Initial Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria[

[aganmu]

50,000 year old Siberian bones may be the ‘oldest Homo sapiens' outside Africa and Middle East
Any developments for this news 3 years ago？

[ybmpark]

The paper says Oase2 has a slight yet significant enough East Asian affinity that cannot be explained by Basal Eurasian admixture in modern Europeans.

[Pribislav]

You can already read the thesis of Veronika Siska about the sample. It is dated much older there, though. 39.600 yo:

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bit...=8&isAllowed=n

I read the thesis long time ago, but I don't remember seeing Oase2 has been directly dated, I might've missed that part? In the first sentence of chapter 2 the author says:

We sequenced to high coverage (~20X) the genome of Oase 2, a ~34-38 ky old individual from the Pestera cu Oase cave in Romania, where a specimen (Oase 1) with a recent Neanderthal ancestor was found.

So I just translated 34-38 ky to 36000-32000 BC.

Very interesting! Deja vu I was just researching this sample. Apparently Oase2 was sequenced at 20x depth in 2018 in a paper by one Veronika Siska from the University of Cambridge. Not sure why it never made it into wider circulation as the Oase1 genome did, I guess Reich lab never got hold of it? The author states she did the work alone, apparently as part of a PhD dissertation(?).

Oase 2 was part of her doctoral dissertation as you said, but it wasn't featured in any research paper so far. I do hope we'll see it this year. And no, I don't think the Reich lab will be involved.

[ybmpark]

I read the thesis long time ago, but I don't remember seeing Oase2 was directly dated,...

It wasn't. She says she used the date for Oase1 because Oase2 could not be easily dated.
Anyway Oase2 appears to be a female. The original poster was intereted in the Y chromsomes of this period if you read between the lines.
Can BK-1653 be resequenced? or is the sample quality bad?

[Pribislav]

It wasn't. She says she used the date for Oase1 because Oase2 could not be easily dated.
Anyway Oase2 appears to be a female. The original poster was intereted in the Y chromsomes of this period if you read between the lines.
Can BK-1653 be resequenced? or is the sample quality bad?

Oh well, I guess the day had to come eventually. Joking aside, we (as in all of us who are interested in Y-haplogroups) were extremely lucky with Paleolithic samples thus far, as almost all of them were males (Ust-Ishim, 5 of 6 Bacho Kiro samples, Oase1, Tianyuan, Kostenki14, Yana1&2, all four Sunghir samples, all three Krems-Watchberg samples, all five Dolni Vestonice samples, Pavlov etc.). What are the odds really?

As for BK-1653, they sequenced five libraries, some were better than the others, but all resulted in comparatively lower coverage BAMs, especially if we are talking about Y-chromosome. Resequencing would depend on the fact how much teeth/bone material is left from which they could extract more powder. I would say not much, if any at all. But we can hope they initially prepared more than five libraries for these samples, so we might see more data in the future.

[epoch]

I read the thesis long time ago, but I don't remember seeing Oase2 has been directly dated, I might've missed that part? In the first sentence of chapter 2 the author says:

So I just translated 34-38 ky to 36000-32000 BC.

I took the 39,610 ya from Table 2.1 from the same paper. This is not the first time that I see different datings in a single paper.

[alchemist223]

Oh well, I guess the day had to come eventually. Joking aside, we (as in all of us who are interested in Y-haplogroups) were extremely lucky with Paleolithic samples thus far, as almost all of them were males (Ust-Ishim, 5 of 6 Bacho Kiro samples, Oase1, Tianyuan, Kostenki14, Yana1&2, all four Sunghir samples, all three Krems-Watchberg samples, all five Dolni Vestonice samples, Pavlov etc.). What are the odds really?

As for BK-1653, they sequenced five libraries, some were better than the others, but all resulted in comparatively lower coverage BAMs, especially if we are talking about Y-chromosome. Resequencing would depend on the fact how much teeth/bone material is left from which they could extract more powder. I would say not much, if any at all. But we can hope they initially prepared more than five libraries for these samples, so we might see more data in the future.

Kind of reminds me of this article:
https://www.popsci.com/male-woolly-mammoths-fossils/

[parasar]

E Asia or SE Asia is more likely than S Asia.

Agree for P, as nearly all its related phylogeny is in SE Asia.
But for the pre-NO types we do have to consider the parallel line in South Asia.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/K-Y28299/

[Jack Johnson]

Even if some upstream Y-DNA subclades of K2/P are found in modern day Southeast Asian populations, that does not necessarily mean that's the region where those lines originated, case and point R1b-V88 in Central/North Africa and Western Asia, R1a-Z93 in Central/South Asia, or R1b-M269 in Western/Northern Europe. If I recall correctly, both Tianyuan and Yana lacked the genes related to Southeast Asian Denisovans, genes found in practically all modern East and Southeast Asian populations, so that alone makes a South East Asian origin unlikely. I would say it is more likely that K2b and P originated in Central Asia or Northern/Northeast South Asia, although I can see North Asia and/or Northeast Asia being possible locations of origin too; especially when we consider both P and NO. It was in these regions a separation occurred, perhaps from a common Crown-Eurasian-like population, not yet differentiated into 'Eastern" and "Western" Eurasian, this would be the common ancestor of Tianyuan, Salkhit, and Yana/ANS/ANE, and they would bear Y-DNA K2b which would mutate eventually into P. This could be the Ust-Ishim, Osae-like, ambiguous Crown-Eurasian/Central Eurasian population that contributed ancestry to both early Western and Eastern Eurasians.

[Kale]

Hmmm, pet hypothesis related to the topic at hand, maybe someone with more knowledge than me can confirm or refute these assumptions?
- Amongst modern populations, those with the most 'basal' y-lineages are hunter-gatherers or only recently transitioned from HG.
- HG tend to have more stable population sizes than farmers
If those two things are true than we should expect farmers to have much less y chromosome diversity due to repeated contractions in population size due to famine/disease that would over time weed out any uncommon lineages.
Additionally if demographic growth among farmers (or the spread of farming) was done mainly by populations at the frontier, y-diversity will decline as you get farther from the epicenter of the spread.