Genomic Insights into the Formation of Human Populations in East Asia[

[Pribislav]

I6367; 1258-1088 BC; Biluut 2, barrow 3, Tsengel sum, Bayan-Ulgii aimag, Mongolia; Mongolia_LBA; O2a2b1a1a-PAGE23>M1706>F438>F1754>F2137


F2137 level: F2503+ T>C (5C); F2643+ A>G (4G); Y47389+ C>T (1T)

F2137>A16636 level: A16636- T>G (1T); A16637- C>A (7C); A16640- T>A (1T); A16644- A>C (1A)

F2137>F15823 level: *no calls*

F2137>F15823>F1442 level: *no calls*

F2137>F15823>F1442>F1123 level: F1123- A>C (1A); MF46239- A>G (1A); Y168992- A>T (1A); F3048- C>G (7C); MF16266- C>A (1C); Y168991- G>A (1G); F23807- T>C (5T)

F2137>F15823>MF15397 level: *no calls*

F2137>F15823>MF15397>MF15266 level: *no calls*

F2137>F15823>MF15397>MF15266>Y200736 level: Y201092/MF178672- G>T (1G); Y201335/MF178693- T>C (3T); Y201130/MF178686- G>A (1G); FT176013- C>T (1C)

F2137>F15823>MF15397>MF15266>PF4449 level: PF4449- G>A (2G); MF16176- A>G (1A); MF16247- A>G (1A); MF16248- A>T (4A); MF14333- C>T (11C); FT264067/Y189913- C>A (1C); MF15445- C>T (1C); FT332234- C>G (8C); Y228554- C>G (3C); MF15062- G>A (3G); MF15132- G>A (1G); MF15701- T>G (1T); Y189910- T>A (1T)


We already have two older samples from Yellow River basin that belong to this clade, one is from Longshan culture (SM-SGDLM6, 2193-2035 BC) and the other from Qijia culture (MG48, ~2000 BC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshan_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qijia_culture

[Ryukendo]

It is from his paper in 2020. I posted the link to that paper before but he had a few weird propositions so I did not discuss it any further. He thinks that Tianyuan forms a clade with Southern East Asians against Northern East Asians.
On that graph Chinese and Koreans diverged 3900 years ago, and Koreans and Japanese about 2300 years ago.

I just got a warning from mods to avoid political discussions but it is actually impossible to do so in this area.
Political agenda run deep almost everywhere in this field.
In Korea there is a popular desire to identify with the northern people.
The primary reason is that it is the easiest way to distance itself from Chinese. But the West tends to see this as a sly way to share the glory of the likes of Mongols and Huns.
As usual this is a grossly unfair treatment of Korean national sentiment by the West.
There is also the "politcally correct" pressure to go in the opposite direction; Koreans should identify with the oppressed and invaded southern people.(PRC also has a similar political agenda which a few Chinese members complained already)
Park Jonghwa is one of them if you follow his academic career but unlike others he is willing to change his position.
The graph(from mid 2020 or earlier in terms of when it was written) had the north and south mixture for Koreans as 30 to 70.(the same when he proposed Devil's Gate + Taiwanese aborigines model for Koreans)
But in this video(late 2020 or early 2021) he changed it to 50:50 probably after seeing the Chinese papers.

He also ignored the admixture from Onge and if he takes it into account his simplistic cladogram involving Chinese-Koreans-Japanese fails.

This is the paper he's talking about: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250502/

[Pribislav]

I7022; 391-209 BC; Ulaangom cemetery, Chandman Uul, Ulaangom sum, Uvs aimag, Mongolia; Sagly_IA; Q1a1b1-M25>L712>pre-YP832


YP832 level: YP6107+ C>A (3A); YP828+ C>A (2A); YP851+ C>T (3T); YP6111+ G>A (1A); YP801+ G>A (1A); YP4269+ G>A (2A); Y19343+ A>C (1C); YP794- A>C (1A); YP847- A>T (4A); Y149317- C>A (3C); YP805- T>A (3T)

[talljimmy0]

I saw a notification from ymbpark but when checking for the reply I saw it was deleted and the user was banned. I don't know what ymbpark wrote but I think the moderator should give ymbpark another chance as that user was contributing well to the discussion and provided information difficult to access for non-Koreans. Working with colleagues from different Asian countries, I know not all fall in line with Western political correctness. Yet I wouldn't be quick to dismiss them, as long as they are aware that there's different 'etiquette' to be considered in a mainly Western based setting.

[Ryukendo]

I saw a notification from ymbpark but when checking for the reply I saw it was deleted and the user was banned. I don't know what ymbpark wrote but I think the moderator should give ymbpark another chance as that user was contributing well to the discussion and provided information difficult to access for non-Koreans. Working with colleagues from different Asian countries, I know not all fall in line with Western political correctness. Yet I wouldn't be quick to dismiss them, as long as they are aware that there's different 'etiquette' to be considered in a mainly Western based setting.

Second this strongly.

[Kale]

If political or social or whatever biases actually influence the scientific discourse in a part of the world, then while it may stray into sociopolitical discussion, it unfortunately can become necessary to at least bring the biases to attention for objectivity's sake. Idk if that's what happened here, but it's something to consider if it was.

[Pribislav]

I6365; 814-783 BC; Uushigiin uvur, slab grave 1, Burentogtoh sum, Khuvsgul aimag, Mongolia; Slab Grave_LBA/EIA; N1c1a-TAT>F1419>L708>M2126>pre-M2019


M2019 level: M2019+ G>A (1A); M2054+ A>T (1T); M2118+ A>G (1G); M2027+ G>T (1T); M2119+ T>C (5C); FGC65415+ T>C (3C-1T); FGC65412- T>A (3T); Y28043- C>G (1C); M2023- C>A (1C)


He also has M1992+ T>C (1C) at M2058 level (directly below M2019), but it is likely a false positive, given the three ancestral SNPs at M2019 level.

[Pribislav]

WLR samples were sequenced using exome sequencing?? I thought only Wuzhuangguoliang was done with that pipeline.

The BAMs from Ning are indeed available, but sadly only autosomes are there, they cut out Y-chr data. I tried EDM176 (~2000 BC, Erdaojingzi, Lower Xiajiadian culture) since he has very good coverage, and there are no Y reads whatsoever.

[CopperAxe]

I6365; 814-783 BC; Uushigiin uvur, slab grave 1, Burentogtoh sum, Khuvsgul aimag, Mongolia; Slab Grave_LBA/EIA; N1c1a-TAT>F1419>L708>M2126>pre-M2019


M2019 level: M2019+ G>A (1A); M2054+ A>T (1T); M2118+ A>G (1G); M2027+ G>T (1T); M2119+ T>C (5C); FGC65412- T>A (3T); Y28043- C>G (1C); M2023- C>A (1C)


He also has M1992+ T>C (1C) at M2058 level (directly below M2019), but it is likely a false positive, given the three ancestral SNPs at M2019 level.

Are there other Slab Grave samples aside from this one and one sample with Q1a2 and Altaic ancestry which do not have Q1a1a?

I wonder why that haplogroup was is so extremely prevalent in those sites when later Xiongnu samples show the full range of haplogroups you'd expect from neolithic/ba mongolian populations.

Are these slab grave Q1a1a lineages all closely related perhaps?

[Pribislav]

Are there other Slab Grave samples aside from this one and one sample with Q1a2 and Altaic ancestry which do not have Q1a1a?

I wonder why that haplogroup was is so extremely prevalent in those sites when later Xiongnu samples show the full range of haplogroups you'd expect from neolithic/ba mongolian populations.

Are these slab grave Q1a1a lineages all closely related perhaps?

No, that's it, 1 x N-TAT, 1 x Q-L330 and 4 x Q1a1-M120. The later four seem to be pre-M120, and closely related to each other.