Morphological and mtDNA analysis of Mezzena mandible

 

I've written about late Neandertals becoming more AMH-like, and a new study on an Italian specimen that postdates the arrival of AMH in Europe lends some further support to that idea.
The Mezzena jaw has Neandertal mtDNA and shares a number of morphological traits with other Neandertals, but its overall shape places it within the cluster of modern humans  (triangles; figure on the left). Notice also that Qafzeh 9 (Q9) and Shkul V (SV) are also within the cluster of modern humans, and Spy 1 (a Neandertal) is actually closer to modern humans than to other Neandertals.
From the paper:

The position on the scatter plot of our specimen of interest, Mezzena, has been calculated a posteriori. Unsurprisingly, the Mezzena mandible does not present any particular affinities with mid-Pleistocene specimens. It is most similar to AMHs being positioned within the H. sapiens cloud of points and the DFA classifies the specimen with modern humans (Table S7). Especially its shape is similar to that of Ohalo II and to a lesser extent to the recent modern human specimen China5. However, it should be noted that its position also indicates affinities with some Neanderthal specimens: the late Neanderthal Spy 1 and Saint-Césaire, the Near-East specimens Tabūn II and Amud 1, and to a lesser extent the classic Neanderthals La Ferrassie 1 and Guattari III (Figure 2).

According to the authors:

In this light, we can interpret the position of the Mezzena mandible which stands within the modern human shape space, while presenting strong shape similarities with some Neanderthal specimens. Such a conflicting taxonomical position is not surprising, considering the geological age of the mandible [30]. Indeed, numerous late Neanderthals such as Spy 1, Saint Césaire and the Near-East mandibles Amud 1 and Tabun II possess hints of a chin (i.e. tuber symphyseo) though not a true modern human morphology [37], [51]. Late Neanderthals lived in area where AMHs might have been already present [2], [23], [52], while the Levantine fossils are displaying a less derived Neanderthal morphology [35], [36]. 

Therefore, in our view, this change in morphology of the mandibular chin among the fossils of Mezzena and other late Neanderthals could have been the result of a small degree of interbreeding with AMHs.

It would be interesting to sequence Mezzena to confirm the existence of AMH admixture.
PLoS ONE 8(3): e59781. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059781
Possible Interbreeding in Late Italian Neanderthals? New Data from the Mezzena Jaw (Monti Lessini, Verona, Italy)
Silvana Condemi et al.
In this article we examine the mandible of Riparo Mezzena a Middle Paleolithic rockshelter in the Monti Lessini (NE Italy, Verona) found in 1957 in association with Charentian Mousterian lithic assemblages. Mitochondrial DNA analysis performed on this jaw and on other cranial fragments found at the same stratigraphic level has led to the identification of the only genetically typed Neanderthal of the Italian peninsula and has confirmed through direct dating that it belongs to a late Neanderthal. Our aim here is to re-evaluate the taxonomic affinities of the Mezzena mandible in a wide comparative framework using both comparative morphology and geometric morphometrics. The comparative sample includes mid-Pleistocene fossils, Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. This study of the Mezzena jaw shows that the chin region is similar to that of other late Neanderthals which display a much more modern morphology with an incipient mental trigone (e.g. Spy 1, La Ferrassie, Saint-Césaire). In our view, this change in morphology among late Neanderthals supports the hypothesis of anatomical change of late Neanderthals and the hypothesis of a certain degree of interbreeding with AMHs that, as the dating shows, was already present in the European territory. Our observations on the chin of the Mezzena mandible lead us to support a non abrupt phylogenetic transition for this period in Europe.
Link

Admixture and pigmentation in Cape Verde

 

The interesting thing about this paper is that it shows that one can explain skin color in people from Cape Verde better if one uses their proportion of African/European admixture, rather than by looking at individuals' genotypes at loci associated with the trait. This probably means that many loci of minor effect on the trait differentiate Europeans from Africans.
Prediction of skin color based on ancestry is much better than prediction of eye color from the same, which is not surprising since skin color is a highly polygenic trait.
PLoS Genet 9(3): e1003372. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003372
Genetic Architecture of Skin and Eye Color in an African-European Admixed Population
Sandra Beleza et al.
Abstract
Variation in human skin and eye color is substantial and especially apparent in admixed populations, yet the underlying genetic architecture is poorly understood because most genome-wide studies are based on individuals of European ancestry. We study pigmentary variation in 699 individuals from Cape Verde, where extensive West African/European admixture has given rise to a broad range in trait values and genomic ancestry proportions. We develop and apply a new approach for measuring eye color, and identify two major loci (HERC2[OCA2] P = 2.3×10−62, SLC24A5 P = 9.6×10−9) that account for both blue versus brown eye color and varying intensities of brown eye color. We identify four major loci (SLC24A5 P = 5.4×10−27, TYR P = 1.1×10−9, APBA2[OCA2] P = 1.5×10−8, SLC45A2 P = 6×10−9) for skin color that together account for 35% of the total variance, but the genetic component with the largest effect (~44%) is average genomic ancestry. Our results suggest that adjacent cis-acting regulatory loci for OCA2 explain the relationship between skin and eye color, and point to an underlying genetic architecture in which several genes of moderate effect act together with many genes of small effect to explain ~70% of the estimated heritability.

Link

Admixture in Southern Africa (Petersen et al. 2013)

Related:

• The genetic prehistory of southern Africa
• Genomic Variation in Seven Khoe-San Groups Reveals Adaptation and Complex African History

PLoS Genet 9(3): e1003309. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003309
Complex Patterns of Genomic Admixture within Southern Africa
Desiree C. Petersen et al.
Within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Africa, while between-population genetic diversity is directly proportional to geographic distance. The most divergent contemporary human populations include the click-speaking forager peoples of southern Africa, broadly defined as Khoesan. Both intra- (Bantu expansion) and inter-continental migration (European-driven colonization) have resulted in complex patterns of admixture between ancient geographically isolated Khoesan and more recently diverged populations. Using gender-specific analysis and almost 1 million autosomal markers, we determine the significance of estimated ancestral contributions that have shaped five contemporary southern African populations in a cohort of 103 individuals. Limited by lack of available data for homogenous Khoesan representation, we identify the Ju/'hoan (n = 19) as a distinct early diverging human lineage with little to no significant non-Khoesan contribution. In contrast to the Ju/'hoan, we identify ancient signatures of Khoesan and Bantu unions resulting in significant Khoesan- and Bantu-derived contributions to the Southern Bantu amaXhosa (n = 15) and Khoesan !Xun (n = 14), respectively. Our data further suggests that contemporary !Xun represent distinct Khoesan prehistories. Khoesan assimilation with European settlement at the most southern tip of Africa resulted in significant ancestral Khoesan contributions to the Coloured (n = 25) and Baster (n = 30) populations. The latter populations were further impacted by 170 years of East Indian slave trade and intra-continental migrations resulting in a complex pattern of genetic variation (admixture). The populations of southern Africa provide a unique opportunity to investigate the genomic variability from some of the oldest human lineages to the implications of complex admixture patterns including ancient and recently diverged human lineages.
Link

Genomewide structure of populations from European Russia (Khrunin et al. 2013)

Notice:

1. The intermediate position of Estonians between Balts and Finns
2. The intermediate position of some Russian groups between Komi and the main body of Europeans.

PLoS ONE 8(3): e58552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058552
A Genome-Wide Analysis of Populations from European Russia Reveals a New Pole of Genetic Diversity in Northern Europe
Andrey V. Khrunin et al.
Several studies examined the fine-scale structure of human genetic variation in Europe. However, the European sets analyzed represent mainly northern, western, central, and southern Europe. Here, we report an analysis of approximately 166,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms in populations from eastern (northeastern) Europe: four Russian populations from European Russia, and three populations from the northernmost Finno-Ugric ethnicities (Veps and two contrast groups of Komi people). These were compared with several reference European samples, including Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Poles, Czechs, Germans, and Italians. The results obtained demonstrated genetic heterogeneity of populations living in the region studied. Russians from the central part of European Russia (Tver, Murom, and Kursk) exhibited similarities with populations from central–eastern Europe, and were distant from Russian sample from the northern Russia (Mezen district, Archangelsk region). Komi samples, especially Izhemski Komi, were significantly different from all other populations studied. These can be considered as a second pole of genetic diversity in northern Europe (in addition to the pole, occupied by Finns), as they had a distinct ancestry component. Russians from Mezen and the Finnic-speaking Veps were positioned between the two poles, but differed from each other in the proportions of Komi and Finnic ancestries. In general, our data provides a more complete genetic map of Europe accounting for the diversity in its most eastern (northeastern) populations.
Link

Genomewide diversity in the Levant (Haber et al. 2013)

Razib points me to a new paper (and its associated data, consisting of Christian, Druze, and Muslim Lebanese).
Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture
Marc Haber et al.
The Levant is a region in the Near East with an impressive record of continuous human existence and major cultural developments since the Paleolithic period. Genetic and archeological studies present solid evidence placing the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula as the first stepping-stone outside Africa. There is, however, little understanding of demographic changes in the Middle East, particularly the Levant, after the first Out-of-Africa expansion and how the Levantine peoples relate genetically to each other and to their neighbors. In this study we analyze more than 500,000 genome-wide SNPs in 1,341 new samples from the Levant and compare them to samples from 48 populations worldwide. Our results show recent genetic stratifications in the Levant are driven by the religious affiliations of the populations within the region. Cultural changes within the last two millennia appear to have facilitated/maintained admixture between culturally similar populations from the Levant, Arabian Peninsula, and Africa. The same cultural changes seem to have resulted in genetic isolation of other groups by limiting admixture with culturally different neighboring populations. Consequently, Levant populations today fall into two main groups: one sharing more genetic characteristics with modern-day Europeans and Central Asians, and the other with closer genetic affinities to other Middle Easterners and Africans. Finally, we identify a putative Levantine ancestral component that diverged from other Middle Easterners ~23,700–15,500 years ago during the last glacial period, and diverged from Europeans ~15,900–9,100 years ago between the last glacial warming and the start of the Neolithic.
Link

Algerian Y chromosomes and mtDNA

Algerian Y chromosomes and mtDNA

From the paper:

For the R-M343 subdivision, the Iberian Peninsula reflects a genuine European profile [45] except for the presence of one Sahel R-V88 type. In contrast, all R-M343 detected in W. Saharan-Mauritanian belong to sub-group R-V88, reaching a frequency of 7%, similar to those observed in other Sahel samples [40]. In the Maghreb countries, the frequency of R-V88 drops to around 1%. On the other hand, the presence in this area of representatives of the European sub-groups R-M412, R-S116, R-U152 and R-M529 points to North-South maritime contacts across the Mediterranean

It would be interesting to estimate the depth of common ancestry of the North African "European" Y chromosomes to determine the epoch during which they arrived there, i.e., whether the common ancestry stems from recent historical contacts (Roman Empire, Vandals, etc.) or from the early settlement of both Mediterranean coasts during the arrival of R-M269 into Europe.

A few observations on Y-haplogroup frequencies:

• The ubuquity of haplogroup Q at trace frequencies in most regions except North Africa (only a little in ALG) is interesting and it's high time that someone looked at the relationship between West Eurasian Q-bearers and their much more numerous East Eurasian cousins.
• I find the paucity of Y-haplogroup I in North Africa noteworthy; given its high levels in most of Western Europe, its relative absence might indicate that the people who brought "European" R-M269 into N Africa were not occasional recent migrants, but rather earlier settlers. 
• The relative absence of J2 is expected, given that neither of the two main strata of population ("Berber" and "Arab") may have possessed it initially; it has also not been found in a historical sample from the Canary Islands, whereas its J1 counterpart has.
• The paucity of haplogroup G, which is the European Neolithic lineage par excellence probably argues against the involvement of the people who colonized Europe during the Early Neolithic in similar events on the south shore of the Mediterranean.
• The further study of F chromosomes could also be further attempted, given their possible involvement in the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia

The authors highlight that 80% of mtDNA is Eurasian vs. 90% of Y chromosomes. This might point to asymmetric gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa. Alternatively, it might point to some mtDNA that is characterized as non-Eurasian (because it does not belong to the M, N macro-haplogroups) being in fact so. It is a persistent question whether lineages that have a wide frequency differential in two regions do so because of gene flow (from the high- to low-frequency area), or because of other processes.

PLoS ONE 8(2): e56775. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056775

Introducing the Algerian Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Profiles into the North African Landscape

Asmahan Bekada et al.

North Africa is considered a distinct geographic and ethnic entity within Africa. Although modern humans originated in this Continent, studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome genealogical markers provide evidence that the North African gene pool has been shaped by the back-migration of several Eurasian lineages in Paleolithic and Neolithic times. More recent influences from sub-Saharan Africa and Mediterranean Europe are also evident. The presence of East-West and North-South haplogroup frequency gradients strongly reinforces the genetic complexity of this region. However, this genetic scenario is beset with a notable gap, which is the lack of consistent information for Algeria, the largest country in the Maghreb. To fill this gap, we analyzed a sample of 240 unrelated subjects from a northwest Algeria cosmopolitan population using mtDNA sequences and Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, focusing on the fine dissection of haplogroups E and R, which are the most prevalent in North Africa and Europe respectively. The Eurasian component in Algeria reached 80% for mtDNA and 90% for Y-chromosome. However, within them, the North African genetic component for mtDNA (U6 and M1; 20%) is significantly smaller than the paternal (E-M81 and E-V65; 70%). The unexpected presence of the European-derived Y-chromosome lineages R-M412, R-S116, R-U152 and R-M529 in Algeria and the rest of the Maghreb could be the counterparts of the mtDNA H1, H3 and V subgroups, pointing to direct maritime contacts between the European and North African sides of the western Mediterranean. Female influx of sub-Saharan Africans into Algeria (20%) is also significantly greater than the male (10%). In spite of these sexual asymmetries, the Algerian uniparental profiles faithfully correlate between each other and with the geography.

Link

Admixed populations in neighbor-joining trees

Admixed populations in neighbor-joining trees

Pac Symp Biocomput. 2013:273-84.

The behavior of admixed populations in neighbor-joining inference of population trees.

Kopelman NM, Stone L, Gascuel O, Rosenberg NA.

Abstract

Neighbor-joining is one of the most widely used methods for constructing evolutionary trees. This approach from phylogenetics is often employed in population genetics, where distance matrices obtained from allele frequencies are used to produce a representation of population relationships in the form of a tree. In phylogenetics, the utility of neighbor-joining derives partly from a result that for a class of distance matrices including those that are additive or tree-like-generated by summing weights over the edges connecting pairs of taxa in a tree to obtain pairwise distances-application of neighbor-joining recovers exactly the underlying tree. For populations within a species, however, migration and admixture can produce distance matrices that reflect more complex processes than those obtained from the bifurcating trees typical in the multispecies context. Admixed populations-populations descended from recent mixture of groups that have long been separated-have been observed to be located centrally in inferred neighbor-joining trees, with short external branches incident to the path connecting their source populations. Here, using a simple model, we explore mathematically the behavior of an admixed population under neighbor-joining. We show that with an additive distance matrix, a population admixed among two source populations necessarily lies on the path between the sources. Relaxing the additivity requirement, we examine the smallest nontrivial case-four populations, one of which is admixed between two of the other three-showing that the two source populations never merge with each other before one of them merges with the admixed population. Furthermore, the distance on the constructed tree between the admixed population and either source population is always smaller than the distance between the source populations, and the external branch for the admixed population is always incident to the path connecting the sources. We define three properties that hold for four taxa and that we hypothesize are satisfied under more general conditions: antecedence of clustering, intermediacy of distances, and intermediacy of path lengths. Our findings can inform interpretations of neighbor-joining trees with admixed groups, and they provide an explanation for patterns observed in trees of human populations.

Link

Higher Levels of Neanderthal Ancestry in East Asians Than in Europeans (Wall et al. 2013)

Higher Levels of Neanderthal Ancestry in East Asians Than in Europeans (Wall et al. 2013)

The title seems to say it all; such a conclusion was also arrived at by Meyer et al. (high coverage Denisova paper). However, the extent of this ancestry appears to be differently estimated in the new paper:

By using the high coverage Denisova genome, we are able to show that the admixture rate into East Asians is 40% higher than into Europeans.

Of course, the interesting question is why East Asians have this excess of Neandertal ancestry, given that Neandertals were a west Eurasian-distributed species (for the most part). Similarly, we would not have expected Australo-Melanesians to possess higher Denisovan admixture, and yet they do. Some models of multiregional evolution assumed regional continuity with pre-existing archaic populations in different parts of the world (e.g., Europeans with Neandertals), but clearly much more interesting things were taking place in deep prehistory.

Of particular interest is this conclusion:

In particular, at least some Neanderthal-modern human admixture must postdate the separation of the ancestors of modern European and modern East Asian populations.

The publication of Tianyuan has shown that by ~40kya, differentiation of Asians from Europeans was already on its way, and this is a date close to the disappearance of the Neandertals, the date of which is contested, but one can imagine that already-differentiated Eurasians may have encountered some lingering Neandertal groups.

Genetics doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.148213

Higher Levels of Neanderthal Ancestry in East Asians Than in Europeans

Jeffrey D. Wall et al.

Neanderthals were a group of archaic hominins that occupied most of Europe and parts of Western Asia from roughly 30-300 thousand years ago (Kya). They coexisted with modern humans during part of this time. Previous genetic analyses that compared a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome with genomes of several modern humans concluded that Neanderthals made a small (1-4%) contribution to the gene pools of all non-African populations. This observation was consistent with a single episode of admixture from Neanderthals into the ancestors of all non-Africans when the two groups coexisted in the Middle East 50-80 Kya. We examined the relationship between Neanderthals and modern humans in greater detail by applying two complementary methods to the published draft Neanderthal genome and an expanded set of high-coverage modern human genome sequences. We find that, consistent with the recent finding of Meyer et al. (2012), Neanderthals contributed more DNA to modern East Asians than to modern Europeans. Furthermore we find that the Maasai of East Africa have a small but significant fraction of Neanderthal DNA. Because our analysis is of several genomic samples from each modern human population considered, we are able to document the extent of variation in Neanderthal ancestry within and among populations. Our results combined with those previously published show that a more complex model of admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans is necessary to account for the different levels of Neanderthal ancestry among human populations. In particular, at least some Neanderthal-modern human admixture must postdate the separation of the ancestors of modern European and modern East Asian populations.

Link

Ancient mtDNA and gene flow from Siberia to NE Europe

Ancient mtDNA and gene flow from Siberia to NE Europe

I had mentioned the thesis by the lead author, and now a paper from it has been published. If anyone notices any new material in the new paper, feel free to highlight it in the comments.

PLoS Genet 9(2): e1003296. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

Ancient DNA Reveals Prehistoric Gene-Flow from Siberia in the Complex Human Population History of North East Europe

Clio Der Sarkissian et al.

North East Europe harbors a high diversity of cultures and languages, suggesting a complex genetic history. Archaeological, anthropological, and genetic research has revealed a series of influences from Western and Eastern Eurasia in the past. While genetic data from modern-day populations is commonly used to make inferences about their origins and past migrations, ancient DNA provides a powerful test of such hypotheses by giving a snapshot of the past genetic diversity. In order to better understand the dynamics that have shaped the gene pool of North East Europeans, we generated and analyzed 34 mitochondrial genotypes from the skeletal remains of three archaeological sites in northwest Russia. These sites were dated to the Mesolithic and the Early Metal Age (7,500 and 3,500 uncalibrated years Before Present). We applied a suite of population genetic analyses (principal component analysis, genetic distance mapping, haplotype sharing analyses) and compared past demographic models through coalescent simulations using Bayesian Serial SimCoal and Approximate Bayesian Computation. Comparisons of genetic data from ancient and modern-day populations revealed significant changes in the mitochondrial makeup of North East Europeans through time. Mesolithic foragers showed high frequencies and diversity of haplogroups U (U2e, U4, U5a), a pattern observed previously in European hunter-gatherers from Iberia to Scandinavia. In contrast, the presence of mitochondrial DNA haplogroups C, D, and Z in Early Metal Age individuals suggested discontinuity with Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and genetic influx from central/eastern Siberia. We identified remarkable genetic dissimilarities between prehistoric and modern-day North East Europeans/Saami, which suggests an important role of post-Mesolithic migrations from Western Europe and subsequent population replacement/extinctions. This work demonstrates how ancient DNA can improve our understanding of human population movements across Eurasia. It contributes to the description of the spatio-temporal distribution of mitochondrial diversity and will be of significance for future reconstructions of the history of Europeans.

Link

Southeast Asian Neolithic dogs

Southeast Asian Neolithic dogs

From the paper:

Nevertheless, the close phylogenetic clustering of haplotypes from Thailand, Brunei, Bali, and the Philippines suggests these populations originated from the same source, consistent with a single migration event, whereas the dingoes, NGSDs, and dogs from Taiwan appear sufficiently distinct from these to reflect a distinct migration event (Fig. 2b-c). The clustering of the three Island Southeast Asian populations with Thailand also was more consistent with origination from Mainland Southeast Asia than Taiwan (in agreement with mtDNA findings of Oskarsson et al. 2011).

and:

In light of findings from the present study, it seems clear that both post-Victorian and Neolithic exchanges link eastern and western Eurasian dogs. However, the cause of post-Victorian haplotype sharing between Western breed dogs and Southeast Asian village dogs apparently reflects very recent introduction of Western dogs to the East rather than extraction of Eastern dogs to create Western breeds during the Victorian Era.

and:

Specifically, our aging of this European haplogroup to 5,800 (±SE = 1750) or 8,400 (±SE = 2500) years (depending on the dingo calibration to 3,500 or 5,000 years, respectively) suggests that the connection between pre-Victorian European and Southeast Asian dogs traces only to the Neolithic period and is not of sufficient antiquity to support the hypothesis of a single origin of dogs from Southeast Asia. Thus, although future studies are needed to combine the Y SNPs and STR markers in a geographically broader sampling of dogs than was considered here, our findings support the hypothesis for a massive Neolithic expansion of dogs from Southeast Asia rather than a Paleolithic origin of dogs from this region.

This massive Neolithic expansion of Southeast Asian dogs is testable by looking at early European dogs; these ought not to belong to haplogroup H1. It would also be interesting to speculate about the trade routes and/or population movements that facilitated the spread of dogs from SE Asia to Europe during the Neolithic.

Mol Biol Evol (2013) doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst027

Y chromosome analysis of dingoes and Southeast Asian village dogs suggests a Neolithic continental expansion from Southeast Asia followed by multiple Austronesian dispersals

Benjamin N. Sacks et al.

Dogs originated >14,000 BP, but the location(s) where they first arose is uncertain. The earliest archaeological evidence of ancient dogs was discovered in Europe and the Middle East, some 5–7 millennia before that from Southeast Asia. However, mitochondrial DNA analyses suggest that most modern dogs derive from Southeast Asia, which has fueled the controversial hypothesis that dog domestication originated in this region despite the lack of supporting archaeological evidence. We propose and investigate with Y chromosomes an alternative hypothesis for the proximate origins of dogs from Southeast Asia--a massive Neolithic expansion of dogs from this region that largely replaced more primitive dogs to the west and north. Previous attempts to test matrilineal findings with independent patrilineal markers have lacked the necessary genealogical resolution and mutation rate estimates. Here, we used Y chromosome genotypes, composed of 29 SNPs and 5 STRs, from 338 Australian dingoes, New Guinea singing dogs, and village dogs from Island Southeast Asia, along with modern European breed dogs, to estimate the evolutionary mutation rates of Y chromosome STRs based on calibration to the independently known age of the dingo population. Dingoes exhibited a unique haplogroup characterized by a single distinguishing SNP mutation and 14 STR haplotypes. The age of the European haplogroup was estimated to be only 1.7 times older than that of the dingo population, suggesting an origin during the Neolithic rather than the Paleolithic (as predicted by the Southeast Asian origins hypothesis). We hypothesize that isolation of Neolithic dogs from wolves in Southeast Asia was a key step accelerating their phenotypic transformation, enhancing their value in trade and as cargo, and enabling them to rapidly expand and replace more primitive dogs to the West. Our findings also suggest that dingoes could have arrived in Australia directly from Taiwan, independently of later dispersals of dogs through Thailand to Island Southeast Asia.

Link

Ancestry Composition to be fixed

Ancestry Composition to be fixed

From the explanation at the relevant thread:

Ancestry Composition (AC) works by learning (training) a set of useful features from reference individuals with known ancestry (the training set) and then using these features to predict the ancestry of our customers.

Our set of reference individuals consists in part of customers who reported their 4 grandparents were born in the same country. Remember that we also remove the outliers, or people whose genetic ancestry doesn't match their survey answers. From this set, AC learns to associate certain haplotypes with their geographical origin. AC is then able to recognize similar haplotypes and thus to predict the ancestry of other customers.

However, when predicting the ancestry of reference individuals, AC suffers from overfitting, a problem common to many supervised learning methods. As a consequence, AC predicts the ancestry of most reference individuals as being 100% from their grandparents’ birthplace.

We addressed this issue using a method inspired from cross-validation. We divided the training set into 5 folds, each containing 20% of the reference individuals. We then trained 5 AC models in which each fold in turn is excluded from the set of reference individuals. So each of these models is learned using 80% of the reference individuals. Additionally, we retain the model that was trained using all the reference individuals. From this process, we end up with 6 different models from which we can predict the ancestry of our customers.

Now, when predicting the ancestry of a customer, we start by figuring out if he/she is a reference individual. If yes, we identify the fold in which the customer belongs, and we use the corresponding model for prediction. If not, we use the fold containing all of the reference data. This way, we ensure that AC was never trained using the haplotypes of the individual it tries to predict.

I had proposed basically the same solution about a month ago, and it's great that the issue is being addressed so soon after it first appeared. If any of the people who had written to me/commented on the topic get their new updated results and want to comment, feel free to do so in this post.

I am not sure how 23andMe plans to handle their Ancestry Composition feature in the future, but I would suggest that they periodically re-update it as they get more samples. According to a recent estimate, there are over 180,000 people in their database at the moment, a fraction of which meets the twin requirements of: (i) having 4 grandparents from the same country, and (ii) not being an outlier. As this number increases over time, it might be a good idea to occasionally re-partition the sample and re-calculate participants' ancestry composition results.

The fact that they are ready to roll out their updated results so soon after the initial ones tells me that they do have the computing power to do so, and it might be a good idea to update Ancestry Composition periodically, say on a quarterly basis or when a certain increase in the training set (say, 10%) is achieved. Eventually the admixture estimates may stabilize, in which case the way forward may involve rethinking the choice of ancestral populations currently in use.

Deep mtDNA substructure in southern Africa (Barbieri et al. 2013)

Deep mtDNA substructure in southern Africa (Barbieri et al. 2013)

The Khoisan have been used in many different ways in reconstructions of human history.

Being probably the most genetically diverse modern human population, they are occasionally viewed as akin to the ur-humans, with everyone else shedding diversity via founder effects as they moved away from a south African modern human urheimat.

They are also sometimes viewed as a basal branch of the human family tree, and they probably are -if modern humans are made to fit a tree model. But, modern humans didn't really evolve tree-like (some African farmers have Khoisan-like admixture, and the Khoisan themselves have relatively "shallow" common ancestry with other Africans and many Eurasians on account of their possession of a respectable frequency of Y-haplogroup E).

I have sometimes noted that in the case of South African groups were are lucky that the Khoisan exist as a discrete set of populations, making it easier to discern the legacy of South African hunter-gatherers in the genomes of immigrant farmers and pastoralists who converged southwards over the last few thousand years. This can be contrasted with the presumable situation in places like West Africa (the cradle of Sub-Saharan African farming), in which any indigenous hunter-gatherer groups have ceased to exist as distinct entities a long time ago.

A new AJHG paper sample south African genomes extensively and arrives at a startling conclusion. In the words of the authors:

Overall, the results of this analysis indicate that it is very unlikely that the highly divergent L0k1b/L0k2 lineages were incorporated into the Bantu-speaking populations via gene flow from a population that was ancestral to a Khoisan population in our sample but subsequently lost from the Khoisan population via drift. Instead, these results support the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Bantu-speaking populations carrying the divergent L0k lineages (who now live mainly in Zambia) experienced gene flow from a pre-Bantu population that is nowadays extinct. Alternatively, it is possible that descendants from this pre-Bantu population do exist but have not yet been included in population genetic studies; however, our extensive sampling of populations from Botswana, Namibia, andWest Zambia (which includes representatives of nearly all known Khoisan groups) makes it highly unlikely that this pre-Bantu Khoisan population has not yet been sampled.

In other words, we must resist the tendency to think of the Khoisan as representatives of all pre-Bantu south Africans. The Khoisan are certainly descendants of old south Africans, and represent a part of the pre-Bantu genetic landscape that retained its cultural distinctiveness (and hence can be nowadays sampled as a distinct population). But, there were other, now submerged, peaks in that landscape that are no longer extant in distinct form, but only in absorbed form in the gene pool of south African farmers.

This is fairly interesting in itself, and certainly ought to change our belief about what Africa looked like pre-Bantu expansion. We ought to think of, perhaps, a cornucopia of groups: many of them may have gone extinct; some may have been completely absorbed into more successful ones, and perhaps only a handful survive as distinct entities. Such a view would agree with the conclusions of physical anthropology about the persistence of archaic-leaning groups in parts of Africa down to the Holocene boundary.

The American Journal of Human Genetics, 17 January 2013 doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.12.010

Ancient Substructure in Early mtDNA Lineages of Southern Africa

Chiara Barbieri et al.


Among the deepest-rooting clades in the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) phylogeny are the haplogroups defined as L0d and L0k, which are found primarily in southern Africa. These lineages are typically present at high frequency in the so-called Khoisan populations of hunter-gatherers and herders who speak non-Bantu languages, and the early divergence of these lineages led to the hypothesis of ancient genetic substructure in Africa. Here we update the phylogeny of the basal haplogroups L0d and L0k with 500 full mtDNA genome sequences from 45 southern African Khoisan and Bantu-speaking populations. We find previously unreported subhaplogroups and greatly extend the amount of variation and time-depth of most of the known subhaplogroups. Our major finding is the definition of two ancient sublineages of L0k (L0k1b and L0k2) that are present almost exclusively in Bantu-speaking populations from Zambia; the presence of such relic haplogroups in Bantu speakers is most probably due to contact with ancestral pre-Bantu populations that harbored different lineages than those found in extant Khoisan. We suggest that although these populations went extinct after the immigration of the Bantu-speaking populations, some traces of their haplogroup composition survived through incorporation into the gene pool of the immigrants. Our findings thus provide evidence for deep genetic substructure in southern Africa prior to the Bantu expansion that is not represented in extant Khoisan populations.


Link

Gene flow between Indian populations and Australasia ~4,000 years ago

Gene flow between Indian populations and Australasia ~4,000 years ago

Only the press release is available so far, I will add the paper abstract when I see it on the PNAS website:

Researcher Irina Pugach and colleagues now analysed genetic variation from across the genome from aboriginal Australians, New Guineans, island Southeast Asians, and Indians. Their findings suggest substantial gene flow from India to Australia 4,230 years ago. i.e. during the Holocene and well before European contact. “Interestingly,” says Pugach, “this date also coincides with many changes in the archaeological record of Australia, which include a sudden change in plant processing and stone tool technologies, with microliths appearing for the first time, and the first appearance of the dingo in the fossil record. Since we detect inflow of genes from India into Australia at around the same time, it is likely that these changes were related to this migration.” 

Their analyses also reveal a common origin for populations from Australia, New Guinea and the Mamanwa – a Negrito group from the Philippines – and they estimated that these groups split from each other about 36,000 years ago. Mark Stoneking says: “This finding supports the view that these populations represent the descendants of an early ‘southern route’ migration out of Africa, while other populations in the region arrived later by a separate dispersal.“ This also indicates that Australians and New Guineans diverged early in the history of Sahul, and not when the lands were separated by rising sea waters around 8,000 years ago.

A relationship between Indian and Australasian populations has long been suspected on various grounds (e.g., HGDP Papuans often show membership in a "South Asian" ancestral component at low levels of resolution). It will be interesting to see the model proposed in the new paper about the admixture event leading to modern Australasians.

UPDATE: Ed Yong covers the story in Nature News:

Some aboriginal Australians can trace as much as 11% of their genomes to migrants who reached the island around 4,000 years ago from India, a study suggests. Along with their genes, the migrants brought different tool-making techniques and the ancestors of the dingo, researchers say1.

From World News Australia:

The study suggests that in addition to an earlier northern route of migration out of Africa, into Asia, and then South East Asia about 60,000 to 70,000 years ago, the second wave occurred much later, arriving during the Holocene period about 4,230 years ago.
...
“About that point in the archaeological record, there were significant changes in the use of stone tools, in hunting techniques and significantly, the introduction of the dingo,” Professor Cooper said.
...
There are other theories that may support the evidence of a more recent influx of migrants from India, including that they brought with them a disease of epidemic proportions that wiped out earlier Aboriginal populations.

UPDATE II: I added the abstract.

PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211927110

Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia 

Irina Pugach et al.

The Australian continent holds some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the expansion of modern humans out of Africa, with initial occupation at least 40,000 y ago. It is commonly assumed that Australia remained largely isolated following initial colonization, but the genetic history of Australians has not been explored in detail to address this issue. Here, we analyze large-scale genotyping data from aboriginal Australians, New Guineans, island Southeast Asians and Indians. We find an ancient association between Australia, New Guinea, and the Mamanwa (a Negrito group from the Philippines), with divergence times for these groups estimated at 36,000 y ago, and supporting the view that these populations represent the descendants of an early “southern route” migration out of Africa, whereas other populations in the region arrived later by a separate dispersal. We also detect a signal indicative of substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world. We estimate this gene flow to have occurred during the Holocene, 4,230 y ago. This is also approximately when changes in tool technology, food processing, and the dingo appear in the Australian archaeological record, suggesting that these may be related to the migration from India.

Link

Mating between Modern Humans, Neanderthals and other Archaics (Waddell & Tan 2012)

Mating between Modern Humans, Neanderthals and other Archaics (Waddell & Tan 2012)

arXiv:1212.6820 [q-bio.GN]

New g%AIC, g%AICc, g%BIC, and Power Divergence Fit Statistics Expose Mating between Modern Humans, Neanderthals and other Archaics

Peter J. Waddell, Xi Tan

The purpose of this article is to look at how information criteria, such as AIC and BIC, relate to the g%SD fit criterion derived in Waddell et al. (2007, 2010a). The g%SD criterion measures the fit of data to model based on a normalized weighted root mean square percentage deviation between the observed data and model estimates of the data, with g%SD = 0 being a perfectly fitting model. However, this criterion may not be adjusting for the number of parameters in the model comprehensively. Thus, its relationship to more traditional measures for maximizing useful information in a model, including AIC and BIC, are examined. This results in an extended set of fit criteria including g%AIC and g%BIC. Further, a broader range of asymptotically most powerful fit criteria of the power divergence family, which includes maximum likelihood (or minimum G^2) and minimum X^2 modeling as special cases, are used to replace the sum of squares fit criterion within the g%SD criterion. Results are illustrated with a set of genetic distances looking particularly at a range of Jewish populations, plus a genomic data set that looks at how Neanderthals and Denisovans are related to each other and modern humans. Evidence that Homo erectus may have left a significant fraction of its genome within the Denisovan is shown to persist with the new modeling criteria.

Link

Neandertal STAT2 haplotype in Eurasians

Neandertal STAT2 haplotype in Eurasians

Two recent papers have argued that African population structure or late Middle Paleolithic/Upper Paleolithic Neandertal admixture have contributed to the finding that Non-Africans appear to be a few percent more similar to Neandertals than Africans are across the genome. I would add that modern human admixture in the Vindija individual remains a distinct possibility.

What percentage of the ~3% Eurasian excess can be accounted by each of these three processes? The jury is out, and we won't find out until someone decides to tackle the problem comprehensively and/or new ancient DNA samples become available to inform the discussion. African population structure cannot be discounted, and intriguing new evidence may appear thanks to ancient DNA analysis.

But, there is a different approach to detecting Neandertal admixture that zeroes in on specific genomic locations and dissects them in great detail. This single-region approach provides evidence for admixture, without necessarily arguing about how extensive it was.

The single-region dissection was previously used in the Hammer lab to identify the first very convincing evidence for archaic admixture in Africans and Melanesians. In a new paper, Mendez et al. identify a small region in chromosome 12 that shows evidence for archaic introgression from Neandertals, or a species closely related to them.

But, it is worthwhile to begin with a list of other Neandertal introgression candidates from the literature:

Thus far, only a handful of loci have been hypothesized to have entered the human gene pool through archaic admixture and positive selection, including MAPT (MIM 157140),5 MCPH1 (MIM 607117),3 and particular alleles at the HLA locus (MIM 142800, 142830, 142840).6 However, analysis of the Neanderthal genome failed to provide evidence of introgressive alleles at the former two loci.1 Because of its role in fighting pathogens, HLA presents an instance where it is relatively easy to conceive of an a priori reason that acquisition of an archaic Eurasian HLA allele would benefit human ancestors, especially as they expanded into new habitats.7 However, the fact that HLA haplotypes are known to exhibit transspecific polymorphism and show evidence of strong balancing selection 8,9 increases the probability that similarities between modern and archaic haplotypes are due to ancestral shared polymorphism (i.e., as opposed to archaic admixture). In addition, the SNPs tagging the main HLA haplotype that was said to have introgressed were not observed in the Denisova or Neanderthal draft genomes. 

So, what lines of evidence support the notion that the new STAT2 haplotype is the "real deal"?

First, N matches the Neanderthal sequence at all 18 sites that fall within the resequenced 8.6 kb STAT2 region and have Neanderthal sequence coverage (Table 1). Second, N lineages are broadly distributed at relatively low frequencies in Eurasian populations (Figure 3) and are not observed in sub-Saharan African populations (Table S6). Third, the N haplotype extends for ~130 kb in West Eurasians and up to ~260 kb in some East Asians and Melanesians, producing much stronger LD than that observed in sub-Saharan Africans.

...

Given that the N lineage and the reference sequence diverged ~600 kya, these results suggest that population structure has influenced the recent evolution of this locus. Balancing selection alone is not expected to maintain this extent of LD and consequently is not sufficient to explain these patterns. Moreover, although a strong bottleneck could generate extended LD similar to the levels we observe near STAT2 in non-Africans, it would not explain why the N lineage went extinct in Africa (i.e., why the SNPs associated with the N lineage in non- Africans were not observed in sub-Saharan Africans that are part of our WGS or public SNP panels).

...

We point out that although a recent common ancestry between a human lineage and Neanderthal sequences might indicate gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans, this information alone does not inform us about the direction of gene flow. With the additional evidence of the observed extent of LD in modern human sequences, it is possible to infer that the N lineage introgressed into modern humans (either from Neanderthals or another archaic source that contributed to both Neanderthals and AMH).

Actually, the N haplotype is observed in North Africa, but this might be due to relatively recent back-migration. One might also argue that a recent bottleneck in a Eurasian population generated the high degree of LD, and the N haplotype was lost in a back-to-Africa migration, or North-to-Sub-Saharan Africa migration. But, that would not seem to explain how the deeply divergent lineage persisted in the North African population of proto-modern humans for such a long time; the evidence for recent common ancestry of N with the Neandertal haplotype would argue against incomplete lineage sorting (=inheritance of related forms of the haplotype from before the modern-Neandertal divergence).

All in all, this probably represents the best evidence for Neandertal-to-modern introgression to date. As full genomes of different human groups become available, it will be possible to automate this analysis and pick off other such strong signals. This may not indicate the level of admixture, but it might provide strong evidence against the idea of reproductive isolation between modern humans and Neandertals.

It is also noteworthy that this is barely consistent with the coastal migration theory with respect to the origin of Australo-Melanesians, because humans trekking along the coast would not have the opportunity to admix with Neandertals who are completely unattested there in either their physical, or archaeological (Mousterian) form.

But, it is consistent with my Out-of-Arabia theory. Australo-Melanesian Y chromosomes belong to the CF clade of the phylogeny. I have speculated that the post-70ka climate crisis in Arabia spurred some human groups to escape north (CF), and others to remain south (DE). The latter eventually gave rise to the major African lineage, heading west (E), as well as a relic Asian lineage heading east (D) that was later inundated by the descendants of CF. If Australo-Melanesians are descended from the CF folk who went north out of Arabia, then they too would have had the opportunity to admix with Neandertals in the Near East.

The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 91, Issue 2, 265-274, 10 August 2012

A Haplotype at STAT2 Introgressed from Neanderthals and Serves as a Candidate of Positive Selection in Papua New Guinea

Fernando L. Mendez, Joseph C. Watkins and Michael F. Hammer

Signals of archaic admixture have been identified through comparisons of the draft Neanderthal and Denisova genomes with those of living humans. Studies of individual loci contributing to these genome-wide average signals are required for characterization of the introgression process and investigation of whether archaic variants conferred an adaptive advantage to the ancestors of contemporary human populations. However, no definitive case of adaptive introgression has yet been described. Here we provide a DNA sequence analysis of the innate immune gene STAT2 and show that a haplotype carried by many Eurasians (but not sub-Saharan Africans) has a sequence that closely matches that of the Neanderthal STAT2. This haplotype, referred to as N, was discovered through a resequencing survey of the entire coding region of STAT2 in a global sample of 90 individuals. Analyses of publicly available complete genome sequence data show that haplotype N shares a recent common ancestor with the Neanderthal sequence (∼80 thousand years ago) and is found throughout Eurasia at an average frequency of ∼5%. Interestingly, N is found in Melanesian populations at ∼10-fold higher frequency (∼54%) than in Eurasian populations. A neutrality test that controls for demography rejects the hypothesis that a variant of N rose to high frequency in Melanesia by genetic drift alone. Although we are not able to pinpoint the precise target of positive selection, we identify nonsynonymous mutations in ERBB3, ESYT1, and STAT2—all of which are part of the same 250 kb introgressive haplotype—as good candidates.

Link

Ethiopian origins (Pagani et al. 2012)

Ethiopian origins (Pagani et al. 2012)

The study attempts to answer four questions:

Our current study is motivated by four questions. First, where do the Ethiopians stand in the African genetic landscape? Second, what is the extent of recent gene flow from outside Africa into Ethiopia, when did it occur, and is there evidence of selection effects? Third, do genomic data support a route for out-of-Africa migration of modern humans across the mouth of the Red Sea? Fourth, assuming temporal stability of current populations, what are the estimated ages of Ethiopian populations relative to other African groups?

Link to press release. Link the supplemental data.

The authors reiterate that modern humans left Africa 50-70kya, a hypothesis that seems to me pretty much dead in the light of recent archaeological evidence.

The lack of antiquity in the Ethiopian population, even in only the African component thereof argues against that population being ancestral to modern humans. Note that if the Out-of-East Africa hypothesis is correct, then skulls like Omo I represent ancestral modern humans and they are followed much later by modern humans anywhere else. So, while anatomical modernity may have emerged in East Africa --or maybe not; let's not forget that we have early modern skulls from the region in part because of the excellent preservation conditions and excess of scholarly interest-- there is no evidence that they spread from there.

I have little doubt that my own theory about substantial back-migration of Eurasians into Africa will eventually win the day. Of course, I am not referring to the recent (in the last 3,000 years) admixture with West Eurasians that the Ethiopian population has undergone, but rather to the more ancient migration that was probably associated with Y-haplogroup DE-YAP.

The fact that the African component of diverse African populations is more closely related to West than to East Eurasians is one piece of evidence among many for that scenario. Hopefully, it can be tested soon using whole genome data which may have enough density to detect much older admixture events.

UPDATE I: Since the dates in the paper are based on ROLLOFF, a piece of software that is not publicly available more than a year after its announcement, and which contradicts other software released by the same authors, I will take the Queen of Sheba stories circulated in the media with a huge grain of salt.

The American Journal of Human Genetics, 21 June 2012 doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.05.015

Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool

Luca Pagani et al.

Humans and their ancestors have traversed the Ethiopian landscape for millions of years, and present-day Ethiopians show great cultural, linguistic, and historical diversity, which makes them essential for understanding African variability and human origins. We genotyped 235 individuals from ten Ethiopian and two neighboring (South Sudanese and Somali) populations on an Illumina Omni 1M chip. Genotypes were compared with published data from several African and non-African populations. Principal-component and STRUCTURE-like analyses confirmed substantial genetic diversity both within and between populations, and revealed a match between genetic data and linguistic affiliation. Using comparisons with African and non-African reference samples in 40-SNP genomic windows, we identified “African” and “non-African” haplotypic components for each Ethiopian individual. The non-African component, which includes the SLC24A5 allele associated with light skin pigmentation in Europeans, may represent gene flow into Africa, which we estimate to have occurred ∼3 thousand years ago (kya). The African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula, but the principal route for the expansion out of Africa ∼60 kya remains unresolved. Linkage-disequilibrium decay with genomic distance was less rapid in both the whole genome and the African component than in southern African samples, suggesting a less ancient history for Ethiopian populations.

Link

Introgression of archaic haplotype at OAS1 in Melanesians (Mendez et al. 2012)

Introgression of archaic haplotype at OAS1 in Melanesians (Mendez et al. 2012)

It seems that Michael Hammer was good on his promise that in 2012 "This year, we should be able to confirm what we found and go way beyond that."  In a new paper, conclusive evidence is presented about introgression of an archaic sequence into Melanesian populations. The argument is as follows:

• Melanesians are more diverse in that region than Africans.
• The common ancestor of the "archaic" and "African" haplotypes lived >3 million years ago.
• The "archaic" haplotype matches the ancient DNA from the Denisova hominin.
• Balancing selection (which can sometimes maintain extremely old polymorphism) is not reasonable in this case, because it would need to maintain both "archaic" and "African" haplotypes for a long time, but then (inexplicably) would continue to operate in Melanesia and cease to operate everywhere else.

Notice that once again, this is based on resequencing a small region of the genome. This is why I am all the more confident in my prediction that the advent of full genome sequencing will uncover more archaic admixture in humans. It may not always be able to use all the above listed criteria to confirm this admixture (since we do not and cannot have ancient DNA from all the archaic hominins that once roamed the planet), but all the remaining ones will suffice to make a very good case for introgression.

What I find particularly interesting, is that Mendez et al. re-iterate a few times that genomewide averages admit to different explanations:

Full genome comparisons of the Neandertal and Denisova draft genomes with modern human sequences have revealed different amounts of shared ancestry between each of these archaic forms and anatomically modern human (AMH) populations from different geographic regions. For example, a higher proportion of SNPs was shared between non-African and Neandertal, and between Melanesian and the Denisova genomes, than between either Neandertal or Denisova and extant African genomes (Green et al. 2010; Reich et al. 2010). An intriguing possibility is that these patterns result from introgression of archaic genes into AMH populations in Eurasia. However, this SNP sharing pattern could also be explained by ancestral population structure in Africa (i.e., without the need to posit introgression). For example, if non-Africans and the ancestors of Neandertals descend from the same deme in a subdivided African population, and this structure persisted with low levels of gene flow among African residents until the ancestors of non-Africans migrated into Eurasia, then we would expect more SNP sharing between non-Africans and Neandertals (Durand et al. 2011). 

... 

While genome-wide comparisons detect more sequence agreement between non-African and Neandertal genomes, and between Melanesian and Denisova genomes, the specific loci exhibiting these signals have not yet been identified. Furthermore, current analyses do not elucidate the relative roles of recent introgression versus long-term population structure in Africa in explaining these patterns.

The current paper does a good job at showing how in one particular region archaic introgression into Melanesians is indeed the best explanation for the evidence. But, the fact that the authors seem to re-iterate the possibility of African population structure and repeatedly caution against using patterns of genomewide sharing between modern and archaic humans is a strong hint that there are more things to come on the topic.

We should remember that the widely-circulated estimates of Neandertal->Eurasian introgression are based on genomewide averages. It is true that Reich et al. (2010) identified 13 regions of potential Neandertal introgression, which together make up a very small portion of the human genome. So, the jury is out on whether African population structure or Neandertal introgression is responsible for most of the genomewide pattern.

What you can be sure of is that many scientists are busy lining up full genomes from different human populations as we speak, and finding plenty of regions where haplotypes of extremely old divergence times co-exist in our species. We will probably learn more about such efforts during 2012.



Mol Biol Evol (2012)doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr301

Global genetic variation at OAS1 provides evidence of archaic admixture in Melanesian populations

Fernando L. Mendez, Joseph C. Watkins and Michael F. Hammer

Recent analysis of DNA extracted from two Eurasian forms of archaic human show that more genetic variants are shared with humans currently living in Eurasia than with anatomically modern humans in sub-Saharan Africa. While these genome-wide average measures of genetic similarity are consistent with the hypothesis of archaic admixture in Eurasia, analyses of individual loci exhibiting the signal of archaic introgression are needed to test alternative hypotheses and investigate the admixture process. Here, we provide a detailed sequence analysis of the innate immune gene, OAS1, a locus with a divergent Melanesian haplotype that is very similar to the Denisova sequence from the Altai region of Siberia. We re-sequenced a 7 kb region encompassing the OAS1 gene in 88 individuals from 6 Old World populations (San, Biaka, Mandenka, French Basque, Han Chinese, and Papua New Guineans) and discovered previously unknown and ancient genetic variation. The 5' region of this gene has unusual patterns of diversity, including 1) higher levels of nucleotide diversity in Papuans than in sub-Saharan Africans, 2) very deep ancestry with an estimated time to the most recent common ancestor of >3 million years, and 3) a basal branching pattern with Papuan individuals on either side of the rooted network. A global geographic survey of >1500 individuals showed that the divergent Papuan haplotype is nearly restricted to populations from eastern Indonesia and Melanesia. Polymorphic sites within this haplotype are shared with the draft Denisova genome over a span of ∼90 kb and are associated with an extended block of linkage disequilibrium, supporting the hypothesis that this haplotype introgressed from an archaic source that likely lived in Eurasia.

Link