posted
This is off-topic, but I was curious as to the origin of E-M81. It's found mostly in Berber populations, but I remember reading some study or another that posited an East African origin (specifically for E-M81, not just E3b having originated there and then spread and differentiated to E-M81 in N. Africa) for the haplotype. I think it said something to the effect that it was found at 2% or so among the Beta Israel, but I really don't remember very well. Does anyone know what study I'm talking about or any new ones on E-M81's origins?
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
The point as I recall it, is that M-81 can be found in the horn/sudan among populations who do not have J, but who do have M-35 [the predesessor lineage].
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I emailed Peter Underhill about the Sudanese data used in Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations (2000) awhile back. I was interested in the ethnic breakdown of the sample. He sent me the info and there were two M-81 bearers, both of whom were Beja.
The point as I recall it, is that M-81 can be found in the horn/sudan among populations who do not have J, but who do have M-35 [the predesessor lineage].
quote:Originally posted by Yom: I think it said something to the effect that it was found at 2% or so among the Beta Israel, but I really don't remember very well. Does anyone know what study I'm talking about or any new ones on E-M81's origins?
You might be talking out of a vague recollection of this piece,...
Since the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup especially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps, E3b2-M123 (2%), which is present as well (Underhill et al.2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002). The data suggest that two later expansions may have followed: one eastward along the Levantine corridor into the Near East and the other toward northwestern Africa. - Luis et al; The Levant Vs. the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations, 2004.
^Which seems a little misleading [as per the highlighted] in that, the M123 designation refers to the E3b3/E3b1c lineage, while the E3b2 designation was in reference to M81 lineage. The relatively new designation for E3b2-M81, is E3b1b. However, this doesn't distract from the fact that Keita did make reference [as noted already herein] to its presence in as far as Sudan and Ethiopia, pointing to Underhill and Muntaser as the sources of that information:
The major downstream mutations within this subclade are M78 found in the Horn, Egypt, and Maghreb, and M81 found in the Maghreb predominantly amongst Amazigh (Berber) speakers. (Some M81 can be found in samples from the Sudan (Underhill and Muntaser, personal communication), and Ethiopia; this would be consistent with this region being a possible area of origin, with founder effect explaining the high frequencies in Berber speakers in the Sahara and supra-Saharan Africa.) - S.O.Y. Keita; Explanation of the Pattern of P49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt, 2005.Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
EM81 roots are Eb** and from my owm interpretation it proliferated due to the waves of migration and in isolation with the Berber 'homeland'. IF I take a look at U6, being a small sample size (frequency) in West Africa, the original U6 precursors migratory patterns tooka path to Europe and proliferated. My take is that the samller frequency point to origin of that datapoint while the larger frequency shows the present location of actual dispersal and proliferation/spreading.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
M81 is OLDER in NE Africa than in NW Africa, although FOUNDER EFFECT seems to have made this lineage more FREQUENT in NW Africa than NE Africa. This is consistent with the spread of transhumant populations from the Western Desert into the Central Sahara and on into NW Africa.
quote:supercar wrote:
E-M81 as haplotype "V" has been mentioned quite a bit in the studies that Keita referred to. As you already know, this lineage is predominantly found among Berbers. This of course, doesn't mean that it isn't present in Sudan or Ethiopia, as Keita and others have found out.
quote: The major interest here is in assessing the data in order to understand the likely original frequencies, or those at different time depths, in order to understand different “levels of history,” to borrow a concept from Braudel (1982). It has been found that the ancestral state of the M35 (or 215/M35) subclade is found only in East Africa, including the Horn. The major downstream mutations within this subclade are M78 found in the Horn, Egypt, and Maghreb, and M81 found in the Maghreb predominantly amongst Amazigh (Berber) speakers. (Some M81 can be found in samples from the Sudan (Underhill and Muntaser, personal communication), and Ethiopia; this would be consistent with this region being a possible area of origin, with founder effect explaining the high frequencies in Berber speakers in the Sahara and supra-Saharan Africa.)
Since the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup espe-cially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps, E3b2-M123 (2%), which is present as well (Underhill et al.2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002). The data suggest that two later expansions may have followed: one eastward along the Levantine corridor into the Near East and the other toward northwestern Africa.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And old email reply from Underhill et al on M81, maybe this will help you Yom:
Charles,
My best guess is that hg E-M81 originated sometiime within Holocene pre-history perhaps 8,000 years ago. NE Africa is a reasonable guess as to its point of origin. This is a very crude temporal estimate, but the origin of the common ancestor was enough time ago in the past to help explain the accumulated YSTR diversity and widespread geographic distribution which could be the net effect of multiple dispersal events some early and some later. So overlapping some not. The point is that one should be careful not to assume that all M81 chromosomes are recently closely related. Closely matching localized YSTR haplotypes do exist indicative of a recent founder effect, but enough YSTR diversity exists on the overall hg E-M81 background to unscore the pre-historic molecular antiquity of this binary mutation, subsets of which may have participated in recent demographic events, perhaps some even during historical times.
I can't confirm that Luccote's hg V is actually M81 (He refuses to use other Y markers) but I assume this is feasible given the known distributions of M81 cataloged populations in other studies.
It is import to recognize that M81 probably does not truly occupy a "tip" in the Y tree even if depicted as such in some data sets. Rather it is likely that downstream markers (as yet undiscovered) exist at informative frequencies that will fractionate the M81 background further. Someday, these new markers will be revealed. In the meantime, YSTR patterns will have to suffice as to how closely currently defined ethnic groups are related and whenever the M81 landscape reflects overlapping migrations of different M81 chromosomal gene flows in certain regions.More binary markers are the best way forward.
Peter
I posted this email reply in another thread on this forum and rasol and Supercar gave an excellent breakdown on what Underhill was saying for those who couldn't quite grasp the significance and meaning of what Underhill was saying.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Underhill corresponded: I can't confirm that Luccote's hg V is actually M81 (He refuses to use other Y markers) but I assume this is feasible given the known distributions of M81 cataloged populations in other studies.[/b]
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
M81 does correlate to Lucotte's haplotype V but it's not alone in such correlation.
M81 is defined by PCR amplification and DHPLC heteroduplex analysis. Haplotype V is defined by 49a and 49f probes after digesting Taq I.
M81 is a biallelic marker. Haplotype V is a Taq I p49a,f variance.
Keita associates haplotype V with M35/M215. Al~Zahery associates haplotype V with M35.
M35 is recognized as associated with haplotype V. M78 and M81 are sub-clades of M35. All M35 sub-clades associate with haplotype V.
Judging from published reports: Beta Israel haplotype V corelates to M78; Amazigh haplotype V corelates to M81.
Haplotype V associates with each and every M35/M215 derivative, not with just one of them to the exclusion of the rest.
[Note: some Taq I 49a,f haplotypes have arisen more than once and require other information in understanding their significance for population relationships. Haplotype V is one of them. In Africa it associates with E3b but in Asia (outside of the far northeast extension of Africa misnomered as the Middle-East) haplotype V associates with R1a1.]
quote:Underhill corresponded: I can't confirm that Luccote's hg V is actually M81 (He refuses to use other Y markers) but I assume this is feasible given the known distributions of M81 cataloged populations in other studies.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
M81 does correlate to Lucotte's haplotype V but it's not alone in such correlation.
Don't know, but from an old study from Gerard Lucotte et al. 2000:
Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes in North African populations
Abstract: The frequency distribution of Y-chromosome haplotypes at DNA polymorphism p49/TaqI was studied in a sample of 505 North Africans from Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. A particulary high frequency (55.0%) of Y-haplotype 5 (A2,CO,DO,F1,11 ) was observed in these populations, with a relative predominance in those of Berber origin. Examination of the relative frequencies of other haplotypes in these populations, mainly haplotype 4 (the "African" haplotype), haplotype 15 (the "European" haplotype), and haplotypes 7 and 8 (the "Near-East" haplotypes), permit useful comparisons with neighboring peoples living in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and the Near East.
The highest frequency of haplotype 5 (68.9%) was previously observed in Berbers from Morocco, and it has been established that this haplotype is a characteristic Berber haplotype in North Africa....
Haplotype 5 (A2, C0, D0, F1, I1) has a particularly high frequency (55%) in North Africa (Lucotte et al. 2000), and is of predominantly Berber origin. - Lucotte et al.; North African genes in Iberia studied by Y-chromosome DNA haplotype 5; 2001.
...and M81 is the lineage commonly referenced as the main [paternal] signature of expansion of Berber-speaking groups, which possibly originated among proto-Berber speakers, from which the common ancestor of contemporary Berber speaking groups stems.
quote:alTakruri:
Keita associates haplotype V with M35/M215.
Maybe so, but it is of note that Keita's reference to this haplotype is from using Lucotte and Mercier as his sources, and as I have posted elsewhere,...
Of note are the frequencies of the aforementioned haplotypes; V, XI, and IV:
Lower Egypt (n=162); V=51.9%, XI=11.7%, and IV=1.2%.
Upper Egypt (n=66); V=24.2%, XI=28.8%, and IV=27.3%.
Lower Nubia (n=46); V=17.4%, XI=30.4%, and IV=39.1%.
The primary haplotypes found in Europe, XII and XV, according to Keita, could have likely entered into the country via Greco-Roman invasions, are found in Lower Egypt at 3.7% and 6.8% respectively. Not surprising, the frequencies of these two are lower in Upper egypt, with XII not represented, while XV is at 6.1%. They are absent in Lower Nubia. These results are according to Lucotte and Mercier's findings, 2003.
...and I've already posted a study from Lucotte, contextualizing haplotype V (haplotype 5).
Ps - Keita also makes reference to the notion of haplotype "V" being labeled an "Arab haplotype" by Lucotte et al., if memory serves me correctly; Keita clarifies that this lineage is supposed to actually be of E3b lineage, which is "African".
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al~Zahery (2003) also gives the haplotype V bands (A2,C0,D0,F1,I1) and associates it with E-M35 while Keita (2004) notes the association as M35/M215. If neither is restricting association solely to M35, then haplotype V in Africa includes M136, M34, M123, M148, M224, M78, M107, M165, M81, M281, M35, M215, etc.; in short, everything under the E3b umbrella.
M81 doesn't equal haplotype V. It's just one lineage that fits.
In Africa haplotype V associates with E3b, but in outter Asia haplotype V associates with R1a1.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Again, Keita in his 2005 publications references Lucotte et al. for his haplotype V (haplotype 5) findings. To that extent, his haplotype V would correspond to Lucotte's context of the haplotype, which I've already demonstrated with the Lucotte study cited above. E3b-M35 doesn't predominant in Berber populations vis-a-vis other African populations, particularly in East Africa...which in Lucotte's study happens to be the case otherwise [in the study above]. Nor does E3b-M35 originate amongst Berber speakers. Also, in Keita's 2005 publication, what do you suppose haplotype XI denotes, if not E3b-M78? So, I don't know about the other folks you mention, in terms of their contextualization, but that of Lucotte et al.'s is clear...and to the extent that Keita utilizes Lucotte's data for his 2005 publication, that reference automatically puts haplotype V in the context that Lucotte et al. placed it.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita says the following about TaqI haplotypes
quote: Some TaqI haplotypes have arisen more than once, and therefore other information may be required to fully understand population relationships.
article named below p.560b
That's why haplotype V (A2,C0,D0,F1,I1) has both the African (E3b) and Asian (R1a1) affiliations.
Keita references al-Zahery for ht 5, as well as Lucotte and Mercier, in table 2a of his 2005 work -- History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence.
Al~Zahery's (2003) figure 4 shows Iraq with a 10% ht 5 frequency and associates it with M35. Keita clearly does the same in the above cited 2005 work:
Since Lucotte and Mercier do not relate TaqI ht's to the standard nomenclatures, Keita relied on al~Zahery (and Semino) for those associations.
quote: Although unfortunately not assessed by Lucotte and Mercier (2003a), biallelic markers define clades (Hammer and Zegura, 2002) that can be associated with the TaqI p49a, f variants (e.g., al-Zahery et al., 2003; Semino, personal communication).
Referencing al~Zahery for ht 11's definitive bands (A3,C0,D0,F1,I1) besides its E-M35 association it also affiliates with R-M17.
In Africa, the particular E-M35 subclade that may go along with ht 11 could be deduced from the regional population of its highest frequencies in Keita's tables correlated to equivalent frequencies of the same regional populations in reports that use the standard nomenclature.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some TaqI haplotypes have arisen more than once, and therefore other information may be required to fully understand population relationships.
article named below p.560b
That's why haplotype V (A2,C0,D0,F1,I1) has both the African (E3b) and Asian (R1a1) affiliations.
I agree with Keita that we need other info to assess what haplotype V entails in the Lucotte et al. context, who are the researchers he relies on for data on haplotype frequencies. I've already posted a Lucotte et al. study from 2001 associating haplotype V with "Berber origin" and "predominant in Berber groups" with respect to the other populations they were compared to in their assessments. In fact, Keita himself took note of this:
Haplotype V is found in very high frequencies in supra-Saharan countries and Mauritania (collective average 55%), and in Ethiopia (average of 45.8% or reported groups) (Table II). Its highest prevalence in samples from specific populations is 60.5 and 68.9%: Ethiopian Falasha and Moroccan Berbers, respectively. Its frequency is considerably less in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table II [Lucotte et al.]). The appellation “Arabic” for V is therefore misleading because it implies an origin external to Africa. In fact this variant has been African called by Lucotte et al. (1993, p.839; 1996, p.469), and “Berberian” (sic) also by them (Lucotte et al., 2001, p.887). Significantly it has been convincingly argued by these researchers that because the Falasha (the “black Jews” of Ethiopia), have such a high frequency of V and XI and none [in their studies] of VII and VIII, that this shows them to be “clearly of African origin” and to have adopted Judaism (Lucotte and Mercier, 2003b, p.669; Lucotte and Smets, 1999). This is in contrast to their being primarily the descendants of immigrant Near Eastern Jewish communities… - Keita, 2005.
Yes, Keita is right about the "Arabic" label being misleading, but in fact, if one reads Lucotte et al. later work, it is clear that they associate this with North Africans. Lucotte et al. refers to North Egyptians, as Egyptian "Arabs", and makes reference to groups in other parts of North Africa as "Arabs" as well. So, in actuality Lucotte et al. were associating haplotype V with what they perceived as "Arabized" north Africans. And so, as one can see, they refered to haplotype V as "Arab" and "Berberian", and made note of the fact that the Falasha had a high frequency "haplotype V and XI", which attests to their African provenance.
Keita associates haplotype V and XI with African origin, but so does Lucotte et al. Keita associates V and XI, barring his reference to other contexts used by other researchers, with M35/215, but if Lucotte et al. associate these with "North Africans" and Ethiopian Jews, and proclaim that is of African provenance, they too must be associating it with M35/215. M81 is the predominant "Berber" variant of M35. So the question is, if haplotype is predominantly "Berber" and associated with "Berber origin", and haplotype XI is noted to have high frequencies in Eastern Africa, and decreases as one moves west of the African continent, then what is haplotype V and haplotype XI, as presented by Lucotte et al.?...In the meantime from Keita's publication:
Some TaqI 49 a,f variants have multiple associations; for example VIII is affiliated with several lineages (Al-Zahery, 2003). So far research indicates that haplotype V in Africa is associated with the M35/215 (or 215/M35) subclade, as is XI, and IV with the M2/PN1/M180 lineage, both of the YAP/M145/M213 cluster. These lineages that in Africa that affiliate with heliotypes V, XI, and IV (called “sub-Saharan”), are joined by a transition mutation: “(M)ost notably the PN2 transition…unites two high frequency subclades, defined by M2/PN1/M180 mutations in sub-Saharan Africa, and M35/215 in north and east Africa…” (Underhill et al., 2001, p.50; see also Cruciani et al., 2002).
quote:alTakruri:
quote: Keita references al-Zahery for ht 5, as well as Lucotte and Mercier, in table 2a of his 2005 work -- History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence.
Al~Zahery's (2003) figure 4 shows Iraq with a 10% ht 5 frequency and associates it with M35. Keita clearly does the same in the above cited 2005 work: [QUOTE] Haplotype V is associated with the M35/215 (or 215/ M35) subclade, as is XI (in Africa), and IV with the M2/PN1/M180 lineage, both of the YAP/M145/M213 cluster.
p. 562a
Since Lucotte and Mercier do not relate TaqI ht's to the standard nomenclatures, Keita relied on al~Zahery (and Semino) for those associations.
See, the data in the tables of these haplotypes for the African samples come exclusively from Lucotte et al. publications. Keita cannot superimpose al-Zahery's contextualization over that of Lucotte et al. Lucotte et al.'s contexts remain Lucotte et al.'s context. Now if Keita wishes to critique Lucotte et al. that is one thing, but to alter the context of their work, is quite another. Clearly, Lucotte et al.'s haplotype V has an African provenance. In al-Zahery's data, it could easily have referred to either E3b affiliated lineages, or R haplogroup, as noted in the very table that you speak of. The safest thing to say about haplotypes V and XI in the Lucotte et al. context, is that they are both affiliated with M35/215, but apparently V and XI are variants of this PN2 transition lineage, NOT the 'generalized' M35 macrohaplogroup.
quote:alTakruri:
quote: Although unfortunately not assessed by Lucotte and Mercier (2003a), biallelic markers define clades (Hammer and Zegura, 2002) that can be associated with the TaqI p49a, f variants (e.g., al-Zahery et al., 2003; Semino, personal communication).
Referencing al~Zahery for ht 11's definitive bands (A3,C0,D0,F1,I1) besides its E-M35 association it also affiliates with R-M17.
In Africa, the particular E-M35 subclade that may go along with ht 11 could be deduced from the regional population of its highest frequencies in Keita's tables correlated to equivalent frequencies of the same regional populations in reports that use the standard nomenclature.
Again, Keita cannot simply say that Lucotte et al. contexts of "haplotype" V is the M35 macrohaplogroup in general, when "haplotype" XI, also associated with M35, is singled out. The XI is highest in Eastern Africa, as can be seen from the Egyptian, "Nubian" and Ethiopian samples, and starts decreasing westward in the African samples. Now, Lucotte et al. proclaim the opposite observation for haplotype V, whereby its frequency is highest in western Africa, specifically in "Berber" groups. The predominant paternal lineages in "Berber groups" in coastal Northwest Africa are all M35 affiliated, and largely of "M81" extraction. It is interesting that Lucotte et al. call haplotype V, "Berberian" or "Arabic" [ in association specifically with "North African Arabs"] and "African". In that Keita's frequency data derive from Lucotte et al. publications, these can only be interpreted from Lucotte et al.'s perspective, and al-Zahery or any other researcher's context cannot be transposed with that of Lucotte et al.'s. What Keita can best do, and which he does, is to associate Lucotte et al.'s haplotypes/sub-clades/variants V and XI with the M35 macrohaplogroup and critique them where there is a need to. In the latter, he does precisely that by the mention of Lucotte et al.'s "Arab appellation", and that their nomenclature doesn't make it precise as to which specific M35 sub-clades to place haplotypes V and XI. From my viewpoint though, in that Lucotte et al. speak of haplotype V as "Berberian", while singling out haplotype XI [another M35 affiliated haplotype], the most that can be said of these haplotypes, is that both V [in the Lucotte et al. context, may well strongly relate to the M81 derivative] and XI belong to macrohaplogroup M35. Indeed, that is where Keita too seems to have left it, barring any further insights from Lucotte et al. themselves.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lucotte makes no biallelic marker context for ht 5, al~Zahery and others do that. The association of ht 5 with M35 is from al~Zahery as has been shown. Nowhere does Lucotte make any such statement. Keita was quite clear where he got the ht 5/M35 association.
S.O.Y. Keita History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence p.562a
Lucotte makes no biallelic marker context for ht 5, al~Zahery and others do that.
And if so, what bearing has al-Zahery's context of haplotype V have on that of Lucotte et al.'s (?), a point I've been trying to get across to you all this time.
quote:al Takruri:
The association of ht 5 with M35 is from al~Zahery as has been shown.
The association of Lucotte et al.'s haplotype V appellation has been made through extrapolation of the predominant paternal North and East African Taq I p49a,f haplotypes/lineages. Lucotte et al.'s context, for the x th time now, cannot in any way be transposed with that of other researchers but "Lucotte et al.'s". What is the predominant "Berber" Lineage? What are the predominant PN2 transition lineages in "Northeast Africa" and the "African Horn"? Once anyone figures the answers to these questions, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what haplotypes V and XI "associate" with, even without any specific mention of the 'sub-clades' in question. I've demonstrated that Keita in no way transposes al-Zahery's haplotype XI with that of Lucotte et al., who are the exclusive sources for Keita's African lineage frequency data.
quote:al Takruri:
Nowhere does Lucotte make any such statement.
See post above.
quote:al Takruri:
Keita was quite clear where he got the ht 5/M35 association.
Nowhere does Keita claim that Lucotte et al.'s haplotype V [which is not M35 in of itself, but a derivative of M35] association with M35 macrohaplogroup, is obtained from al-Zahery association. That is the conclusion you reached. If Keita doesn't know what Lucotte et al.'s haplotype V is, as you seem to imply, then he cannot simply "assume" that he can transpose their haplotype V with the context in which al Zahery placed it. All one needs to do, is ask the questions I asked in the last post [above] after reading the various Lucotte et al. publications on these haplotype frequencies and distribution patterns, not to mention the appellations that Lucotte et al. give them, and realize that haplotypes V and XI are associated with M35 macrohaplogroup.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've made the point to all (not just you) what bearing al~Zahery has on Lucotte, i.e., he's alligned TaqI variances to biallelic clades. Ht 5 is not a derivative of M35. They are two distinct things.
Keita's words on ht 5/M35 speak for themselves. I need not repeat them a third time. And for sure Keita also associates ht 11 (in Africa) with M35, again after al~Zahery.
The particular subclades Lucotte's ht's most likely associate with may be ascertainable by matching the TaqI freqs to the corresponding biallelic subclade freqs of the same magnitude in given regional populations as I posited in an earlier post.
ES AE&E colleagues working toward the same goal could possibly hypothesize which subclades more precisely allign with TaqI ht's instead of fruitlessly debating the relevancy of Lucotte vs al~Zahery in Keita's works.
If they do so they will have advanced the knowledged rather than display the inability to work as a team in arriving at independent original paradigms.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I've made the point to all (not just you) what bearing al~Zahery has on Lucotte, i.e., he's alligned TaqI to biallelic clades.
Al Zahery's context for haplotype V has no bearing on that of Lucotte et al., because then, the Lucotte et al. studies who have been called "Al Zahery's" study. Did Lucotte et al. conduct the studies bearing Lucotte et al. or al Zahery? The answer to this question alone, should tell you groundless basis of your point.
Case in point: which African lineage frequency data for haplotypes V and XI have Keita referenced al Zahery in his tables.
quote:al Takruri:
Ht 5 is not a derivative of M35. They are two distinct things.
Of course they are distinct. Lucotte et al.'s haplotype V in no way is M35 itself. If you say others, cite the Lucotte et al. study referenced in the Keita study that brought you that conclusion. Lucotte et al. proclaimed haplotype V to be "Berberian", "Arab" and "African", and likely of "Berber" origin. Give me any study that proclaims M35 originated amongst "Berbers".
quote:al Takruri:
Keita's words on ht 5/M35 speak for themselves.
Precisely, and they don't reach the conclusions in a way that you proclaim they reached.
quote:al Takruri:
I need not repeat them a third time. And for sure Keita also associates ht 11 (in Africa) with M35, again after al~Zahery.
Keita cannot proclaim that Lucotte et al.'s haplotypes V and XI are associated with M35 based on NOT Lucotte et al. themselves, but al Zahery. See your obligation from the first post, if you say otherwise, i.e. produce the African data for haplotypes V and XI, which Keita references al Zahery instead of Lucotte et al.
quote:al Takruri:
ES AE&E colleagues working toward the same goal could possibly hypothesize which subclades more precisely allign with TaqI ht's instead of fruitlessly debating the relevancy of Lucotte vs al~Zahery in Keita's works.
If you attribute claims to Keita which aren't his, then of course pointing out the flaws of this, is anything but fruitless. When you do something like that, it changes the context of the study at hand, and this is no small thing; it needs to be straightened out.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone can see I've provided quotes from the man himself not filler of my own invention. As expected you begin to talk about me rather than stick to the topic of TaqI variances, biallelic markers, and their relationships.
And why? Because you can produce not a single contextual quote contradicting all of those I posted.
That being the case I need dialogue no further.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Anyone can see I've provided quotes from the man himself not filler of my own invention.
Keita never said that he is associating Lucotte et al.'s haplotype V based on Al Zahery rather than the authors of the African data, Lucotte et al. Why haven't you produced that citation?...because it doesn't exist!
quote:al Takruri:
As expected you begin to talk about me rather than stick to the topic of TaqI variances, biallelic markers, and their relationships.
Where have I talked about you; produce the citation? As your's is, my focus is on the claims you attribute to Keita's studies; claims which are questionable!
quote:al Takruri:
And why? Because you can produce not a single contextual quote contradicting all of those I posted.
I have, it's right above, fully backed with extracts from both Keita's publication and that of Lucotte et al. That you chose to dismiss it, is your problem, not mine.
quote:al Takruri:
That being the case I need dialogue no further.
^ B.S. In other words, you know that you've made some baseless claims about haplotype V and XI vis-à-vis both Keita's publication and Lucotte et al., whom Keita references exclusively for his African data, and the only way to find a way out of it, is by pretending that this isn't the focus of the issue at hand. There is another term for this distractive antic: it is called copout.
In the meantime, the outstanding issues you've failed to deliver on:
Produce the African data for haplotypes V, XI and IV which Keita references from Al Zahery instead of Lucotte et al.
Preconditional to the above, are the following questions:
If the above data isn't Al Zahery's, and produced by some other researchers [i.e. Lucotte et al.] with their own samples, sampling techniques and nomenclature/contextualizations, how then can you presume that the contexts of the actual researchers should be dismissed in lieu of some other researcher who didn't conduct the study at hand? You are accusing Keita of doing this, if not yourself.
Haplotypes V and XI are "associated" with M35, based on extrapolations from BOTH Lucotte et al.'s own appellations AND known frequency distributions of sub-clades of the macro-haplogroup to which these haplotypes belong from BOTH the various Lucotte et al. publications, and those from other researchers, for example; Underhill, Al Zahery, Cruciani, and Semino. This is not the same thing as saying that haplotype V is M35 itself. The context of Keita's African haplotypes V and XI remain just Lucotte et al.'s, well...because the data were extracted from Lucotte et al.'s work, not anybody else's. How then can you proclaim that Keita saw it fit to associate Lucotte et al.'s haplotypes V and XI with M35 based on Al Zahery's contextualization, WITHOUT taking Lucotte et al.'s, the authors of the data he is using, own contextualizations into consideration?
Yes, Lucotte et al.'s contextualization of haplotypes V and XI don't boil down to specified sub-clades, which is why some extrapolation was needed based on BOTH Lucotte et al.'s appellations and their data on frequency & distributions of thse haplotypes, AND other known data from studies conducted by other researchers. Based on this, in that both haplotype V and XI logically associated with the M35 macrohaplogroup, how then can you say that haplotype V is the generalized M35 macrohapogroup?
In that Lucotte et al. proclaim that haplotype V is "Berberian" and appears to be predominantly of "Berber origin", how can you proclaim that haplotype V is M35, when there is no such thing detected amongst Berbers, but the derivatives of M35?
In that Al Zahery's XI likely differs from that of Lucotte et al.'s African data on XI, which according to Lucotte et al. are of African provenance, how can you either superimpose Al Zahery's contextualization over or transpose it with that of Lucotte et al.?
It is of note that the referenced Al Zahery's haplotype XI is NOT data for Africans, NOR do they necessarily associate with M35; they could well be R haplogroup, as Keita himself noted. However, Lucotte et al. has made it clear that its association with Africans, is one with an "African" provenance. Can you say the same for R haplogroup?
^More to come, pending answers to these outstanding points/questions.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chase your own willow the wisps. I stand by what I've written. It's clear, concise, thorough, and only one forum member doesn't get it (or doesn't want to get it).
And you said who was talking about the personalities, instigating via inflammatory antics? Yet you produce no evidence of this herein. The above on the other hand, is evidence enough of you being the culprit of distracting from the real issue at hand, and instigating in what you'll later on place yourself as the victim. I know this game all too well.
quote:al Takruri:
I stand by what I've written.
Won't make it factual/accurate about the study(s) you are citing.
quote:al Takruri: It's clear, concise, thorough, and only one forum member doesn't get it (or doesn't want to get it).
If it was that what you proclaim it to be, you would have had answers to the outstanding issues put before you, but you don't. Instead you come back with this weak feedback; it doesn't take any significant stretch of the imagination to figure out why!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like certain others here, I really don't care what you think anymore. You really just aren't that important that what anyone writes needs to pass your muster to be a valid or accurate assessment of a forum member's study and analysis of the available cited scholaraly materials.
Now go on and have the last word.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Like certain others here,
...sounds like the sort of attribute trolls have; contempt for accuracy and precision.
quote:al Takruri:
I really don't care what you think anymore.
Care or care not, or else like it or not, inaccuracies or peculiarities inherent in your claims on the issue(s) at hand will be by all means brought to your attention.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And now addressing al Takruri's immaterial babbling, in the form of 'editing' his last non-issue post:
You really just aren't that important that what anyone writes needs to pass your muster to be a valid or accurate assessment of a forum member's study and analysis of the available cited scholaraly materials.
Now go on and have the last word.
Keeping in mind that earlier, it was al Takruri who posted this:
As expected you begin to talk about me rather than stick to the topic of TaqI variances, biallelic markers, and their relationships.
To which I responded:
Where have I talked about you; produce the citation?
And quite naturally, al Takruri produces zip, because it would appear that al Takruri was actually projecting himself onto another. See for yourself yet again:
You really just aren't that important
Doesn't address a damn thing, on what his obligation warrants him to address. You thought it correctly, it is centered on the poster itself. That is my irrefutable evidence of the observation I just made of him.
I really could care less how important you feel I am, it is a mere distraction; but that you've not addressed a single outstanding issue, as it pertains to your claims, further strengthens my position, and tells me that you really know that your claims don't reflect what you attribute to the study in question.
And oh btw, I do have the last word, the outstanding points you've been unable to address underlies just that. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quit your bickering, please. Stay civil and on-topic. Discussion is fine, but there's no need to get angry at each other.
Now, I have a question. When you use "Haplotype" in these contexts (e.g. Haplotype V, XI), are you referring to a collection of mutations found in multiple individuals that can be associated with a certain haplogroup (e.g. E-M35, E-M81)? Can you explain this to me?
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
See 2nd and 3rd paragraph in my post of 21 February, 2007 10:03 PM for concise explanation of how TaqI haplotyping is distinguished from biallelic haplogouping.
The al~Zahery reference is a good place to see how the two methods are somewhat alligned.
When I asked a couple of years ago how we know a certain TaqI variance was approxiamtely equivalent to a given biallelic marker clade, or subclade, I was directed to al~Zahery (by Thought, iirc) who published an excellent chart showing the TaqI haplotype probed bands' values ellipsed across from their associated biallelic marker haplogroups.
See N. Al-Zahery et al Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms in Iraq, a crossroad of the early human dispersal and of post-Neolithic migrations Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2003 Fig. 4
See also E. S. Poloni et al Human Genetic Affinities for Y-Chromosome P49a,f/TaqI Haplotypes Show Strong Correspondence with Linguistics Am. J. Hum. Genet. 61:1015–1035, 1997 pg 1016
who give a good intro to the science behind TaqI variance haplotypes.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Now, I have a question. When you use "Haplotype" in these contexts (e.g. Haplotype V, XI), are you referring to a collection of mutations found in multiple individuals that can be associated with a certain haplogroup (e.g. E-M35, E-M81)? Can you explain this to me?
First of all the question is, have you read the study in question, and what have you, personally, gleaned from it?
Things that you need to take into consideration about the Keita publication in question:
[*] His frequency data on African haplotypes V and XI, amongst others [Lucotte et al sampled non-Africans as well using the same haplotype designations] , are exclusively taken from Lucotte et al.
[*]Lucotte et al. don’t adopt the usual nomenclature used in many studies, like E3b-M35, E3b-M81, E3a-M2 and so forth.
[*]Lucotte calls haplotype V as “Arabic” [because they viewed the certain populations in North Africa, as Arabized Africans, and hence the term “Arabic”]. Further support for this can be seen from the fact that haplotype V is also referred to as “Berberian”, proclaimed to be a “characteristic Berber haplotype’, and was predominant in their Berber samples vis-à-vis the other African samples, and it decreases as one moves eastward from western Africa. This same haplotype was deemed to be of “African origin”, as indicated in the findings of this haplotype and haplotype XI in the “Ethiopian Jews” sample.
[*]Lucotte et al. don’t break their haplotypes down to specified sub-cladess, and so, whatever is deduced from their data, has to be done so from ‘extrapolation’ from frequency and distribution data from not only other known data/studies, but also from that of Lucotte et al. publications, because Lucotte et al.’s context cannot be changed under any circumpstances; it is their samples, their sampling techniques, and their conclusions. For instance, the fact that Lucotte et al state that haplotype V is “Berberian” and “is a characteristic Berber haplotype”, and “predominantly of Berber origin”. In addition to a decreasing gradient from west to east, haplotype V is said to have a gradient in East Africa as well: Higher frequencies are seen in Northern Egypt, and then decreases as one moves up the Nile. These proclamations have to be taken into consideration, along with the distributions and frequencies of haplotypes in these samplings. From other known data, it is known that these correspond to E3b-M35 derivatives. For instance, from standard nomenclature used in other studies, it is known that the predominant “Berber” paternal signature is “M81”. This certainly gives an idea of what Lucotte et al.’s “Berberian” haplotype V is. Having said that, it is said in the Keita study as well, that haplotype XI is also associated with E3b-M35.
With both haplotype V and XI being E3b-M35 affiliated, Lucotte et al.’s haplotype V cannot be deemed to be M35 macrohaplogroup. If haplotype V represents M78 in one sampling batch of Africans, then what is haplotype XI? On the other hand, if haplotype V is M81, as one would assume to be the case [based on other known studies] for the “Berberian” haplotype, then what would haploptype XI correspond to? We know that Lucotte et al. made reference to haplotype XI in context of an African provenance. So, it cannot be assumed that such is anything but African, which in al Zahery’s case, could in some cases be associated with E haplogroup, and in others, R haplogroup; another reason, al Zahery’s concepts cannot be transposed with that of Lucotte et al.
[*]Based on Lucotte et al.’s own data, appellations, distribution and frequency patterns, along with known data from other studies [e.g. Underhill et al., Luis et al., Semino et al, and so forth], it is possible to extrapolate and associate Lucotte et al.’s haplotypes V [and XI] with M35 macrohaplogroup. This is what Keita did in his study, using the Lucotte et al. African data. What Keita doesn’t do, is attach any particular sub-clades to haplotypes V and XI; he simply mentions their association with M35, because he as he said, Lucotte et al. don’t break it down to biallelic markers [and sub-clades]. To do otherwise, he runs the risk of taking Lucotte et al.’s data out of context [Lucotte et al.’s contexts]. So, Keita stops at associating them with M35, while explaining how this is assessed from what is known about Lucotte et al.’s own distribution and frequency data, along with that of known data on biallelic markers and specified sub-clades from other studies undertaken. Hence, my earlier comment:
In that Keita's frequency data derive from Lucotte et al. publications, these can only be interpreted from Lucotte et al.'s perspective, and al-Zahery or any other researcher's context cannot be transposed with that of Lucotte et al.'s. What Keita can best do, and which he does, is to associate Lucotte et al.'s haplotypes/sub-clades/variants V and XI with the M35 macrohaplogroup and critique them where there is a need to. In the latter, he does precisely that by the mention of Lucotte et al.'s "Arab appellation", and that their nomenclature doesn't make it precise as to which specific M35 sub-clades to place haplotypes V and XI. From my viewpoint though, in that Lucotte et al. speak of haplotype V as "Berberian", while singling out haplotype XI [another M35 affiliated haplotype], the most that can be said of these haplotypes, is that both V [in the Lucotte et al. context, may well strongly relate to the M81 derivative] and XI belong to macrohaplogroup M35. Indeed, that is where Keita too seems to have left it, barring any further insights from Lucotte et al. themselves.
So, Lucotte et al.’s haplotypes [“Berberian”, “Arabic” and “African” ] V and XI can be “associated” with M35, but cannot be deemed ‘generalized” M35 macrohaplogroup, because for one, both haplotypes V and XI were deemed to belong to that same haplogroup, and both have been ‘characterized’ even though they haven’t been specified in terms of downstream mutations in the usual nomenclatures used in various other studies.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. Be clear that E-M81 is also found as far south as Somalia. Also E-V257 which is the New parent mutation to E-M81 (M215>M35>V257>M81) is also found as far south as Kenya (Borana)
E3b2 Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over Ugg Boots the last few years Uggs have a sham sole, http://uggbootsclearance-ie.net ,while this has the drippy bendable skin of the sheep facing out as it has the woolen part of the skin facing in. The Ugg is unique in the stage of comfort ugg boots sale . http://www.best-uggclearance.com ,It is rather promising to buy baby Uggs and they now come in all UGG boots is made from the name "ugg gumboot" referred to a slightly Australian gumboot made with prices up to or over $500 a brace in some luggage for everyone, http://www.uggboots-outlet-ie.net ,from modest circulation and cold feet. Ugg boots are not only comfortable and thaw, But nowadays with the technology development, http://uggclearance-ugg.net Ugg boots are particularly made by Australia sheepskin, just like to sport Ugg boots, it is the time to splurge money you buy other shoes on the summertime while cordial on the winner time, however, http://www.uggbootsclearance1.us , is really a little costly for me, but I am eager to consume money in them.
Posts: 138 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic