Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Questions about Population Y

  1. #11
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    1,373
    Sex
    Location
    Cambridge MA / San Diego CA (currently)
    Ethnicity
    Polish/British Isles
    Nationality
    U.S.
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Y154732
    mtDNA (M)
    H1
    mtDNA (P)
    J1c2

    Poland England Ireland Munster
    Peopling of the Americas as inferred from ancient genomics
    Eske Willerslev & David J. Meltzer
    review article in Nature (2021)

    An Australasian genomic signal, albeit faint, has been documented in one ancient individual and present-day individuals from a relatively small region of Brazil. No other ancient individuals or present-day peoples in South America, North America or northeast Asia contain that signal. It has proven difficult to determine whether the signal was present in a highly structured initial population and its absence from regions outside of Brazil is a vagary of sampling; or whether it represents an earlier population in the Americas that had largely disappeared before the arrival of ancestral Native American individuals, with only a slight degree of introgression; or even whether it was a case of later Holocene movement well after the initial spread of peoples throughout the Americas, although given the number of ancient individuals sequenced to date, this last possibility seems increasingly less likely.

    As the Australasian signal is scattered across different areas of the genome, it would seem that it is not a case of genetic convergence, or a ‘false-positive’ signal. Part of the challenge to resolving this issue is the lack of genomic evidence of pre-Clovis-age individuals, which could at least resolve whether the Australasian signal arrived with an earlier group. Similarly, there is a relatively sparse genomic record of Pleistocene human remains from Asia, and the origins and spread of the Australasian signal, if present, should be sought through sequencing of more such individuals—particularly from northeast Asia. It is noteworthy that a recent ancient genome study found evidence of the Australasian genetic signal among hunter-gatherer populations of mainland Southeast Asia dating to the mid-Holocene.

    Genomic evidence for ancient migration routes along South America’s Atlantic coast
    Andre Luiz Campelo dos Santos, Amanda Owings, Henry Socrates Lavalle Sullasi, Omer Gokcumen, Michael DeGiorgio, John Lindo
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.27.497820
    This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review
    "Moreover, we find a strong Australasian signal in an ancient genome from Panama."
    Last edited by pmokeefe; 07-31-2022 at 06:09 AM.
    YFull: YF14620 (Dante Labs 2018)

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

     ArmandoR1b (08-01-2022),  Psynome (08-06-2022)

  3. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,291
    Sex
    Location
    Brisbane
    Nationality
    Australian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T-P322 (T1a2b1)
    mtDNA (M)
    H6a1

    Australia Cornwall England Scotland Germany Poland
    Quote Originally Posted by Steppelor View Post
    Australasia != Australia
    "Australasia" is a really bad choice of word.
    Technically it's Australia and New Zealand.
    And sometimes the odd island chucked in, usually from Melanesia.
    But most of Polynesia is excluded which makes no sense as NZ was originally settled by Polynesians.
    And the rest of Melanesia is out.
    So a geographical description that cuts across ethnic identities.

    Australia was originally settled via Papua, and it looks as if they used Papuan DNA in the study.
    "Sahel" covers Australia and Papua/New Guinea so might have been a better term - or just "Papua".
    Or if they are including Polynesians, then say so.
    What a mess in one word!
    Last edited by Saetro; 07-31-2022 at 11:38 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Saetro For This Useful Post:

     ArmandoR1b (07-31-2022)

  5. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    236
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Saetro View Post
    "Australasia" is a really bad choice of word.
    Technically it's Australia and New Zealand.
    And sometimes the odd island chucked in, usually from Melanesia.
    But most of Polynesia is excluded which makes no sense as NZ was originally settled by Polynesians.
    And the rest of Melanesia is out.
    So a geographical description that cuts across ethnic identities.

    Australia was originally settled via Papua, and it looks as if they used Papuan DNA in the study.
    "Sahel" covers Australia and Papua/New Guinea so might have been a better term - or just "Papua".
    Or if they are including Polynesians, then say so.
    What a mess in one word!
    The Australasian genetic signal in South America does not even come from the Australian Aboriginals and Papuans but from a sister group to the Onge of the Andaman. Although the majority of carriers of the Australasian genetic signal are Australian Aboriginals and Papuans, so are the tiny dispersed groups of the Hòabìnhian of SE Asia, the Andaman of the Indian Ocean and the Negritos of the Philippines. Less equivocal is the name Basal Asians.
    Australia and Papua-New Guinea is Sahul. Sahel is in Africa.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jose luis For This Useful Post:

     JoeyP37 (08-02-2022),  parasar (08-07-2022),  Psynome (08-06-2022),  Saetro (08-05-2022),  Steppelor (08-03-2022)

  7. #14
    Registered Users
    Posts
    236
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by pmokeefe View Post
    Peopling of the Americas as inferred from ancient genomics
    Eske Willerslev & David J. Meltzer
    review article in Nature (2021)

    An Australasian genomic signal, albeit faint, has been documented in one ancient individual and present-day individuals from a relatively small region of Brazil. No other ancient individuals or present-day peoples in South America, North America or northeast Asia contain that signal. It has proven difficult to determine whether the signal was present in a highly structured initial population and its absence from regions outside of Brazil is a vagary of sampling; or whether it represents an earlier population in the Americas that had largely disappeared before the arrival of ancestral Native American individuals, with only a slight degree of introgression; or even whether it was a case of later Holocene movement well after the initial spread of peoples throughout the Americas, although given the number of ancient individuals sequenced to date, this last possibility seems increasingly less likely.

    As the Australasian signal is scattered across different areas of the genome, it would seem that it is not a case of genetic convergence, or a ‘false-positive’ signal. Part of the challenge to resolving this issue is the lack of genomic evidence of pre-Clovis-age individuals, which could at least resolve whether the Australasian signal arrived with an earlier group. Similarly, there is a relatively sparse genomic record of Pleistocene human remains from Asia, and the origins and spread of the Australasian signal, if present, should be sought through sequencing of more such individuals—particularly from northeast Asia. It is noteworthy that a recent ancient genome study found evidence of the Australasian genetic signal among hunter-gatherer populations of mainland Southeast Asia dating to the mid-Holocene.

    Genomic evidence for ancient migration routes along South America’s Atlantic coast
    Andre Luiz Campelo dos Santos, Amanda Owings, Henry Socrates Lavalle Sullasi, Omer Gokcumen, Michael DeGiorgio, John Lindo
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.27.497820
    This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review
    "Moreover, we find a strong Australasian signal in an ancient genome from Panama."
    Eske Willerslev is indeed one of the great authorities in this area and this article of his is important, but part of this quote, when it was published in June 2021, was out of date for about three months, as you can see in post #4 of this thread. At the end of the article itself, the authors amend the part that was cited here.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jose luis For This Useful Post:

     pmokeefe (08-03-2022),  Psynome (08-06-2022),  Saetro (08-05-2022)

  9. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    160
    Sex
    Location
    Northeastern U.S.
    Ethnicity
    Sub-Mediterrenean
    Nationality
    U.S.A.
    aDNA Match (1st)
    France_IA_ERS88
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    French_Provence
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    SZ27_Hungary_Langobard_1475_ybp
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106 > Z8

    Ireland County Galway Scotland Italy 1861-1946 Austria Prussia United States of America
    I thought Pop Y was not actually Australoid, but appeared Australoid on some tests due to being Basal East Asian and Tianyuan-Like. Could be wrong though

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Billyh For This Useful Post:

     Psynome (08-06-2022)

  11. #16
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,621
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyh View Post
    I thought Pop Y was not actually Australoid, but appeared Australoid on some tests due to being Basal East Asian and Tianyuan-Like. Could be wrong though
    The following section of an article titled Human Occupation of the North American Colorado Plateau ∼37,000 Years Ago puts that information into perspective

    "Recent genomic evidence for two Old World founding populations in the Americas (Skoglund et al., 2015) offers independent corroboration that the sites described above may be cultural. A unique ancestry signal discovered in Suruí, Karitiana, and Xavante populations living today around the Amazon basin rim was found to be shared with living populations in Australia, New Guinea, and Andaman Islands. The ancestral population that contributed this signal was termed a “genetic ghost population” and given the name “Population Y” (Skoglund et al., 2015). Population Y was estimated to have occupied eastern Asia ∼50,000 years ago (Reich, 2018). Additional aDNA support came from a ∼40,000 years old human bone from Tianyuan cave in northern China that shares the Population Y signal (Yang et al., 2017). Doubts raised about the Population Y hypothesis (Posth et al., 2018) were dispelled by more recent genomic studies that reproduced the earlier findings and documented in South America the Australasian signal in every major linguistic group, making it geographically widespread (Castro et al., 2021).

    How and when Population Y ancestry reached South America has been explained by alternative hypotheses (Skoglund et al., 2015; Reich, 2018). The first is that Population Y contributed ancestry to the Native American clade before its dispersal south from Beringia. Some of the Native Americans then carried this ancestry as they dispersed down the west coast and into South America. In other words, Population Y predated dispersal but did not live in the Americas, and its descendants now solely exist there and in Australasia (Wohns et al., 2022). This has been the favored hypothesis because it is consistent with the conventional view that Native Americans were the first people to enter the Americas ∼16,000 years ago.

    However, several recent aDNA analyses that included a ∼45,000 years old human genome from Ust’-Ishim, Siberia (Fu et al., 2014), ∼32,000 years old human genomes from the Yana RHS site (Sikora et al., 2019), and younger ancient Asian genomes (Poznik et al., 2016), revealed complex patterns of dispersal, admixture, and turnover among West Eurasian and East Asian populations in the occupation of Siberia and western Beringia. Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3, ca. 50,000 – 30,000 cal BP) was evidently a time of rapid expansion of modern humans across Eurasia (Atkinson et al., 2008; Poznik et al., 2016; Pavlova and Pitulko, 2020), but no Population Y ancestry was detected by any of these studies (Sikora et al., 2019).
    "

    The Asian source of Australasian Population Y is also mentioned in A genomic perspective on South American human history

    "This excess affinity with Australasians was modeled as the contribution of another unsampled population, the now-famous “Ypikuéra” (ancestral in Tupi languages) or “Y” population, which suggested a more complex population history than had been anticipated until that point, most likely involving an additional population influx from Beringia into the continent or the existence of a major genetic structure in Native Americans’ ancestors (Skoglund et al., 2015). In any case, the proportion of this extra ancestry in the groups where it was discovered is quite low, ranging from 1 to 3% of the total (Skoglund et al., 2015, Moreno-Mayar et al., 2018b, Castro e Silva et al., 2021a).

    Interestingly, it has been suggested by a recent study that the divergence between the AB, NNA, and SNA groups might have taken place in Asia (Ning et al., 2020), which would increase the probability of contact and gene flow from East Asian groups, including a possible gene flow from groups related to contemporary Australasian populations exclusively into the SNA branch. It should be highlighted, however, that this genetic affinity pattern is completely consistent with other scenarios in which gene flow from other Asian sources with common ancestors with present Australasians occurs.

    Thereby, the existence of this Australasian signal opens up a myriad of possibilities for the initial peopling of the Americas, at least from a genetic standpoint. Most intriguing, this involves the possibility of a very early human presence on the continent during or even before the LGM, as long suggested by several archeological sites, though given the lack of pre-Clovis human skeletons, there is still significant debate among archeologists over whether the stone tools discovered were man-made or naturally occurring flakes, among other aspects regarding the validity of these peri and pre-LGM sites (Sutter, 2021). Nonetheless, the recent discovery of very solid archeological evidence of the human presence in the Chiquihuite Cave around at least 19 ka BP and the ancient footprints in New Mexico with 23 ka BP (Ardelean et al., 2020; Bennett et al., 2021) is contributing to what seems to be a final push in the direction of a new paradigm that humans were present in the Americas during or even before the LGM.
    "
    Last edited by ArmandoR1b; 08-06-2022 at 10:03 AM.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ArmandoR1b For This Useful Post:

     jose luis (08-06-2022),  parasar (08-07-2022),  Psynome (08-06-2022),  razyn (08-06-2022)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 117
    Last Post: 08-05-2022, 11:45 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-19-2022, 02:37 PM
  3. QUestions (Two) T2B & R1a
    By Huette5768 in forum General
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-25-2021, 12:23 AM
  4. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-13-2021, 02:37 PM
  5. Melungeon..... modern population questions???
    By JerryS. in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-03-2018, 12:37 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
  •