Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Divergence of East Asians and Europeans Estimated Using Male- and Female-Specific Gen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Divergence of East Asians and Europeans Estimated Using Male- and Female-Specific Gen

    Genome Biol Evol. Mar 2014; 6(3): 466–473.
    Published online Mar 3, 2014. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evu027
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971580/
    free
    Divergence of East Asians and Europeans Estimated Using Male- and Female-Specific Genetic Markers
    Yoshio Tateno,1,* Tomoyoshi Komiyama,2 Toru Katoh,3 Batmunkh Munkhbat,4 Akira Oka,5 Yuko Haida,6 Hiroyuki Kobayashi,2 Gen Tamiya,7 and Hidetoshi Inoko6,*

    Abstract
    To study the male and female lineages of East Asian and European humans, we have sequenced 25 short tandem repeat markers on 453 Y-chromosomes and collected sequences of 72 complete mitochondrial genomes to construct independent phylogenetic trees for male and female lineages. The results indicate that East Asian individuals fall into two clades, one that includes East Asian individuals only and a second that contains East Asian and European individuals. Surprisingly, the European individuals did not form an independent clade, but branched within the East Asians. We then estimated the divergence time of the root of the European clade as ~41,000 years ago. These data indicate that, contrary to traditional views, Europeans diverged from East Asians around that time. We also address the origin of the Ainu lineage in northern Japan.

  • #2
    So the 3% EA autosomal dna I have is from 41,000 years ago.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
      So the 3% EA autosomal dna I have is from 41,000 years ago.
      No. None of the autosomal estimation tools available go back 41,000 years, nor could they. If autosomal estimation tools consistently report 3% East Asian for you, one of your great-great-great-grandparents probably came from East Asia.

      Comment


      • #4
        Possibly. Of course some east Asian might have gotten into your background more recently. Genographic tells me I have 2% northeast Asian, which the ordinary German mix (which I most closely match) lacks. I would guess an ancient source is most likely. I'll be curious to see how this paper is received. It may be seen as mainstream since they have just found a division between the older C and D and the younger O, with R presumably branching off early from the clade that gave rise to O. I can't tell from their figures exactly what other Y -haplogroups are represented in their samples.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
          No. None of the autosomal estimation tools available go back 41,000 years, nor could they. If autosomal estimation tools consistently report 3% East Asian for you, one of your great-great-great-grandparents probably came from East Asia.
          So how did they know that I have 1% Neanderthal?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
            So the 3% EA autosomal dna I have is from 41,000 years ago.
            Different "ethnicity" calculators attempt to accomplish different things, so it is hard to tell what is meant when you state "3% EA".

            If you are talking about a 23andMe result, then no, the estimation is based on more recent ancestry.

            However, some other calculator may only be using a subset of SNPs currently tested, SNPs which are quite old variations and if the calculator is only fractioning out the occurrence of alleles by commonality of alleles at the continental level, then your reported "EA" ancestry could be old.

            But I doubt that it would be 41 thousand years old. Indeed, this study used uniparental DNA for the very purpose of being able to look at deep ancestry. Autosomal DNA gets recombined quickly down through the centuries, and you lose (due to the random assorting of chromosomes into gametes) ancestors from your DNA very quickly and significantly as one looks back in your pedigree, so your nuclear DNA ethnicity estimations are also a function of the long term genetic drift in the populations from which your ancestors, who still happen to exist in your nuclear DNA, originated.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 1798 View Post
              So how did they know that I have 1% Neanderthal?
              First, they don't know it, they claim it. Actually, estimates of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA percentages vary widely, and should be taken with a tablet of salt right now.

              Second, Neanderthals and Moderns diverged at least several hundred thousand years ago. Their genomes are sufficiently different so that small segments of introgression are at least sometimes recognizable. In contrast, East Asians and West Eurasians began to diverge only about 40,000 years ago, and have continued to intermix somewhat since then; so measuring the degree and age of admixture is much more difficult.

              Third: Since the East-West split began only 40,000 years ago, "admixture" from that long ago would not be admixture at all, but a common component.

              Fourth and most important: If your 3% East Asian were thousands of years old, that same 3% would be found in a large percentage of Westerners. The fact that you have 3% that hardly any other Westerner has, means that you have a recent East Asian ancestor that hardly anyone else has. This is the very principle on which admixture calculations are based!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                First, they don't know it, they claim it. Actually, estimates of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA percentages vary widely, and should be taken with a tablet of salt right now.

                Second, Neanderthals and Moderns diverged at least several hundred thousand years ago. Their genomes are sufficiently different so that small segments of introgression are at least sometimes recognizable. In contrast, East Asians and West Eurasians began to diverge only about 40,000 years ago, and have continued to intermix somewhat since then; so measuring the degree and age of admixture is much more difficult.

                Third: Since the East-West split began only 40,000 years ago, "admixture" from that long ago would not be admixture at all, but a common component.

                Fourth and most important: If your 3% East Asian were thousands of years old, that same 3% would be found in a large percentage of Westerners. The fact that you have 3% that hardly any other Westerner has, means that you have a recent East Asian ancestor that hardly anyone else has. This is the very principle on which admixture calculations are based!
                Now you are trying to make it fit. I don't have a recent SEA ancestor and I wasn't the only Irishman to get that type of result from the FF results before myOrigins became the norm. I also have a lot of SNPs in common with K14 and that is not a recent event.
                Last edited by 1798; 18 December 2014, 01:46 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                  I don't have a recent SEA ancestor and I wasn't the only Irishman to get that type of result from the FF results before myOrigins became the norm.
                  So myOrigins doesn't claim you have 3% East Asian? Then why did you mention it at all? Trace percentages are meaningless unless they are consistently reported by the latest-and-greatest ancestry calculators.

                  If large numbers of Irishmen were seeing 3% East Asian with some obsolete ancestry calculator, it was obviously just a glitch in that calculator.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                    So myOrigins doesn't claim you have 3% East Asian? Then why did you mention it at all? Trace percentages are meaningless unless they are consistently reported by the latest-and-greatest ancestry calculators.

                    If large numbers of Irishmen were seeing 3% East Asian with some obsolete ancestry calculator, it was obviously just a glitch in that calculator.

                    I already posted myOrigin results. It was the old system they used that had me at 3% SWA.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X