Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 159

Thread: Basal Eurasian and ASI Split

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,375
    Sex
    Location
    New York
    Ethnicity
    South Asian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    J2b2-M241 (J-Y978*)
    mtDNA
    M30b2a

    United States of America Canada

    Basal Eurasian and ASI Split

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    You are closest to BR2 and Ust-Ishim.

    Ust-Ishim is essentially ancestral ASI so that looks in line.

    BR2 is Y-J2a1b so perhaps there is come connection via the common J2 ancestry.

    At 4cM and above I have no matches except Ust Ishim indicating more ancestral ASI and less basal:
    4/400
    Chr Start Location End Location Centimorgans (cM) SNPs
    1 202903493 206135760 4.3 619
    20 56621015 58868193 8.2 565
    21 34819638 36731307 4.8 450
    Largest segment = 8.2 cM
    Total of segments > 4 cM = 17.4 cM

    5/500
    Chr Start Location End Location Centimorgans (cM) SNPs
    20 56621015 58868193 8.2 565
    Largest segment = 8.2 cM
    Total of segments > 5 cM = 8.2 cM
    How close is Ust-Ishim to ASI? Could we use it in Admixture tests?
    Paternal - Y-DNA: J2b2* (J-M241) Z2432+ Z2433+ Y978+ (J2b2a2b1*) (Hidden Content ) (YFull: YF02959) (FTDNA Kit B6225), mtDNA: M18a* (FTDNA Kit 329180) (YFull: YF63773)
    Maternal- Y-DNA: R1a1a1b2a1a2c2d5a* L657+ Y7+ (R-Y16494) (FTDNA Kit 311047), mtDNA: Hidden Content (FTDNA Kit B6225) (YFull: YF02959) (Mother's Mother's Father: R1a1a1b2a1a2c2* Y7+ Y29+ (R-Y29) (FTDNA Kit 329181))

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

     Mehrdad (11-18-2014)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,450

    Basal Eurasian and ASI Split

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_McNinja View Post
    How close is Ust-Ishim to ASI? Could we use it in Admixture tests?
    Quite close, I suppose.
    Ancestral ASI split from basal 2000 generations back. ~50000 years at 25yr/gen.
    Ancestral ASI split into ASI, ‘proto-East Asia’ and ancestors of Onge 1700 generations back. ~42500 years at 25yr/gen
    Ust-Ishim's date falls between the two, so yes Ust-Ishim chould be a good proxy for ASI.
    Last edited by parasar; 11-19-2014 at 01:12 PM.

  4. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    471
    Sex

    Basal Eurasian and ASI Split

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    Ancestral ASI split from basal 2000 generations back. ~50000 years at 25yr/gen.
    On what grounds have you made this estimate? 50,000 YBP should be quite close to the era of the MRCA of the well-known subclades of F-M89 (GHIJK).

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    Ancestral ASI split into ASI, ‘proto-East Asia’ and ancestors of Onge 1700 generations back. ~42500 years at 25yr/gen
    Ust-Ishim's date falls between the two, so yes Ust-Ishim chould be a good proxy for ASI.
    42,500 YBP should be close to the era of the MRCA of N-M231 and O-M175 or the MRCA of P1-M45 and P*-P295(xM45).

  5. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,450

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    On what grounds have you made this estimate? 50,000 YBP should be quite close to the era of the MRCA of the well-known subclades of F-M89 (GHIJK).

    42,500 YBP should be close to the era of the MRCA of N-M231 and O-M175 or the MRCA of P1-M45 and P*-P295(xM45).
    They are based on my interpretation of Reich et. al.'s numbers from their ANI/ASI paper. pg 40 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re08365-s1.pdf
    "2,000 gens (Europe-Asia split)" or "Split of ANI and ASI ancestors" which in my interpretation is ASI splitting from basal European, and I see it supported based on which side of the split Ust-Ishim lies.

    Followed by "1,700 gens (Asian split)" or "Split of Asian populations (‘proto-East Asia’, ASI, and Onge)"

    Reich's paper also indicated in a way the time-frame of ANE entering from the ancestral ASI side into the ancestral ANI side I think when they say "600 gens ago Gene flow from ‘proto-East Asia’ into the ancestral population of ANI and West Eurasians" which comes to 15000ybp and in light of 24000 year old MA1 is quite possible.

    Overall while these are depicted as discreet events, in reality they are likely composites of multiple events.

    That whole M89 to M9 to M526 is quite close, so yes 50000ybp looks quite possibly time-wise the point of a major split.

  6. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    471
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    They are based on my interpretation of Reich et. al.'s numbers from their ANI/ASI paper. pg 40 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re08365-s1.pdf
    "2,000 gens (Europe-Asia split)" or "Split of ANI and ASI ancestors" which in my interpretation is ASI splitting from basal European, and I see it supported based on which side of the split Ust-Ishim lies.

    Followed by "1,700 gens (Asian split)" or "Split of Asian populations (‘proto-East Asia’, ASI, and Onge)"

    Reich's paper also indicated in a way the time-frame of ANE entering from the ancestral ASI side into the ancestral ANI side I think when they say "600 gens ago Gene flow from ‘proto-East Asia’ into the ancestral population of ANI and West Eurasians" which comes to 15000ybp and in light of 24000 year old MA1 is quite possible.

    Overall while these are depicted as discreet events, in reality they are likely composites of multiple events.

    That whole M89 to M9 to M526 is quite close, so yes 50000ybp looks quite possibly time-wise the point of a major split.
    But then what might modern examples of C-M130 and DE-YAP represent? They should be even more "basal" than "Basal Eurasian" in such a scenario.

    Note that the TMRCA ([C+F]+DE) and the TMRCA of (C+F) are very ancient; TMRCA ([C+F]+DE) - TMRCA (G+HIJK) or TMRCA (C+F) - TMRCA (G+HIJK) should be approximately equal to TMRCA ([C+F]+DE) * (1/3) or TMRCA (C+F) * (1/3), which should be approximately equal to 25,000 years assuming that TMRCA (G+HIJK) is 50,000 years. TMRCA ([C+F]+DE) or TMRCA (C+F) should be about 75,000 years. The TMRCA (B + CFDE) should be about 107,000 years, so another 32,000 years or so before the MRCA of CFDE. Most parsimoniously, the OoA migration should have occurred some time between 107,000 YBP and 75,000 YBP.

  7. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,450

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    But then what might modern examples of C-M130 and DE-YAP represent? They should be even more "basal" than "Basal Eurasian" in such a scenario.

    Note that the TMRCA ([C+F]+DE) and the TMRCA of (C+F) are very ancient; TMRCA ([C+F]+DE) - TMRCA (G+HIJK) or TMRCA (C+F) - TMRCA (G+HIJK) should be approximately equal to TMRCA ([C+F]+DE) * (1/3) or TMRCA (C+F) * (1/3), which should be approximately equal to 25,000 years assuming that TMRCA (G+HIJK) is 50,000 years. TMRCA ([C+F]+DE) or TMRCA (C+F) should be about 75,000 years. The TMRCA (B + CFDE) should be about 107,000 years, so another 32,000 years or so before the MRCA of CFDE. Most parsimoniously, the OoA migration should have occurred some time between 107,000 YBP and 75,000 YBP.
    I see CDEF as the OoA split.
    They come before the ASI split. That OoA split I belive Reich calculated as 4000 generations back. Essentially they would be in the background of both ANI and ASI ancestors.

  8. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    471
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    I see CDEF as the OoA split.
    Do you mean that you agree with my position that the Out-of-Africa migration most likely has occurred at some time after the MRCA of (B + CFDE) and before the MRCA of (CF + DE), i.e. some time between approximately 107,000 YBP and approximately 75,000 YBP?

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    They come before the ASI split. That OoA split I belive Reich calculated as 4000 generations back. Essentially they would be in the background of both ANI and ASI ancestors.
    If the "2,000 gens (Europe-Asia split)" or "Split of ANI and ASI ancestors" really does correspond to a split between ASI(?=Ust-Ishim-like proto-"Crown Eurasians") and basal European(="Basal Eurasian") as you have suggested, and this split has occurred roughly 50,000 YBP (around the time of the derivation of G, H, I, J, and K), then the age of the split between Eurasians and Africans caused by the Out-of-Africa migration of proto-Eurasians should be roughly twice that age (i.e. approximately 100,000 YBP), correct? A split between Eurasians and Africans dating to approximately 100,000 YBP should be not long after the genealogical split between CT-M168 and B-M60, which I have estimated to be approximately 107,000 YBP.

    However, the Y-DNA of a majority of modern Africans belongs to clades downstream of CT-M168. Some of their mtDNA (certainly the M and N derivatives, but also possibly some clades traditionally classified as subclades of L3(xM, N) that are often positioned by tree-building algorithms as basal branches of the M clade: cf. Lippold et al. 2014, Fu et al. 2014, etc.) may also be associated with a migration or migrations from Eurasia to Africa subsequent to the Out-of-Africa migration of proto-Eurasians. Is Reich's estimate of the time of the split between proto-Eurasians and their relatives left behind in Africa insensitive to such subsequent Eurasian → African admixture?

  9. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,450

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    Do you mean that you agree with my position that the Out-of-Africa migration most likely has occurred at some time after the MRCA of (B + CFDE) and before the MRCA of (CF + DE), i.e. some time between approximately 107,000 YBP and approximately 75,000 YBP?
    Yes. I think the split is a little earlier so I would go with the upper end of the range.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    If the "2,000 gens (Europe-Asia split)" or "Split of ANI and ASI ancestors" really does correspond to a split between ASI(?=Ust-Ishim-like proto-"Crown Eurasians") and basal European(="Basal Eurasian") as you have suggested, and this split has occurred roughly 50,000 YBP (around the time of the derivation of G, H, I, J, and K), then the age of the split between Eurasians and Africans caused by the Out-of-Africa migration of proto-Eurasians should be roughly twice that age (i.e. approximately 100,000 YBP), correct? A split between Eurasians and Africans dating to approximately 100,000 YBP should be not long after the genealogical split between CT-M168 and B-M60, which I have estimated to be approximately 107,000 YBP.

    However, the Y-DNA of a majority of modern Africans belongs to clades downstream of CT-M168. Some of their mtDNA (certainly the M and N derivatives, but also possibly some clades traditionally classified as subclades of L3(xM, N) that are often positioned by tree-building algorithms as basal branches of the M clade: cf. Lippold et al. 2014, Fu et al. 2014, etc.) may also be associated with a migration or migrations from Eurasia to Africa subsequent to the Out-of-Africa migration of proto-Eurasians. Is Reich's estimate of the time of the split between proto-Eurasians and their relatives left behind in Africa insensitive to such subsequent Eurasian → African admixture?
    E is IMO a back migration to Africa. CF, YAP almost spring out together, within the margin of error of SNP counting backwards from the present, say +- 750 years. So I think either both were African, or E is a back migration. Based on current distribution, it appears that the latter is more likely.

    I would say that Reich's date for the split from autosomal calculations is not that sensitive to a Y line, but there should be some evidence from the basal European side going back to Africa (perhaps via mainly E).
    Last edited by parasar; 11-20-2014 at 06:04 AM.

  10. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    471
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    E is IMO a back migration to Africa. CF, YAP almost spring out together, within the margin of error of SNP counting backwards from the present, say +- 750 years. So I think either both were African, or E is a back migration. Based on current distribution, it appears that the latter is more likely.
    I generally agree with what you have written here, but I would consider three lineages (C, F, and YAP+) rather than two because the connection between C and F as opposed to YAP+ is fleeting if not tenuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    I would say that Reich's date for the split from autosomal calculations is not that sensitive to a Y line, but there should be some evidence from the basal European side going back to Africa (perhaps via mainly E).
    I understand the reasons for such a hypothesis, but it seems curious to me that of the haplogroups often suspected of indicating a very old migration from Eurasia to Africa, all but one are more closely related to haplogroups typical of certain modern East Asian and Andamanese populations (Y-DNA DE(xE), mtDNA M) than to anything else. The only exception is mtDNA haplogroup U6, which is related to the mtDNA of every published Palaeolithic Eurasian AMH as far as I know (to the mtDNA of the Kostenki 14 specimen from the Don watershed and the later Mal'ta specimen from the vicinity of Lake Baikal at the level of haplogroup U and to the mtDNA of the Ust'-Ishim specimen from the Ob-Irtysh watershed and the Tianyuan specimen from northern China at the level of haplogroup R). If this hypothetical early Eurasian influence in Africa has been mediated mostly by "Basal Eurasian" (in your terms, "Basal European") populations, it seems that such populations must have shared some haploid similarity with an early population of East Asia that is not reflected in the haploid gene pools of "Western Eurasian" populations derived from the "Crown Eurasian" node. Would you explain this as a result of ancient East Asians' being basal to the "Crown Eurasian" node (or, in other words, "Crown Eurasian" having derived from an early population of AMHs in East Asia)?
    Last edited by Ebizur; 11-20-2014 at 07:04 AM.

  11. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,450

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    I generally agree with what you have written here, but I would consider three lineages (C, F, and YAP+) rather than two because the connection between C and F as opposed to YAP+ is fleeting if not tenuous.
    Breaking up CF into C, F is fine as that split is also almost contemporaneous. I think ancient DNA will show them not as opposed as we are lead to believe from modern distribution though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    I understand the reasons for such a hypothesis, but it seems curious to me that of the haplogroups often suspected of indicating a very old migration from Eurasia to Africa, all but one are more closely related to haplogroups typical of certain modern East Asian and Andamanese populations (Y-DNA DE(xE), mtDNA M) than to anything else. The only exception is mtDNA haplogroup U6, which is related to the mtDNA of every published Palaeolithic Eurasian AMH as far as I know (to the mtDNA of the Kostenki 14 specimen from the Don watershed and the later Mal'ta specimen from the vicinity of Lake Baikal at the level of haplogroup U and to the mtDNA of the Ust'-Ishim specimen from the Ob-Irtysh watershed and the Tianyuan specimen from northern China at the level of haplogroup R). If this hypothetical early Eurasian influence in Africa has been mediated mostly by "Basal Eurasian" (in your terms, "Basal European") populations, it seems that such populations must have shared some haploid similarity with an early population of East Asia that is not reflected in the haploid gene pools of "Western Eurasian" populations derived from the "Crown Eurasian" node. Would you explain this as a result of ancient East Asians' being basal to the "Crown Eurasian" node (or, in other words, "Crown Eurasian" having derived from an early population of AMHs in East Asia)?
    I see it quite possible that ~100000 to 50000ybp East Asians could be 'basal' to "Crown Eurasian" but I admit I don't fully understand the concept of basal. I would appreciate if someone could clarify the concept.

    The main reason I consider basal Eurasian to be basal European is that it has been discerned from European ancient DNA. It may actually have been present in West Asia and North Africa too.

    Reich group's San paper was interesting as they IMO were seeing basal European deep in Africa. To emphasize basal European and not basal Eurasian.

    Pickrell et. al.:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632.full
    The largest amplitudes are obtained with European populations as references (Fig. 1A); taken literally, this would seem to implicate Europe as the source of admixture (although Middle Eastern populations are also among the best proxies).
    Analysis:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VG4IwDTF8xE
    Back to Africa – but from where?
    Reich and his colleagues found that DNA sequences in the Khoisan people most closely resemble some found in people who today live in southern Europe. That, however, does not mean the migration back to Africa started in Italy or Spain. More likely, the migration began in what is now the Middle East.

    We know that southern Europeans can trace their ancestry to the Middle East. However, in the thousands of years since they – and the ancestors of the Khoisan – left the region, it has experienced several waves of immigration. These waves have had a significant effect on the genes of people living in the Middle East today, and means southern Europeans are much closer to the original inhabitants of the Levant than modern-day Middle Easterners.

Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-13-2016, 08:32 AM
  2. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 08-07-2014, 02:12 AM
  3. Basal Ydna query
    By vettor in forum General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2014, 06:56 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-23-2013, 07:00 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
  •