The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

[epoch]

The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe (preprint)

Abstract
While the Neolithic expansion in Europe is well described archaeologically, the genetic origins of European first farmers and their affinities with local hunter-gatherers (HGs) remain unclear. To infer the demographic history of these populations, the genomes of 15 ancient individuals located between Western Anatolia and Southern Germany were sequenced to high quality, allowing us to perform population genomics analyses formerly restricted to modern genomes. We find that all European and Anatolian early farmers descend from the merging of a European and a Near Eastern group of HGs, possibly in the Near East, shortly after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Western and Southeastern European HG are shown to split during the LGM, and share signals of a very strong LGM bottleneck that drastically reduced their genetic diversity. Early Neolithic Central Anatolians seem only indirectly related to ancestors of European farmers, who probably originated in the Near East and dispersed later on from the Aegean along the Danubian corridor following a stepwise demic process with only limited (2-6%) but additive input from local HGs. Our analyses provide a time frame and resolve the genetic origins of early European farmers. They highlight the impact of Late Pleistocene climatic fluctuations that caused the fragmentation, merging and reexpansion of human populations in SW Asia and Europe, and eventually led to the world's first agricultural populations.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...3.394502v1?ct=

I think this deserves a thread of its own. There are a number of bold statements in this paper. For instance this:

Finally, we investigated the relationship between two western European HGs from Bichon and Loschbour and our newly-sequenced Mesolithic individuals from Serbia. We find that Bichon and Loschbour have a common ancestor branching off the centralHG ancestral population 23.3 kya (95% CI 23.3-20.0) (Fig.S47c, S48, Supp. Table 4), and that they diverged from each other soon after this split. In contrast, the Danube Gorges Mesolithic population from Vlasac diverged from the centralHG group relatively late about 10.2 kya (95% CI 9.0-21.3) and remained well isolated afterwards with very little later admixture (<1%) (Fig.S31, Supp. Table 4). Altogether, this suggests that the LGM led to a fragmentation of HG populations in SW Asia and Europe with at least four genetically distinct groups: one related to Loschbour and Bichon (called west,subdividedinto west1and west2,based on the old divergence between Loschbour and Bichon branches), one related to the Danube GorgesMesolithic samples (central), another one that later received the massive Central HG introgression (east1then 206admixed), and a last one potentially further East (east2) relatted to WC1

[teepean47]

I found two dissertations that use the same samples and whose authors are part of the team that created the study.

Palaeogenomic and Biostatistical Analysis of
Ancient DNA Data from Mesolithic and
Neolithic Skeletal Remains


https://d-nb.info/113609640X/34

Genetic variation related to the adaptation of
humans to an agriculturalist lifestyle


https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34

[epoch]

O, and authors claim they have no need for Basal Eurasian as they use whole genomes. Now, that is a surprise.

https://twitter.com/loronet/status/1331299588444196870

Iosif Lazaridis is naturally against this:

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/...02169362931717

[mauors]

It's a shame they couldn't include those seemingly very basal HGs from Italy, those from the Rome paper as well as the recent riparo Tagliente sample.

[Michalis Moriopoulos]

It's a shame they couldn't include those seemingly very basal HGs from Italy, those from the Rome paper as well as the recent riparo Tagliente sample.

They didn't include much of anything. I don't even see any mention of ANE either. Hard to take this study seriously considering they don't address the most popular model on the formation of these populations, which is now at least 6 years old. I really don't understand why some academics do this. Do they think we won't notice?

[Andour]

I seem to remember Chad Rohlfsen looked into ANF a year or so ago. I wonder what he thinks of this paper.

[rozenfeld]

Do they even mention EHG in this paper?

[madaleninha]

I found two dissertations that use the same samples and whose authors are part of the team that created the study.

Palaeogenomic and Biostatistical Analysis of
Ancient DNA Data from Mesolithic and
Neolithic Skeletal Remains


https://d-nb.info/113609640X/34

Genetic variation related to the adaptation of
humans to an agriculturalist lifestyle


https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34

In the second Paper they sequenced several new EHGs from Minimo, Russia. Very interesting. All of them have the allele derived in the SLC24a5 gene, one of those responsible for fair skin.

[madaleninha]

Do they even mention EHG in this paper?

I think their purpose was to do an analysis with only high quality samples. So they just used these new samples and a few more individuals that had already been sequenced before. They did not use any EHG.

[VladimirTaraskin]

In the second Paper they sequenced several new EHGs from Minimo, Russia. Very interesting. All of them have the allele derived in the SLC24a5 gene, one of those responsible for fair skin.

These minino samples, judging by the archeology, are approximately from a similar culture as PES001. MtDNA they also have the same U4a1. Logically, they should be R1a-YP1272. On the other hand, according to the PCA on page 30, the minino samples are almost identical to the Lesnik Cav 2 sample from the Crimea Ukraine HG.