Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 122

Thread: Recent developments in aDNA and Interpretation in China

  1. #21
    Registered Users
    Posts
    454
    Sex

    O-M134(xM133) or O-M134(xM117) (i.e. probable O-F444):

    16/32 = 50.0% Mountain Kimmun (Cai et al. 2011)
    11/28 = 39.3% Blue Kimmun (Cai et al. 2011)
    12/33 = 36.4% Garo/South Garo Hills, Meghalaya (Kumar et al. 2007)
    30/89 = 33.7% Kazakh/SE Altai (Dulik et al. 2011) [23 of 31 Altai Kazakhs in this study share an identical 14-STR haplotype. Four others carry 14-STR haplotypes that differ from the modal haplotype at only one locus.]
    28/90 = 31.1% Deng/Zayü County, Nyingchi Prefecture, Tibet (Kang et al. 2011)
    8/35 = 22.9% Han/Harbin, Heilongjiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    16/71 = 22.5% Garo (Reddy et al. 2007)
    9/47 = 19.1% Han/Northwest (C Ning et al. 2015)
    3/16 = 18.8% Manchu (C Ning et al. 2015)
    15/92 = 16.3% Khasi (Kumar et al. 2007)
    9/56 = 16.1% Northern She (Cai et al. 2011)
    4/26 = 15.4% Sumatra, Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    34/225 = 15.1% Han/North (C Ning et al. 2015)
    14/93 = 15.1% Hui (C Ning et al. 2015)
    19/129 = 14.7% Han/North China (Yan et al. 2011)
    5/34 = 14.7% Han/Chengdu, Sichuan (Xue et al. 2006)
    64/450 = 14.2% Han/East (C Ning et al. 2015)
    5/36 = 13.9% Han/Southwest (C Ning et al. 2015)
    6/44 = 13.6% Pnar (Reddy et al. 2007)
    3/24 = 12.5% Hanoi, Vietnam (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    5/41 = 12.2% Xibe (Xue et al. 2006)
    4/33 = 12.1% Northern Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    4/33 = 12.1% Qiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    31/258 = 12.0% Han/Taiwan (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    5/43 = 11.6% Korean/(South) Korea (Xue et al. 2006)
    9/80 = 11.3% Han/Northeast (C Ning et al. 2015)
    18/167 = 10.8% Han/East China (Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Shanghai) (Yan et al. 2011)
    3/28 = 10.7% Bit (Cai et al. 2011)
    14/133 = 10.5% Korean/Daejeon, South Korea (Park et al. 2012)
    2/20 = 10.0% Mountain Straggler Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    54/573 = 9.4% Korean/Seoul, South Korea (Park et al. 2012)
    6/64 = 9.4% Maram (Reddy et al. 2007)
    14/158 = 8.9% Han/South (C Ning et al. 2015)
    3/34 = 8.8% Hani (Xue et al. 2006)
    3/35 = 8.6% Buyi (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/12 = 8.3% Muong (Cai et al. 2011)
    23/300 = 7.7% Korean (Park et al. 2013: "DNA samples from 300 unrelated Korean males were obtained
    from the National Biobank of Korea.")
    3/41 = 7.3% Lowland Kimmun (Cai et al. 2011)
    7/100 = 7.0% Miao/Hunan (Cai et al. 2011)
    6/87 = 6.9% Khynriam (Reddy et al. 2007)
    2/29 = 6.9% War-Khasi (Reddy et al. 2007)
    2/30 = 6.7% Han/Lanzhou, Gansu (Xue et al. 2006)
    3/45 = 6.7% Inner Mongolian (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/15 = 6.7% Kinh (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/30 = 6.7% Palyu (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/31 = 6.5% Pahng (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/32 = 6.3% Bugan (Cai et al. 2011)
    4/65 = 6.2% Han/South China (Yan et al. 2011)
    2/34 = 5.9% She (Xue et al. 2006)
    3/52 = 5.8% Blang (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/35 = 5.7% Manchu (Xue et al. 2006)
    2/35 = 5.7% Yao/Liannan, Guangdong (Xue et al. 2006)
    2/39 = 5.1% Uygur/Yili, Xinjiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/20 = 5.0% Burusho (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013)
    3/60 = 5.0% Minnan/Taiwan (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    2/41 = 4.9% Native Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    17/370 = 4.6% Taiwan Plains tribes (assimilated people in Taiwan with traditions of aboriginal ancestry; Trejaut et al. 2014)
    2/45 = 4.4% Hezhe (Nanai)/China (Xue et al. 2006)
    7/160 = 4.4% Mongol/Mongolia (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013)
    6/138 = 4.3% Kyrgyz & Uyghur/Kyrgyzstan (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013; total of 5/132 Kyrgyz from Kyrgyzstan plus 1/6 Uyghur from Kyrgyzstan)
    2/47 = 4.3% Japanese (Xue et al. 2006)
    2/47 = 4.3% Western Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    3/75 = 4.0% Thailand (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/25 = 4.0% Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/26 = 3.8% Ewenki (Evenk)/China (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/26 = 3.8% Hindu/Chitwan District, Nepal (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    2/55 = 3.6% Han/Fujian (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/29 = 3.4% Ava (Cai et al. 2011)
    9/263 = 3.4% Japanese (Nonaka et al. 2007)
    1/30 = 3.3% Kazakh/SW Altai (Dulik et al. 2011)
    1/31 = 3.2% Oroqen (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/31 = 3.2% Uygur/Urumqi, Xinjiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/31 = 3.2% Visayas, Philippines (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/32 = 3.1% Han/Yili, Xinjiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/34 = 2.9% Hakka/Taiwan (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/34 = 2.9% Li (Hlai)/Hainan (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/35 = 2.9% Han/Meixian, Guangdong (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/35 = 2.9% Hui (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/35 = 2.9% Tibetans (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/37 = 2.7% Zaomin (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/77 = 2.6% Kathmandu, Nepal (Gayden et al. 2007)
    3/130 = 2.3% Luoba/Mainling County, Nyingchi Prefecture, Tibet (Kang et al. 2011)
    1/45 = 2.2% East Indonesia total (Trejaut et al. 2014; sample size is 40 according to column D in Table S2, but the values in the rest of the table indicate a sample size of 45)
    1/45 = 2.2% Tamang (Gayden et al. 2007)
    1/50 = 2.0% Mal (Cai et al. 2011)
    3/156 = 1.9% Tibet (Gayden et al. 2007)
    1/60 = 1.7% Lyngngam (Reddy et al. 2007)
    1/65 = 1.5% Outer Mongolian (Xue et al. 2006)
    2/134 = 1.5% Tharu/Chitwan District, Nepal (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    2/146 = 1.4% Philippines total (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/74 = 1.4% Turkmen/Jawzjan, Afghanistan (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013)
    4/298 = 1.3% Buryat (Kharkov et al. 2014) [All in the sample from Oka region: 4/53 = 7.5%]
    2/196 = 1.0% Mongol (C Ning et al. 2015)
    0/11 = 0.0% Thin Board Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/11 = 0.0% Top Board Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/17 = 0.0% Sulawesi, Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/18 = 0.0% Ambon, Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/19 = 0.0% Flower-head Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/19 = 0.0% War-Jaintia (Reddy et al. 2007)
    0/24 = 0.0% Ivatan/Philippines (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/25 = 0.0% Korean/China (Xue et al. 2006)
    0/27 = 0.0% Akka/Thailand (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/28 = 0.0% Bo (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/29 = 0.0% Tribal/Andhra Pradesh, India (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    0/29 = 0.0% Xinhmul (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/31 = 0.0% Alak (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/31 = 0.0% Lowland Yao (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/31 = 0.0% Southern Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/32 = 0.0% Brau (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/32 = 0.0% Jeh (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/34 = 0.0% Inh (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/35 = 0.0% Lamet (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/35 = 0.0% Ngeq (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/35 = 0.0% Talieng (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/35 = 0.0% Yao/Bama, Guangxi (Xue et al. 2006)
    0/36 = 0.0% Bunu (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/37 = 0.0% Tharu/Morang District, Nepal (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    0/38 = 0.0% Aheu (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/38 = 0.0% Kataang (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/39 = 0.0% Daur (Xue et al. 2006)
    0/39 = 0.0% Suy (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/45 = 0.0% Katu (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/49 = 0.0% Hindu/New Delhi, India (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    0/49 = 0.0% Miao/Guizhou (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/49 = 0.0% Miao/Yunnan (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/50 = 0.0% Laven (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/50 = 0.0% Oy (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/50 = 0.0% So (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/51 = 0.0% Hmong Daw (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/51 = 0.0% Khmu (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/61 = 0.0% Luzon, Philippines (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/66 = 0.0% Newar (Gayden et al. 2007)
    0/141 = 0.0% Java, Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/355 = 0.0% unassimilated Taiwan aborigines (Trejaut et al. 2014)

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Observer (04-16-2017),  palamede (04-18-2017),  Pribislav (04-17-2017),  Ryukendo (04-15-2017),  Varun R (04-16-2017)

  3. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    819
    Sex

    Delete
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 04-15-2017 at 08:39 PM.

  4. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Ren, you can consult Jeong et al, Jeong et al and many other formal stat based analysis to find that the Sherpa and the 'highland component' forms even an outgroup to that East Asian ancestry found in Nganasan and Siberians. This is not an artifact of ADMIXTURE. In the treemixes that were posted earlier, the 30-20% highlander ancestry in Naxi and Yi were sufficient to pull them to an outgroup to both Northeast Asians such as Hezhen and Southeast Asians such as Cambodian, which are about as far apart as Finnish and Italian in Europe. This is not a trivial or drift-dominated level of genetic divergence we are talking about here.

    This appears repeatedly in basically all ADMIXTURE and STRUCTURE runs focused on East Asia and the allele frequencies, when extracted and run in formal stats like is done for Jeong et al in the first image, still preserves its level of divergence. It appears in the Nepalese 3kya genome at the same level (i.e. its not caused by recent drift in Tibetan after 3kya, unlike for Kalash which would have started drifting after Iron Age IAr input) so I would say its about as well supported as the Iran_N or EEF autosomal metapopulation in West Eurasia.




    Ren, you are ignoring a lot of recent research, which has strongly destabilized some of our prior notions about what even constitutes the 'cultures' at this time. For example, the later Yangshao is characterized by intense influence from the South and Southwest, with red and patterned ware replaced by black and grey ware, huge increase in proportion of polished stone tools (note that early and Middle Yangshao, despite being a Neolithic culture, used mainly flaked and other non-polished/contact-broken stone technology(!)), and the first appearance of the ritual vessels that we so strongly associate with Chinese sacrificial and ritual culture of the first sinitic states, like dou, ding and so on. It appears now that the earliest appearance of the various tripod vessels, as well as the first culture dominated by black ware, were in fact in the Taosi and later the 屈家岭 Qujialing culture of Southwest-central China. The Qujialing are especially characterized by frequency of 鼎 Ding vessels, which are conspicuously absent in early and middle Yangshao. The Liangzhu culture East of Yangshao underwent the same process of replacement of ware, even the burial rites were changed--which should be particularly glaring given the recent comments by Kristian Kristiansen regarding the close connection between cultural institutions and ideology and burial rite. Given these changes, some archaeologists are asking how we can even call early and late Yangshao and Liangzhu the same 'culture' and why we should stick to the older periodisation? The map must fit the territory, not the other way round.

    Note that the Qijia culture of Tibet is derived from middle-late yangshao after the post 5.5kya transformation, as opposed to having a purely local origin after introduction of earliest Yangshao. Also, its now widely recognized that the Erlitou city-state (the first state in China for those not in the know) received its elite burial rites and many cultic and cultural influences from the Shijiahe culture of Central-Southern China: 石家河文化, as opposed to being a purely local development.

    Lastly, the expansion of O-M117 in Han Chinese males (all the O-M117 in them comes from a recent subhaplogroup) is >1000 years offset from the expansion of the other two neolithic O3 'super grandfather' clades in China, O3-JST002611 and O3-F444--not quite in the Metal ages, but towards the terminal neolithic ~5.5kya, which almost exactly coincides with the period of centrifugal influences with the late Yangshao. This is not the case for the other two O3 subclades, as described in Shi yan et al. This was striking enough for them to state:



    Given that no O-M117 has been found in Miaozigou, a descendant of Yangshao, which is not expected if we analogize the situation to G2 and European Neolithic farmers, these are valid questions to ask.



    Mair is well aware of that fact--he points out that the pictogram of sacrificed goats or goats+weapon is associated with many juridical concepts in writing. The question here is, given that the animal most associated with sacrifice and ritual in the Yangshao is the Dog, why is it that the 'dog' radical is, in fact, associated with pejoratives in Chinese writing? Why are juridical, social, ritual, normative and positive concepts associated with ovicaprids in earliest Chinese writing, who appear on the scene much later than the Yangshao? The idea that the earliest Sinitics were confederated with Indo Europeans is indeed weird (not completely weird, because Sinitic has loanwords from Indo-European e.g. mi *myit 蜜 'honey' that other Sinotibetan languages don't have), but we should not thereby dismiss all his other work as crackpottery. This is a very real motif at work here.
    The TMRCA of F5 is 7300 ybp accord to yfull
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/O-M1706/
    One thing is interesting,CTS1642 is the important maker of Tibeto-Burman populations(such as Tibetans,northeast people of India,Burmese) and Dais from Xishuangbanna,Laos and Thais
    It seems after the the TMRCA of CTS1642 is very similar to the F5

  5. #24
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    O-M134(xM133) or O-M134(xM117) (i.e. probable O-F444):

    16/32 = 50.0% Mountain Kimmun (Cai et al. 2011)
    11/28 = 39.3% Blue Kimmun (Cai et al. 2011)
    12/33 = 36.4% Garo/South Garo Hills, Meghalaya (Kumar et al. 2007)
    30/89 = 33.7% Kazakh/SE Altai (Dulik et al. 2011) [23 of 31 Altai Kazakhs in this study share an identical 14-STR haplotype. Four others carry 14-STR haplotypes that differ from the modal haplotype at only one locus.]
    28/90 = 31.1% Deng/Zayü County, Nyingchi Prefecture, Tibet (Kang et al. 2011)
    8/35 = 22.9% Han/Harbin, Heilongjiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    16/71 = 22.5% Garo (Reddy et al. 2007)
    9/47 = 19.1% Han/Northwest (C Ning et al. 2015)
    3/16 = 18.8% Manchu (C Ning et al. 2015)
    15/92 = 16.3% Khasi (Kumar et al. 2007)
    9/56 = 16.1% Northern She (Cai et al. 2011)
    4/26 = 15.4% Sumatra, Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    34/225 = 15.1% Han/North (C Ning et al. 2015)
    14/93 = 15.1% Hui (C Ning et al. 2015)
    19/129 = 14.7% Han/North China (Yan et al. 2011)
    5/34 = 14.7% Han/Chengdu, Sichuan (Xue et al. 2006)
    64/450 = 14.2% Han/East (C Ning et al. 2015)
    5/36 = 13.9% Han/Southwest (C Ning et al. 2015)
    6/44 = 13.6% Pnar (Reddy et al. 2007)
    3/24 = 12.5% Hanoi, Vietnam (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    5/41 = 12.2% Xibe (Xue et al. 2006)
    4/33 = 12.1% Northern Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    4/33 = 12.1% Qiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    31/258 = 12.0% Han/Taiwan (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    5/43 = 11.6% Korean/(South) Korea (Xue et al. 2006)
    9/80 = 11.3% Han/Northeast (C Ning et al. 2015)
    18/167 = 10.8% Han/East China (Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Shanghai) (Yan et al. 2011)
    3/28 = 10.7% Bit (Cai et al. 2011)
    14/133 = 10.5% Korean/Daejeon, South Korea (Park et al. 2012)
    2/20 = 10.0% Mountain Straggler Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    54/573 = 9.4% Korean/Seoul, South Korea (Park et al. 2012)
    6/64 = 9.4% Maram (Reddy et al. 2007)
    14/158 = 8.9% Han/South (C Ning et al. 2015)
    3/34 = 8.8% Hani (Xue et al. 2006)
    3/35 = 8.6% Buyi (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/12 = 8.3% Muong (Cai et al. 2011)
    23/300 = 7.7% Korean (Park et al. 2013: "DNA samples from 300 unrelated Korean males were obtained
    from the National Biobank of Korea.")
    3/41 = 7.3% Lowland Kimmun (Cai et al. 2011)
    7/100 = 7.0% Miao/Hunan (Cai et al. 2011)
    6/87 = 6.9% Khynriam (Reddy et al. 2007)
    2/29 = 6.9% War-Khasi (Reddy et al. 2007)
    2/30 = 6.7% Han/Lanzhou, Gansu (Xue et al. 2006)
    3/45 = 6.7% Inner Mongolian (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/15 = 6.7% Kinh (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/30 = 6.7% Palyu (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/31 = 6.5% Pahng (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/32 = 6.3% Bugan (Cai et al. 2011)
    4/65 = 6.2% Han/South China (Yan et al. 2011)
    2/34 = 5.9% She (Xue et al. 2006)
    3/52 = 5.8% Blang (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/35 = 5.7% Manchu (Xue et al. 2006)
    2/35 = 5.7% Yao/Liannan, Guangdong (Xue et al. 2006)
    2/39 = 5.1% Uygur/Yili, Xinjiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/20 = 5.0% Burusho (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013)
    3/60 = 5.0% Minnan/Taiwan (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    2/41 = 4.9% Native Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    17/370 = 4.6% Taiwan Plains tribes (assimilated people in Taiwan with traditions of aboriginal ancestry; Trejaut et al. 2014)
    2/45 = 4.4% Hezhe (Nanai)/China (Xue et al. 2006)
    7/160 = 4.4% Mongol/Mongolia (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013)
    6/138 = 4.3% Kyrgyz & Uyghur/Kyrgyzstan (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013; total of 5/132 Kyrgyz from Kyrgyzstan plus 1/6 Uyghur from Kyrgyzstan)
    2/47 = 4.3% Japanese (Xue et al. 2006)
    2/47 = 4.3% Western Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    3/75 = 4.0% Thailand (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/25 = 4.0% Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/26 = 3.8% Ewenki (Evenk)/China (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/26 = 3.8% Hindu/Chitwan District, Nepal (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    2/55 = 3.6% Han/Fujian (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/29 = 3.4% Ava (Cai et al. 2011)
    9/263 = 3.4% Japanese (Nonaka et al. 2007)
    1/30 = 3.3% Kazakh/SW Altai (Dulik et al. 2011)
    1/31 = 3.2% Oroqen (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/31 = 3.2% Uygur/Urumqi, Xinjiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/31 = 3.2% Visayas, Philippines (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/32 = 3.1% Han/Yili, Xinjiang (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/34 = 2.9% Hakka/Taiwan (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/34 = 2.9% Li (Hlai)/Hainan (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/35 = 2.9% Han/Meixian, Guangdong (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/35 = 2.9% Hui (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/35 = 2.9% Tibetans (Xue et al. 2006)
    1/37 = 2.7% Zaomin (Cai et al. 2011)
    2/77 = 2.6% Kathmandu, Nepal (Gayden et al. 2007)
    3/130 = 2.3% Luoba/Mainling County, Nyingchi Prefecture, Tibet (Kang et al. 2011)
    1/45 = 2.2% East Indonesia total (Trejaut et al. 2014; sample size is 40 according to column D in Table S2, but the values in the rest of the table indicate a sample size of 45)
    1/45 = 2.2% Tamang (Gayden et al. 2007)
    1/50 = 2.0% Mal (Cai et al. 2011)
    3/156 = 1.9% Tibet (Gayden et al. 2007)
    1/60 = 1.7% Lyngngam (Reddy et al. 2007)
    1/65 = 1.5% Outer Mongolian (Xue et al. 2006)
    2/134 = 1.5% Tharu/Chitwan District, Nepal (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    2/146 = 1.4% Philippines total (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    1/74 = 1.4% Turkmen/Jawzjan, Afghanistan (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013)
    4/298 = 1.3% Buryat (Kharkov et al. 2014) [All in the sample from Oka region: 4/53 = 7.5%]
    2/196 = 1.0% Mongol (C Ning et al. 2015)
    0/11 = 0.0% Thin Board Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/11 = 0.0% Top Board Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/17 = 0.0% Sulawesi, Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/18 = 0.0% Ambon, Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/19 = 0.0% Flower-head Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/19 = 0.0% War-Jaintia (Reddy et al. 2007)
    0/24 = 0.0% Ivatan/Philippines (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/25 = 0.0% Korean/China (Xue et al. 2006)
    0/27 = 0.0% Akka/Thailand (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/28 = 0.0% Bo (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/29 = 0.0% Tribal/Andhra Pradesh, India (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    0/29 = 0.0% Xinhmul (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/31 = 0.0% Alak (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/31 = 0.0% Lowland Yao (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/31 = 0.0% Southern Mien (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/32 = 0.0% Brau (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/32 = 0.0% Jeh (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/34 = 0.0% Inh (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/35 = 0.0% Lamet (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/35 = 0.0% Ngeq (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/35 = 0.0% Talieng (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/35 = 0.0% Yao/Bama, Guangxi (Xue et al. 2006)
    0/36 = 0.0% Bunu (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/37 = 0.0% Tharu/Morang District, Nepal (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    0/38 = 0.0% Aheu (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/38 = 0.0% Kataang (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/39 = 0.0% Daur (Xue et al. 2006)
    0/39 = 0.0% Suy (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/45 = 0.0% Katu (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/49 = 0.0% Hindu/New Delhi, India (Fornarino et al. 2009)
    0/49 = 0.0% Miao/Guizhou (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/49 = 0.0% Miao/Yunnan (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/50 = 0.0% Laven (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/50 = 0.0% Oy (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/50 = 0.0% So (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/51 = 0.0% Hmong Daw (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/51 = 0.0% Khmu (Cai et al. 2011)
    0/61 = 0.0% Luzon, Philippines (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/66 = 0.0% Newar (Gayden et al. 2007)
    0/141 = 0.0% Java, Indonesia (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    0/355 = 0.0% unassimilated Taiwan aborigines (Trejaut et al. 2014)
    Lu Yan's Phd thesis 中国西部人群的遗传混合(in Chinese)
    http://www.docin.com/p-1081415979.html
    http://www.ranhaer.org/attachments/f...c4194b696b.jpg

  6. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    There is another Phd thesis,but in Russian,the original link can't work now,but I post it in this forum
    http://www.ranhaer.org/thread-18463-1-4.html
    http://www.ranhaer.org/attachments/f....png.thumb.jpg

  7. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    454
    Sex

    Thank you for sharing additional data, sahaliyan.

    The table from that Chinese study to which you have linked indicates that O-M134(xM117) is very frequent (42/87 = 48.3%) among Kazakhs in Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture. This supplements the data from Dulik et al. 2011 that indicate a high frequency (30/89 = 33.7%) of O-M134(xM117) among Kazakhs across the border (either directly or via Bayan-Ölgii Province of westernmost Mongolia) in the southeastern part of Altai Republic, Russia. One may predict from these two data points that the Kazakhs of Bayan-Ölgii also should exhibit a high frequency of O-M134(xM117). However, Kazakhs sampled from areas further south or east of Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture, such as Changji (6/80 = 7.5% O-M134(xM117)) or Hami (3/101 = 3.0% O-M134(xM117)), do not exhibit notably high frequencies of this haplogroup. Therefore, one may infer that a high frequency of a recently expanded subclade of O-F444 characterizes a northeastern subgroup of Kazakhs, who inhabit areas extending between SE Altai and Ili.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dulik [I]et al.[/I] 2011
    The resulting estimates showed similarities between haplogroups and populations (Altaian Kazakh compared to indigenous Kazakh). Rho statistic estimates using the pedigree Y-STR mutation rate yielded coalescence dates for haplogroups C3* and C3c that were consistent with a source roughly 800 years ago
    (Table 4). Haplogroup O3a3c* had a much more recent TMRCA of approximately 400 years ago. These results were consistent for haplotypes from Altaian Kazakhs and indigenous Kazakhs, suggesting that these populations arose from a common source and experienced similar population histories. Furthermore, the comparable estimates for C3* and C3c and their occurrence in all Kazakh populations imply that both haplogroups were present in the ancestral population. Yet, the standard deviations for these
    estimates were large, and encompassed 800 to 1,300 years, depending on the data set. This time frame is centered close to the dates of the expansion of the Mongol empire [18], which also reflect the estimates generated by Zerjal et al. [14,18]. By contrast, haplogroup O3a3c* appeared to represent a later expansion that would have occurred around the emergence of the Kazakh ethnic group.
    This Northeastern Kazakh O-M134(xM117) appears to be a phenomenon that is mostly internal to the Kazakh ethnic group and of very recent origin. O-M134(xM117) representatives among Oirat (including Kalmyk) and Kyrgyz populations should be tested in order to gauge their affinity with these Kazakhs.

    However, the fact remains that O-M134(xM117) is a typically Chinese Y-DNA haplogroup, found especially among native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. It is not found regularly among Siberians or among extreme Southeast Asians (Austroasiatic-speaking tribal populations in mainland Southeast Asia or Austronesian-speaking populations in the islands). It does appear to be quite common among minority ethnic groups within the modern borders of China, but that may be ascribable to gene flow from Han over the course of the past two millennia. Its significant presence among Koreans and Vietnamese is predictable; the mainstream populations of those countries have had close political and cultural connections with China over at least the past two millennia, have historically used the Chinese language as their written language, use very large numbers of words of Chinese etymology, and generally exhibit signs of strong and fairly recent genetic influx from China. It is plausible that the O-M134(xM117) clan that has expanded among the Kazakhs over the past millennium may be of medieval Chinese ancestry.

    The apparently strong presence of O-M134(xM117) among the Garos, who live in the western parts of the state of Meghalaya in Northeast India, and among the Deng people in Zayü County of southeastern Tibet may be important clues for elucidating the origins of the Sino-Tibetan languages because those populations are unlikely to have received strong gene flow from Han Chinese people.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Megalophias (04-16-2017),  okarinaofsteiner (03-26-2018),  palamede (04-18-2017),  Pribislav (04-17-2017),  Ryukendo (02-24-2019)

  9. #27
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    Thank you for sharing additional data, sahaliyan.

    The table from that Chinese study to which you have linked indicates that O-M134(xM117) is very frequent (42/87 = 48.3%) among Kazakhs in Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture. This supplements the data from Dulik et al. 2011 that indicate a high frequency (30/89 = 33.7%) of O-M134(xM117) among Kazakhs across the border (either directly or via Bayan-Ölgii Province of westernmost Mongolia) in the southeastern part of Altai Republic, Russia. One may predict from these two data points that the Kazakhs of Bayan-Ölgii also should exhibit a high frequency of O-M134(xM117). However, Kazakhs sampled from areas further south or east of Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture, such as Changji (6/80 = 7.5% O-M134(xM117)) or Hami (3/101 = 3.0% O-M134(xM117)), do not exhibit notably high frequencies of this haplogroup. Therefore, one may infer that a high frequency of a recently expanded subclade of O-F444 characterizes a northeastern subgroup of Kazakhs, who inhabit areas extending between SE Altai and Ili.



    This Northeastern Kazakh O-M134(xM117) appears to be a phenomenon that is mostly internal to the Kazakh ethnic group and of very recent origin. O-M134(xM117) representatives among Oirat (including Kalmyk) and Kyrgyz populations should be tested in order to gauge their affinity with these Kazakhs.

    However, the fact remains that O-M134(xM117) is a typically Chinese Y-DNA haplogroup, found especially among native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. It is not found regularly among Siberians or among extreme Southeast Asians (Austroasiatic-speaking tribal populations in mainland Southeast Asia or Austronesian-speaking populations in the islands). It does appear to be quite common among minority ethnic groups within the modern borders of China, but that may be ascribable to gene flow from Han over the course of the past two millennia. Its significant presence among Koreans and Vietnamese is predictable; the mainstream populations of those countries have had close political and cultural connections with China over at least the past two millennia, have historically used the Chinese language as their written language, use very large numbers of words of Chinese etymology, and generally exhibit signs of strong and fairly recent genetic influx from China. It is plausible that the O-M134(xM117) clan that has expanded among the Kazakhs over the past millennium may be of medieval Chinese ancestry.

    The apparently strong presence of O-M134(xM117) among the Garos, who live in the western parts of the state of Meghalaya in Northeast India, and among the Deng people in Zayü County of southeastern Tibet may be important clues for elucidating the origins of the Sino-Tibetan languages because those populations are unlikely to have received strong gene flow from Han Chinese people.
    I don't think O-M134(xM117) is a typically Chinese Y-DNA haplogroup,it maybe common in northern Chinese,but not that so in southern Chinese,in some samples even lower than Koreans,and in large samples of Vietnamese,F444 is not common in Vietnamese either
    http://www.ranhaer.org/thread-33202-1-3.html
    Da Nang,Kinh F444 1/35
    Hai Phong,Kinh F444 0/16
    Ho Chi MinhKinh F444 1/29
    Hanoi,Kinh F444 2/34
    Cao Bang Kinh F444 is 0/14
    Total 3.1%,but their C2 4.7%,so M217 more common in Kinhs than F444
    The Kazakh Naymans are L1360,the Kazakhs live in ili and altai republic are mostly Naymans(But in Lu Yan paper,she tested many Albans in Ili,the Albans are mostly star cluster,the Kazakhs live in Changji and Hami are mostly Abak-Kereys,they are mostly C2 star cluster too),but as I posted in this article,include the Naymans,there are at least 3 L1360 branches in Dasht-i-Kipshak(one in Bashkir Bikatin tribe,another in Karakalpaks),we should check all those L1360 branches,then we can figure out the origin of Nayman L1360s,another tribe of Kazakhs mainly are F444 is Zhagalbaily of the little juz ,but their F444 is not L1360(as I point out their F444 is cts335,and in 17 makers,have close matches of Manchus and Han from Manchuria,http://www.ranhaer.org/attachments/f....thumb.jpg),so of different origin.The Kyghiz F444 is also of different origin(one branch maybe close relatives of F4249,but their F444 samples are diverse).The F444 samples in Kalmykia is F4249,common in Dorwod and found in some Khoshod samples.
    And Lu Yan paper,there are 9.09% F444 in the Uyghurs of Turpan,the total O in Turpan is 10.49%,the total O of Gotan is 14.23%,but the Gotan O is more diverse,more branches found,F444 is not that common
    The origin of F444 I think is northern frontier of China,this region used to be lived by so-called Rong-Di people,later the Chinese and northern namads partitioned this region,and most of the local people became Chinese,some became the nomads,the languages of local people were unknown
    The Follow cultures worth noting:Haishengbulang culture,Laohushan culture(4500-4300 ybp,in central-south innner Mongolia,north-central Shanxi and northern Shaanxi),Shimao cite(the famous anciet city in northern Shaanxi,conquered and destroyed the Taosi site),Zhukaigou culture,lower Xiajiadian culture,Lijiaya culture,and the Shang dynasty.
    By the way,there were M217 in northeast India too,can we say M217 is a sono-Tibetan maker?Of course not,maybe the ancestors of northeast Indians are neighbours of some M217 branches and so M217 appeared in northeast India is not a surprise
    Last edited by sahaliyan; 04-16-2017 at 08:23 AM.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sahaliyan For This Useful Post:

     Megalophias (04-16-2017),  palamede (04-18-2017),  Ryukendo (10-05-2018)

  11. #28
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    By the way,in this paper,they said
    http://www.ranhaer.org/thread-34816-1-1.html
    In our ADMIXTURE analyses we find an East Asian ancestry component at K=15 in all Iron Age samples that has not been detected in preceding Bronze Age populations in either western or eastern parts of the Eurasian Steppe. Another ancestral component that is maximized in the north Siberian Nganasan population becomes visible from the 2nd millennium BCE onwards in the eastern steppe (Okunevo, Karasuk, Mezhovskaya). This component appears later in all Iron Age populations but with significantly higher levels in the eastern steppe zone than in the West.

    so two East Eurasian ancestry components found in iron age steppe people.one of them from Siberia,but another is clearly not,this one is from south(In our ADMIXTURE analyses we find an East Asian ancestry component at K=15 in all Iron Age samples that has not been detected in preceding Bronze Age populations in either western or eastern parts of the Eurasian Stepp)
    And we even can see these in mtdna,for example,mt-F2a has found in iron age steppe samples,this branch is undoubtly from the south
    But this component couldn't from very south,because in Dodecad K12b,The Mongolians East Asian is 44.6%,the Siberian is 36.1%,but Southeast Asian is 0.5%.While all the northern Chinese samples have 20+% southeat Asian,so the Mongolians can not have recent Chinese ancestry,so are the Kazakhs.
    http://www.ranhaer.org/attachments/f...457c0f9d30.png

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to sahaliyan For This Useful Post:

     palamede (04-18-2017)

  13. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    373
    Sex
    Location
    Erebuni
    Ethnicity
    Armenian Urartian
    Y-DNA
    J1

    Armenia
    Ryukendo

    Thanks for this summary. I have a little bit different question.

    What You think to what historic event is related the invasion of Q1a1 in to deep China 3000 years ago? Who can be this people?

    ≠=======================

    Ancient DNA evidence reveals that the Y chromosome haplogroup Q1a1 admixed into the Han Chinese 3,000 years ago

    Abstract

    Objectives

    Y chromosome haplogroup Q1a1 is found almost only in Han Chinese populations. However, it has not been found in ancient Han Chinese samples until now. Thus, the origin of haplogroup Q1a1 in Han Chinese is still obscure. This study attempts to provide answer to this question, and to uncover the origin and paternal genetic structure of the ancestors of the Han Chinese.
    Methods

    Eighty-nine ancient human remains that were excavated from the presumed geographic source of the Han Chinese and dated to approximately 3,000 years ago were treated by the amelogenin gene polymerase chain reaction test, to determine their sex. Then, Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms were subsequently analyzed from the samples detected as male.
    Results

    Samples from 27 individuals were successfully amplified. Their haplotypes could be attributed to haplogroups N, O*, O2a, O3a, and Q1a1. Analyses showed that the assigned haplogroup of each sample is correlated to the suspected social status and observed burial custom associated with the sample.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...6-7ef1e987ae27

  14. #30
    Registered Users
    Posts
    454
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by sahaliyan View Post
    And we even can see these in mtdna,for example,mt-F2a has found in iron age steppe samples,this branch is undoubtly from the south
    But this component couldn't from very south,because in Dodecad K12b,The Mongolians East Asian is 44.6%,the Siberian is 36.1%,but Southeast Asian is 0.5%.While all the northern Chinese samples have 20+% southeat Asian,so the Mongolians can not have recent Chinese ancestry,so are the Kazakhs.
    http://www.ranhaer.org/attachments/f...457c0f9d30.png
    Human autosomal variation in eastern Asia is clinal, and cannot be divided into discrete, mutually exclusive "Siberian," "East Asian," and "Southeast Asian" units in such a manner as you have presumed. Autosomal clustering analyses of that sort will show Japanese people to be approximately 40% Southeast Asian, 40% East Asian, and 20% Siberian when given a typical set of eastern Asian population samples, but haplotype data show that the Japanese are certainly not a 40%/40%/20% mixture of recent Southeast Asians, East Asians, and Siberians.

    By the way, here are some data from Poznik et al. 2016 regarding the 1000 Genomes Project samples from eastern Asia:

    KHV (Kinh in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam)
    4/46 = 8.7% O-F444

    CDX (Chinese Dai in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan)
    1/50 = 2.0% O-F444

    CHS (Southern Han Chinese from Hunan & Fujian)
    4/52 = 7.7% O-F444
    [However, note that YFull includes two additional members of CHS, HG00427 and HG00512, within the O-F444 section of its tree. These two individuals have been excluded from the sample set of Poznik et al. 2016 for some reason that has not been stated explicitly as far as I know.]

    CHB (Han Chinese in Beijing)
    8/46 = 17.4% O-F444

    JPT (Japanese in Tokyo)
    3/56 = 5.4% O-F444

    One of the Kinh Vietnamese (HG02050) and one of the Japanese (NA19083) belong to O-F3451, the most basal branch of O-F444 discovered so far. Chao Ning et al. 2015 have found O-F3451 in 4/225 = 1.8% of Han from North China, 6/450 = 1.3% of Han from East China, 2/158 = 1.3% of Han from South China, 0/16 Manchu, 0/36 Han from Southwest China, 0/47 Han from Northwest China, 0/80 Han from Northeast China, 0/93 Hui, and 0/196 Mongol. Furthermore, one of the Han from Beijing (NA18635) belongs to O-F629(xF46), the second most basal branch of O-F444, which Chao Ning et al. 2015 have found only in one individual in their sample of 450 Han from East China. The remaining members of O-F444 all belong to the O-CTS2643 subclade, which has produced five distinct extant descendant lineages approximately 8,600 [7,800 <-> 9,300] ybp according to YFull.

    O-F444 and O-M117 share a common ancestor approximately 17,600 [15,900 <-> 19,300] ybp according to YFull. From that time until the radiation of O-CTS2643 approximately 9,000 years later, only a few branches are attested: the O-F629(xF46) lineage of NA18635 from Beijing diverged from the direct ancestor of O-CTS2643 about 13,000 [11,300 <-> 14,900] ybp, the O-F3451(xY31255) lineage of HG02050 from Ho Chi Minh City diverged from the direct ancestor of O-Y31255 about 11,100 [8,600 <-> 13,800] ybp, and the O-Y31255 lineage of NA19083 from Tokyo diverged from the direct ancestor of YF08702, who is reported to be from Sichuan, about 9,100 [7,000 <-> 11,600] ybp.

    My best guess at this point is that O-F444 has originated in and dispersed from the eastern part of North China: roughly an area encompassing Hebei, Henan, and Shandong, including the lower reaches of the Yellow River and the heartland of the Shang (Yin) state. It probably has been spread to Korea, Vietnam, Japan, etc. by emigrants or refugees bearing classical Chinese culture.

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Michał (04-17-2017),  Observer (04-16-2017),  okarinaofsteiner (03-26-2018),  Pribislav (04-17-2017),  Ryukendo (04-17-2017),  Tsakhur (04-17-2017)

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New developments in L448>YP355
    By ocleirigh in forum R1a-Z283
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-29-2016, 08:31 AM
  2. Interpretation of 2 Gedmatch Tests
    By MBW1986 in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-31-2015, 03:59 PM
  3. Gedmatch data interpretation
    By Kdckaw in forum Inquiries Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2015, 07:08 AM
  4. DNA Ethnicity Interpretation
    By RR_1 in forum General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-17-2015, 03:30 PM
  5. Has there been any recent developments in SNP age Calculations?
    By Peter MacDonald in forum R1b General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2015, 10:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •