The "Non-Corded Ware" IEs: Is Catacomb C. an ancestor of Greco-Armenian (?Albanian) ?

[Nic]

I think it is ultimately futile to track something as large as Indo-European migrations by a single allele. For instance, it was long thought the gene for lactase persistence was spread by Indo-Europeans, until it was detected in the Linear Pottery culture, which, of course, predates Indo-European expansion into Central and Western Europe.

I take your point, but I would ask:
Was there a reason why someone might have thought the lactase persistence gene was spread by Indo-Europeans?
And might Indo-Europeans have spread it in any case, regardless of where it originated?

[R.Rocca]

As you can see, I said "at first sight" - from looking at coloured admixture charts on the internet. I've no idea how reliable any of these charts are.


Of course, I didn't say anything about 'ignoring' ancient DNA. I'm really not sure what there is to gain by repeatedly paraphrasing everything I say and twisting it into something I didn't say.

And I really don't see how anyone can tell, unequivocally, when the first person with R-L23 arrived in Anatolia.

Maybe by looking at the ancient DNA, but again, it looks like you are very averse to looking at ancient DNA. Anyway, I'm the third person on this thread that has told you that what you are proposing has no merit based on meaningful data, so I will stop responding to you. Good luck twisting modern DNA into an ancient narrative. And again, for the sake of the original poster, you should be considerate and continue this in your other thread (which nobody is replying to because of the lack of credibility).

[Nic]

40% or 25%? ALFA, quoting "UK 10K study-twins" gives 23% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/rs10967965. But it's only a detail. Your obsession with dismissing the CWC from the spread of IE-linked DNA in western Europe is intriguing. If you were an Italian used to Eupedia chats I would understand more easily, but you're English (right?), therefore it cannot be a case of aDNA-pseudo-nationalism. My diagnosis is rather a problem of "methodologic monomania" . I agree with JoeyP37 and repeat: that doesn't hold water. Alright, I'll stop with that. I'm going to delete my "work/chromosome9" folder to make sure I don't succumb to curiosity to watch again. This thing only generates mirages, it's a waste of time and energy.

To answer your question, rs10967965 is present in 25% of British alleles, and more than 40% of British individuals carry it on one allele or other.

It's odd you think I have an obsession with dismissing Corded Ware. I am bemused at anyone caring one way or another about this, or about which yDNA was carried in their paternal line (only one of their many thousands of ancestral lines). This, to me, looks more like the real 'monomania'.

I must admit, I did originally wonder whether you might have the flip side of the anti-CW attitude that you seem to be saying is held by some Italians on Eupedia. When I suggested a spread of IE DNA from Southern Europe, you responded by testing ancient data solely from outside of Southern Europe. It felt you were motivated to prove me wrong, rather than to see what the comparative evidence in ancient DNA showed. I'm glad I perceived this motivation wrongly.

I feel it's unfortunate you have chosen to resist temptation by deleting the folder containing the data you've obtained. After all, as limited and piecemeal as these results were, we have already learned quite a bit from them:
1. This single SNP reflecting DNA shared throughout the IE zone was already present across Neolithic Europe before Corded Ware arrived there.
2. When Corded Ware arrived, its frequency appears to have fallen.
3. Since Corded Ware, its frequency has sharply risen.
4. This subsequent rise in frequency has occurred less in the original Corded Ware zone of North Eastern Europe than in the other parts of Europe.

rs10967965 seems to have formed quite early on, so I wonder whether looking downstream of it ancestrally might yield more useful information.

98% of European rs10967965 alleles on the database fall into five almost mutually exclusive haplotypes. Two of these haplotypes are pretty much specific to Europe, but the other three (rs17696570, rs34555425 and rs76185642) are almost evenly spread between Europe and the Indian sub-continent. As identification of these three haplotypes might enable us drill down more precisely into the shared element of Indo and European DNA, I will look into them more specifically and report back. The prospect of checking them to ancient DNA having gone, what we can discern will be limited, but if this more narrowed-down examination of the data that we do have does support a spread from Northern Europe, all well and good. I will just be happy to learn one way or another.

[Nic]

Maybe by looking at the ancient DNA, but again, it looks like you are very averse to looking at ancient DNA. Anyway, I'm the third person on this thread that has told you that what you are proposing has no merit based on meaningful data, so I will stop responding to you. Good luck twisting modern DNA into an ancient narrative. And again, for the sake of the original poster, you should be considerate and continue this in your other thread (which nobody is replying to because of the lack of credibility).

I don't really see how it is off-topic to explore whether a later IE culture (possibly via Catacomb, Greece, Albania, Armenia or other) might have introduced further substantial non-Corded Ware steppic DNA into Europe from the South. Nor how one can be considerate to the original poster, when he or she appears to have been banned from the forum.

[Nic]

Do you think Slovakian R1b L51+, Polish Corded Ware L51+, and Afanasievo R1b L51+ samples share, rs10967965, and deletion at chr1:25592642-25661222, and phylogeny of Yersinia pestis?
Stone Age Yersinia pestis genomes shed light on the early evolution, diversity, and ecology of plague
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35412864/
https://mathii.github.io/2017/09/21/...ancient-europe


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1942507897

You might be onto something interesting here, as rs10967965 (and particularly its main Indo-European haplotypes rs17696570 and rs34555425) are associated with variants that inhibit the immune system, reducing the risk of a cytokine storm in response to new infection.

[Karagjoz]

To answer your question, rs10967965 is present in 25% of British alleles, and more than 40% of British individuals carry it on one allele or other.

It's odd you think I have an obsession with dismissing Corded Ware. I am bemused at anyone caring one way or another about this, or about which yDNA was carried in their paternal line (only one of their many thousands of ancestral lines). This, to me, looks more like the real 'monomania'.

I must admit, I did originally wonder whether you might have the flip side of the anti-CW attitude that you seem to be saying is held by some Italians on Eupedia. When I suggested a spread of IE DNA from Southern Europe, you responded by testing ancient data solely from outside of Southern Europe. It felt you were motivated to prove me wrong, rather than to see what the comparative evidence in ancient DNA showed. I'm glad I perceived this motivation wrongly.

I feel it's unfortunate you have chosen to resist temptation by deleting the folder containing the data you've obtained. After all, as limited and piecemeal as these results were, we have already learned quite a bit from them:
1. This single SNP reflecting DNA shared throughout the IE zone was already present across Neolithic Europe before Corded Ware arrived there.
2. When Corded Ware arrived, its frequency appears to have fallen.
3. Since Corded Ware, its frequency has sharply risen.
4. This subsequent rise in frequency has occurred less in the original Corded Ware zone of North Eastern Europe than in the other parts of Europe.

rs10967965 seems to have formed quite early on, so I wonder whether looking downstream of it ancestrally might yield more useful information.

98% of European rs10967965 alleles on the database fall into five almost mutually exclusive haplotypes. Two of these haplotypes are pretty much specific to Europe, but the other three (rs17696570, rs34555425 and rs76185642) are almost evenly spread between Europe and the Indian sub-continent. As identification of these three haplotypes might enable us drill down more precisely into the shared element of Indo and European DNA, I will look into them more specifically and report back. The prospect of checking them to ancient DNA having gone, what we can discern will be limited, but if this more narrowed-down examination of the data that we do have does support a spread from Northern Europe, all well and good. I will just be happy to learn one way or another.

Could this not have something to do with roman empire? As i recall south europe was more populated during roman era than north europe and there remains the possibility that roman legionaries and citizens from south (east) europe were placed in britain, france, spain etc

North east europe was unaffected by roman empire, was outside the borders

[anglesqueville]

It has to do primarily with a method consisting in using with autosomal haplotype methodologies that only make sense in the context of uniparental haplotypes. We can always try to drown this fact under all the gibberish of the world, the fact remains that recombinant DNA is recombinant.

[anglesqueville]

To answer your question, rs10967965 is present in 25% of British alleles, and more than 40% of British individuals carry it on one allele or other.

I can't understand this sentence. rs10967965 "is present" in 100% of British genomes (not speaking of gorillas). For the rest, all is in this capture:
Capture.JPG

[Nic]

I can't understand this sentence. rs10967965 "is present" in 100% of British genomes (not speaking of gorillas). For the rest, all is in this capture:
Capture.JPG

By rs10967965, I was referring to its minor variant, which is what I have been talking about throughout this thread. Hopefully, that has cleared up your misunderstanding.
For the rest, I was using 1,000 genomes, which gives a similar figure (25% of alleles with it).

[Nic]

It has to do primarily with a method consisting in using with autosomal haplotype methodologies that only make sense in the context of uniparental haplotypes. We can always try to drown this fact under all the gibberish of the world, the fact remains that recombinant DNA is recombinant.

On the global database I have been using, the autosomal haplotype rs10967965-minor is in every single one of the 118 samples with autosomal haplotype rs117770454-minor.
Why ignore data on the grounds that recombinant DNA might have recombined when you can see in practice that it hasn't?
It's usually more informative to take note of what is actually written on the wall rather than bang your head against it.