dadianzi site between 3600 and 4200 years ago. This is what table 1 of Cui et al. implies. And according to the authors of Y chromosomes of prehistoric people along the Yangtze River, Li Hui et al., five of twenty men from the Daxi site carried the M7+ mutation between 5300 and 6400 years ago. Moreover, Li Hui et al. reported that they found one man in y hg O2a and nine men who could belong to y hg D in the Daxi site sample. Interestingly, the data reported by Li Hui et al. indicate that... - people in y hg O1 possibly related to ANs inhabited the region of the Yangzijiang delta (nine of fifteen samples from Maqiao and Xindili sites) - people in y hg O2a possibly related to AAs and/or ancestors of certain TK lineages could have been in what is now Hunan (two of three samples from Wucheng site) - people in two (or more) y hgs common in present-day HM-speakers (O3-M7+, O2a and maybe D1) inhabited an upstream location at the Yangzijiang (Daxi site) Unfortunately, I know close to nothing about the region in between the Huanghe and the Yangzijiang, though. The y hg profile of present-day Wuhan Han indicates a certain closeness to the delta region. But most parts of Hubei are geographically not as close to the Yangzijiang delta region as Wuhan is. So one might speculate whether there were once TB-speakers in the central and northern parts of what is now Hubei. Archaeological findings just indicate that contacts were possible via maybe, e.g., trade routes. Further, there is one historiographical or semi-historiographical statement about a battles or several battles involving Qiang (i.e., possible TBs) who might have known that part of the world to some extent at least. |
![]() |
|
| 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)



