Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Chinese GEDmatch averages

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    300
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    When inland samples score less "East Eurasian" what component increases instead?
    Looking at the original chart, the Southwest Mandarin, Xiang, and (to a lesser extent) Gan speaking averages generally score higher on "Hmong-Miao", "Tibeto-Burman", and "Lahu". The Sichuan/Chongqing/Guizhou averages also score higher on Daic (Tai-Kradai) than other Southwest Mandarin groups.

    There is also a north-south gradient of increasing "Lahu" between Sichuan/Chongqing and everywhere to the south, as well as a northeast-southwest gradient between Gan, Xiang, and the previously mentioned Southwest Mandarin groups from Yunnan, Guizhou, etc. The Yue groups also score higher on "Lahu" than the Hakka groups, who score higher than the Gan groups, who average slightly higher than the Fujian Min groups + Shantou. "Lahu" is a Himalayan-speaking ethnic group, but it seems to be a proxy for Austroasiatic-like ancestry?

    The Fujian Min samples score relatively high on "Korean", while also scoring lower than the surrounding Southern Han groups on almost every other non-Han component. The Hakka groups also have relatively high affinities with "Korean", although not as much as the Jianghuai Mandarin + Wu groups or the other Yellow Sea-area Northern Han groups.

    This all means the inland Southern Han groups score slightly higher on MDLP K23b "Australoid" and "Melano-Polynesian", although given which reference populations were used to simulate these samples, some of the more "northern-shifted" Sichuanese averages also seem to have higher West Eurasian components too. The inland Northern Han groups score more West Eurasian (specifically Central Asian-like) components due to scoring higher on 23mofang "Mongol".

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to okarinaofsteiner For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (10-20-2021)

  3. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    300
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    When inland samples score less "East Eurasian" what component increases instead?
    The thing about this model is that the input data is averages of various suburban/rural districts and counties in China. And I'm using averages of MDLP K23b reference populations to simulate the 23mofang ancestry components. So this doesn't predict how individuals will score very well.



    Honestly the differences in "East Eurasian" (which is basically other people's definition of "East Asian") aren't that significant between the Sichuan averages and Fujian averages. 98.8% and 99.2%. The differences between the Northwestern Han averages and North China Plain Northern Han averages are much larger.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to okarinaofsteiner For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (10-20-2021),  Sapporo (10-18-2021)

  5. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    103
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    Looking at the original chart, the Southwest Mandarin, Xiang, and (to a lesser extent) Gan speaking averages generally score higher on "Hmong-Miao", "Tibeto-Burman", and "Lahu". The Sichuan/Chongqing/Guizhou averages also score higher on Daic (Tai-Kradai) than other Southwest Mandarin groups.

    There is also a north-south gradient of increasing "Lahu" between Sichuan/Chongqing and everywhere to the south, as well as a northeast-southwest gradient between Gan, Xiang, and the previously mentioned Southwest Mandarin groups from Yunnan, Guizhou, etc. The Yue groups also score higher on "Lahu" than the Hakka groups, who score higher than the Gan groups, who average slightly higher than the Fujian Min groups + Shantou. "Lahu" is a Himalayan-speaking ethnic group, but it seems to be a proxy for Austroasiatic-like ancestry?

    The Fujian Min samples score relatively high on "Korean", while also scoring lower than the surrounding Southern Han groups on almost every other non-Han component. The Hakka groups also have relatively high affinities with "Korean", although not as much as the Jianghuai Mandarin + Wu groups or the other Yellow Sea-area Northern Han groups.

    This all means the inland Southern Han groups score slightly higher on MDLP K23b "Australoid" and "Melano-Polynesian", although given which reference populations were used to simulate these samples, some of the more "northern-shifted" Sichuanese averages also seem to have higher West Eurasian components too. The inland Northern Han groups score more West Eurasian (specifically Central Asian-like) components due to scoring higher on 23mofang "Mongol".
    IMO, the Korean component most likely represents a eastern or coastal component, and it decreases as one moves further inland or further to the west.

    It may also indicate that northern influence is stronger on the eastern and southeastern coast than the regions further to the west. I noticed years ago that the Northern Han component is significantly higher in Fujian and Chaoshan than in Western Guangdong and Guangxi. This might indicate that the historical migrations from Northern China to Southern China largely followed a coastal route, as opposed to moving across inland regions and the Nanling Range.

    As for the Lahu component, I agree with you that it likely represents some sort of Austroasiatic influence. Despite speaking a Sino-Tibetan language, the Lahu people are quite southern-shifted on the autosomal graph, and their high frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroup F2 also make them rather unique among Sino-Tibetan speaking peoples.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (10-20-2021)

  7. #14
    Registered Users
    Posts
    312
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    Looking at the original chart, the Southwest Mandarin, Xiang, and (to a lesser extent) Gan speaking averages generally score higher on "Hmong-Miao", "Tibeto-Burman", and "Lahu". The Sichuan/Chongqing/Guizhou averages also score higher on Daic (Tai-Kradai) than other Southwest Mandarin groups.

    There is also a north-south gradient of increasing "Lahu" between Sichuan/Chongqing and everywhere to the south, as well as a northeast-southwest gradient between Gan, Xiang, and the previously mentioned Southwest Mandarin groups from Yunnan, Guizhou, etc. The Yue groups also score higher on "Lahu" than the Hakka groups, who score higher than the Gan groups, who average slightly higher than the Fujian Min groups + Shantou. "Lahu" is a Himalayan-speaking ethnic group, but it seems to be a proxy for Austroasiatic-like ancestry?

    The Fujian Min samples score relatively high on "Korean", while also scoring lower than the surrounding Southern Han groups on almost every other non-Han component. The Hakka groups also have relatively high affinities with "Korean", although not as much as the Jianghuai Mandarin + Wu groups or the other Yellow Sea-area Northern Han groups.

    This all means the inland Southern Han groups score slightly higher on MDLP K23b "Australoid" and "Melano-Polynesian", although given which reference populations were used to simulate these samples, some of the more "northern-shifted" Sichuanese averages also seem to have higher West Eurasian components too. The inland Northern Han groups score more West Eurasian (specifically Central Asian-like) components due to scoring higher on 23mofang "Mongol".
    So in MDLP K23b East Eurasian is meant as East Asian? I know 23mofang but I haven't paid much attention to genetic testing kits and results yet... Lahu is probably Austroasiatic-related indeed as I said before I think there is a difference among inland and coastal Chinese groups in their southern component, inland scoring more Mekong_N-related and coastal scoring more Fujian_N-related.

    I also think that Mekong_N-related components (a type of ancestry widespread in Austroasiatic groups) are a bit more Onge-like/southern-shifted compared to coastal Neolithic Fujian populations.

    Korean seems like an eastern coastal component, perhaps also due to the southern ancestry in Koreans being more related to the Fujian-type of southern East Asian ancestry than to the Mekong-type.

    I am not very sure about West Eurasian ancestry in Sichuanese samples (not to say that they don't have it, just usually don't show it) , except if they are Qiang that I've noticed sometimes score some low West Eurasian-related ancestry. But some Sichuanese have Tibetan-like ancestry so in this case, I can see how they would get excess of West Eurasian or Indian admixture relative to coastal southern Han.
    Last edited by Max_H; 10-20-2021 at 09:16 PM.

  8. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    300
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    So in MDLP K23b East Eurasian is meant as East Asian? I know 23mofang but I haven't paid much attention to genetic testing kits and results yet... Lahu is probably Austroasiatic-related indeed as I said before I think there is a difference among inland and coastal Chinese groups in their southern component, inland scoring more Mekong_N-related and coastal scoring more Fujian_N-related.

    I also think that Mekong_N-related components (a type of ancestry widespread in Austroasiatic groups) are a bit more Onge-like/southern-shifted compared to coastal Neolithic Fujian populations.
    My "East Eurasian" for MDLP K23b is just "Austronesian", "South_East_Asian", "Tungus_Altaic", "East_Siberian", and "Paleo_Siberian". So basically just the "Mongoloid" ancestry components associated with East Asians proper- as opposed to any of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, or the paraphyletic "Australoid" groups [AASI proper, Onge, Hoabinhian, Malaysian Negrito, Philippine Negrito, Australian aborigine, Papuan, the diverged ancestry component of Polynesians, the diverged component in Tibetans, the diverged component in Jomon, etc]

    I don't consider being more "Onge-like" to be more "southern-shifted", at least if we're talking about strictly "Basal East Asian" ancestry. We know the ancestors of Austroasiatic speakers mixed with Onge-like populations while still in modern-day China, but this probably took place after the inland-coastal split among southern East Asians that took place over 10k years ago.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Mekong_N has some shared drift in its "Basal East Asian" with the ancestors of Himalayans/Tibeto-Burmans that Fujian_N doesn't have. But this is all just guesswork on my part. I haven't had time to read or go back to the papers that discuss this in detail.

    I don't think any of the 23mofang reference components have particularly strong affinities with Fujian_N aside from maybe Daic (Tai-Kradai), which some posters have suggested is genetically transitional between "Proto-Austroasiatic" and "Proto-Austronesian". But I agree that whatever "southern" affinities Korean and Japanese have are going to be with Fujian_N related groups, not Mekong_N related groups.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to okarinaofsteiner For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (10-21-2021)

  10. #16
    Registered Users
    Posts
    103
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    So in MDLP K23b East Eurasian is meant as East Asian? I know 23mofang but I haven't paid much attention to genetic testing kits and results yet... Lahu is probably Austroasiatic-related indeed as I said before I think there is a difference among inland and coastal Chinese groups in their southern component, inland scoring more Mekong_N-related and coastal scoring more Fujian_N-related.

    I also think that Mekong_N-related components (a type of ancestry widespread in Austroasiatic groups) are a bit more Onge-like/southern-shifted compared to coastal Neolithic Fujian populations.

    Korean seems like an eastern coastal component, perhaps also due to the southern ancestry in Koreans being more related to the Fujian-type of southern East Asian ancestry than to the Mekong-type.
    Largely agree, though I think the similarity between Koreans and Eastern Chinese isn't because of Koreans being more related to the Fujian-type of southern East Asian ancestry, but rather because people from Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Fujian have received significant Northern Chinese / Neolithic Yellow River ancestry, which Koreans also have a fair amount. The actual Austronesian or Fujian_N related component among Koreans and Japanese is quite low, and Mekong_N related even lower. I don't think those are the causes of similarity.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (10-21-2021)

  12. #17
    Registered Users
    Posts
    312
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    Largely agree, though I think the similarity between Koreans and Eastern Chinese isn't because of Koreans being more related to the Fujian-type of southern East Asian ancestry, but rather because people from Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Fujian have received significant Northern Chinese / Neolithic Yellow River ancestry, which Koreans also have a fair amount. The actual Austronesian or Fujian_N related component among Koreans and Japanese is quite low, and Mekong_N related even lower. I don't think those are the causes of similarity.
    I agree with eastern Chinese having received significant Neolithic Yellow River ancestry, but NW Han such as Shanxi Han are even more northern-shifted yet do not score similar as similar to Koreans as eastern Han too (nor do they resemble them more phenotypically-but this is a different story). So I was wondering if the explanation is sharing of a southern component instead.

    Not sure Koreans even score above-trace-level Mekong_N related components.


    Edit: An interesting possibility is higher Boshan_N-related (coastal Neolithic northern East Asian ancestry) in eastern Han relative to inland Han (including northern inland Han) which is probably also found in substantial amounts in Koreans. At least this looks to be the case based on Global 25.
    Last edited by Max_H; 10-21-2021 at 09:25 AM.

  13. #18
    Registered Users
    Posts
    312
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    My "East Eurasian" for MDLP K23b is just "Austronesian", "South_East_Asian", "Tungus_Altaic", "East_Siberian", and "Paleo_Siberian". So basically just the "Mongoloid" ancestry components associated with East Asians proper- as opposed to any of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, or the paraphyletic "Australoid" groups [AASI proper, Onge, Hoabinhian, Malaysian Negrito, Philippine Negrito, Australian aborigine, Papuan, the diverged ancestry component of Polynesians, the diverged component in Tibetans, the diverged component in Jomon, etc]

    I don't consider being more "Onge-like" to be more "southern-shifted", at least if we're talking about strictly "Basal East Asian" ancestry. We know the ancestors of Austroasiatic speakers mixed with Onge-like populations while still in modern-day China, but this probably took place after the inland-coastal split among southern East Asians that took place over 10k years ago.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Mekong_N has some shared drift in its "Basal East Asian" with the ancestors of Himalayans/Tibeto-Burmans that Fujian_N doesn't have. But this is all just guesswork on my part. I haven't had time to read or go back to the papers that discuss this in detail.

    I don't think any of the 23mofang reference components have particularly strong affinities with Fujian_N aside from maybe Daic (Tai-Kradai), which some posters have suggested is genetically transitional between "Proto-Austroasiatic" and "Proto-Austronesian". But I agree that whatever "southern" affinities Korean and Japanese have are going to be with Fujian_N related groups, not Mekong_N related groups.
    What else could explain the southern pull of populations carrying Mekong_N-related ancestry compared to eastern ones carrying more Fujian_LN-related? Since you mentioned that affinities with "Southeast Asian" groups are included in MDLP K23b "East Eurasian" category.

    23mofang components all look to reflect modern-day populations, but I think the Daic component is indeed transitional between "Proto-Austroasitic" and "Proto-Austronesian".

  14. #19
    Registered Users
    Posts
    300
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    What else could explain the southern pull of populations carrying Mekong_N-related ancestry compared to eastern ones carrying more Fujian_LN-related? Since you mentioned that affinities with "Southeast Asian" groups are included in MDLP K23b "East Eurasian" category.
    As far as 23mofang is concerned, coastal Southern Han groups seem to have less SEA-like ancestry overall than inland Southern Han groups. Tbh none of the other "southern" components have particularly strong affinities with Fujian_N. I don't see why Hmong-Mien or Southern Han (which is highest in the coastal area between southern Fujian and the Leizhou Peninsula) would be better proxies for Fujian_N than Daic (Tai-Kradai).

    The Fujian Min averages have slightly higher levels of Daic than the Wu averages (1.1-1.2% vs 0.9-1.0%), both of which are lower than the Gan averages, which are lower than the Xiang averages, which are around the same as the Hakka averages. It seems to me that the "southern" ancestry Fujian Han have is mostly in the "Southern Han" component, which isn't as good a fit for the "southern" ancestry in other Southern Han groups, so their "southern" ancestry tend to be modeled more as various "non-Han" components like Daic and Hmong-Mien.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to okarinaofsteiner For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (10-21-2021)

  16. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    103
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    I agree with eastern Chinese having received significant Neolithic Yellow River ancestry, but NW Han such as Shanxi Han are even more northern-shifted yet do not score similar as similar to Koreans as eastern Han too (nor do they resemble them more phenotypically-but this is a different story). So I was wondering if the explanation is sharing of a southern component instead.

    Not sure Koreans even score above-trace-level Mekong_N related components.


    Edit: An interesting possibility is higher Boshan_N-related (coastal Neolithic northern East Asian ancestry) in eastern Han relative to inland Han (including northern inland Han) which is probably also found in substantial amounts in Koreans. At least this looks to be the case based on Global 25.
    The reason is most likely just as you mentioned, Koreans and Eastern Chinese inherited more coastal Neolithic Northern East Asian ancestry (represented by Boshan and Xiaojingshan). On the other hand, inland Northern Han inherited more Upper Yellow River Northern East Asian ancestry or steppe-related ancestry.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (10-27-2021)

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Updated G25 Modern Averages
    By CyrylBojarski in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 02-19-2021, 02:45 AM
  2. Still I am looking for k15 averages!!!
    By Cracow in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-16-2021, 07:16 AM
  3. Post your modern averages
    By maroco in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 11-19-2020, 05:23 PM
  4. [G25] How to create averages and ghosts?
    By Kellebel in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-05-2020, 02:52 AM
  5. Would these group averages be correct?
    By akash in forum Southern
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-28-2020, 03:04 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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