posted
Out of Africa: Largest-ever Study On African Genetics Revealing Origins, Migration
ScienceDaily (Apr. 30, 2009) — African, American, and European researchers working in collaboration over a 10-year period have released the largest-ever study of African genetic data—more than four million genotypes—providing a library of new information on the continent which is thought to be the source of the oldest settlements of modern humans.
The study demonstrates startling diversity on the continent, shared ancestry among geographically diverse groups and traces the origins of Africans and African Americans. It is published in the April 30 issue of the journal Science Express.
Researchers studied 121 African populations, four African American populations and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 DNA markers. The study traced the genetic structure of Africans to 14 ancestral population clusters that correlated with ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. The research team demonstrated that there is more genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on earth.
They also determined that the ancestral origin of humans was probably located in southern Africa, near the South Africa-Namibian border. Extrapolating the data, scientists were able to map ancient migrations of populations and determined that the exit point of modern humans out of Africa was near the middle of the Red Sea in East Africa. They also provide evidence for ancient common ancestry of geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations in Africa, including Pygmies from central Africa and click-speaking populations from southern and eastern Africa, suggesting the possibility that the original pygmy language may have contained clicks. Overall, they demonstrate remarkable correspondence between cultural, linguistic, and genetic diversity in Africa.
"This is the largest study to date of African genetic diversity in the nuclear genome," said Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist with joint appointments in the School of Arts and Sciences and the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. "This long term collaboration, involving an international team of researchers and years of research expeditions to collect samples from populations living in remote regions of Africa, has resulted in novel insights about levels and patterns of genetic diversity in Africa, a region that has been underrepresented in human genetic studies. Our goal has been to do research that will benefit Africans, both by learning more about their population history and by setting the stage for future genetic studies, including studies of genetic and environmental risk factors for disease and drug response." Tishkoff says that there is no single African population that is representative of the diversity present on the continent. Therefore, many ethnically diverse African populations should be included in studies of human genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and drug response.
Anthropologists, historians and linguists now have at their disposal a completely new volume of research with which to test theories of human migration, cultural evolution and population history in Africa. Basic scientists, physicians and public health officials now have a foundation for illuminating the complex history of Africans and African-Americans, with implications for studies aimed at finding disease genes in these populations and learning which genetic differences make some individuals more susceptible to diseases like HIV, cancer or malaria.
This study also sheds light on African American ancestry, which they find originates predominantly from western African Niger-Kordofanian (~71 percent), European (~13 percent), and other African (~8 percent) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. These results could have important implications for the design and interpretation of studies which aim to identify genetic and environmental risk factors for diseases common in the African American community, including prostate cancer, hypertension and diabetes.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education at Vanderbilt University, the L.S.B. Leakey and Wenner Gren Foundation, the National Science Foundation, David and Lucile Packard and a Burroughs Wellcome Foundation Career Award given to Tishkoff. Genotyping costs were supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Mammalian Genotyping Service. The study was conducted by Tishkoff, Alessia Ranciaro and Jibril B. Hirbo, formerly with the University of Maryland and now with the Departments of Genetics and Biology at Penn; Floyd A. Reed, also formerly with the University of Maryland and now with Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Biology; Françoise R. Friedlaender, an independent researcher; Christopher Ehret of the Department of History at the University of California, Los Angeles; Alain Froment of the Musée de l'Homme in Paris; Agnes. A. Awomoyi, formerly of the University of Maryland and currently with the Department of Internal Medicine at Ohio State University; Ogobara Doumbo and Mahamadou A. Thera of the Malaria Research and Training Center, University of Bamako, Mali; Muntaser Ibrahim and Abdalla T. Juma of the Department of Molecular Biology at the University of Khartoum, Sudan; Maritha J. Kotze of the Department of Pathology at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa; Godfrey Lema and Thomas B. Nyambo of the Department of Biochemistry at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Tanzania; Jason H. Moore of the Departments of Genetics and Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School; Holly Mortensen, formerly with the University of Maryland and now with the National Center for Computational Toxicology in the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Sabah A. Omar of the Kenya Medical Research Institute; Kweli Powell of the University of Maryland; Gideon S Pretorius of the Division of Human Genetics, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa; Michael W. Smith of the . Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute; Charles Wambebe of International Biomedical Research in Africa, Nigeria; James L. Weber of the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Wisc.; and Scott M. Williams of the Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Center for Human Genetics Research, Vanderbilt University.
The researchers wish to acknowledge the indigenous populations who so graciously donated the DNA samples used in this study.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: They also determined that the ancestral origin of humans was probably located in southern Africa, near the South Africa-Namibian border.
Then it would be consistent with the following study [from which the map came], to the extent that the southern area of Africa is implicated as a possible area of origin...
We next searched the globe for the putative origin giving the strongest relationship between within-population phenotypic variability (corrected for climate) and distance on Land (see Methods). This strongest cline originates in central/southern Africa, and could either be a single origin or the main origin in a multiregional scenario (Figs 2a and 3; effect of distance from the centroid of the likely origins after correcting for climate: Delta BIC = - 12.5; R^2 of plot against distance, 14.0) - A. Manica et al., The effect of ancient population bottlenecks on human phenotypic variation, 2007.
Ps - Note though, the former [citation from the intro post] concerns molecular genes, and the latter [this last citation] cranial phenotype.
The only noticeable difference between the estimates based on phenotypic and genetic traits ["neutral"-loci atDNA markers] is that the latter does not include south Africa amongst the most likely origins. - A. Manica et al. 2007
See map, it displays both genetic (a) and phenotypic (b) analysis of variation, including indicators for the magnitude of variation.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
If this diagram holds true, it would appear that Aframs are more "African" than Dogon from Mali, but one shouldn't read too much into Dogon being significantly "Eurasian" because they also share ancestry with East African sandawe and some Khoisan. This would suggest that most of or at least a good portion of that "Eurasian" blue is actually retention of some pre-OOA ancestral ancestry
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The study also problematises the claim that Southern Africa was a "no man's land" until the recent arrivals of the so-called Bantu and the European settlers[ a key tenet of white settler ideology.
And what does this study do to the standard claim that proto-humanity achieved full sapiens status in East Africa--specifically what is now known as Ethiopia.
P.S. As with any study funded by Europeans and conducted by them[fund and throw in a few locals to give an air of authenticity] this new bit of research should be critically evaluated.
I note that Rick Kittles did not participate in this study.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One should also be cautious about the report on the study claiming the increasingly popular thesis that there are possibly strong links between genetic profiles and disease.
My belief is that diet plays a greater causative role of disease than genes--especially in the cases of diseases such as cancers of all varieties and hypertension.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by lamin: [B] The study also problematises the claim that Southern Africa was a "no man's land" until the recent arrivals of the so-called Bantu and the European settlers[ a key tenet of white settler ideology.
I dont know about that. It is well known that the San peoples (so called Bushmen) were in place centuries earlier before Bantu or boer, although white settler ideology downplayed it.
And what does this study do to the standard claim that proto-humanity achieved full sapiens status in East Africa--specifically what is now known as Ethiopia. It moves the orgin point further south, which is fine because further south is even more "sub-Saharan" Africa.
P.S. As with any study funded by Europeans and conducted by them[fund and throw in a few locals to give an air of authenticity] this new bit of research should be critically evaluated.
Agreed and the ES veterans have done just that, as Mind's analysis, and Explorer's cross-check study above illustrates.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Originally posted by lamin: [B] The study also problematises the claim that Southern Africa was a "no man's land" until the recent arrivals of the so-called Bantu and the European settlers[ a key tenet of white settler ideology.
I dont know about that. It is well known that the San peoples (so called Bushmen) were in place centuries earlier before Bantu or boer, although white settler ideology downplayed it.
And what does this study do to the standard claim that proto-humanity achieved full sapiens status in East Africa--specifically what is now known as Ethiopia. It moves the orgin point further south, which is fine because further south is even more "sub-Saharan" Africa.
P.S. As with any study funded by Europeans and conducted by them[fund and throw in a few locals to give an air of authenticity] this new bit of research should be critically evaluated.
Agreed and the ES veterans have done just that, as Mind's analysis, and Explorer's cross-check study above illustrates.
Whatever lose ends that need tying up that the authors don't do, Explorer and rasol, along with you and al-Takruri tie them up.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back on topic, those who keep maing the claim that East Africans are significantly "Eurasian" need to take another look, the overall picture is that geneflow coming in is negligible overall and lets not forget that the blue color is not necessarily "Eurasian" mixture but could also equally be pre-OOA ancestral ancestry shared with those who eventually migrated out:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: Getting back on topic, those who keep maing the claim that East Africans are significantly "Eurasian" need to take another look, the overall picture is that geneflow coming in is negligible overall and lets not forget that the blue color is not necessarily "Eurasian" mixture but could also equally be pre-OOA ancestral ancestry shared with those who eventually migrated out:
Big Bass Man- good data presented. Can you tell me again that study this diagram was from, just for my records? I missed its intro in another thread. I would have to go with your observation that much of the variation we see has noting to do with any influx of "migrating Caucasoids" but pre OOA ancestry, which again confirms that Africa is the most diverse continent. Even the cranial studies find that Africa is the most diverse (Hanihara 2003). All this genetic variance is built-in to Africans. Race "mixes" or "backflow" are not needed to explain that fundamental indigenous diversity.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
it's very common in Nigerian Fulani and i only see it in two other West African countries, Senegal and Algeria.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic