...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
More data on ANA ancestry in various African and West Eurasian populations
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: If Ifri_N_Amr Early neolithic samples where V257 and the next set of North Africans to carry the related paternal haplogroups clearly postdated M183's expansion (guanches) Why would you [b]NOT[/b] look for M81(xM183). [/QUOTE]^^ that's unintelligible, no one would have any idea what your talking about or what the significance of it is E-M81 is common in West North Africa, 183 is one of it's sub clades. It makes no difference Therefore if someone is going to talk about ANA (and this is a new term apparently) , Ancient North African DNA E-M81 is at least distinctive enough to associate with North Africa in particular, that is all I'm saying (although it's ancestor is Eastern) I think you are trying to ask me some rhetorical test question here that you already have an opinion on M81 is believed to have originated in the Northwest Africa and has an estimated age of 4800 ybp its dominated by a younger subclade, E-M183 [/qb][/QUOTE]It's not rhetorical. But it's evident that you're just typing things or copy and pasting without putting in much thought. M183 is recent. [URL=https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1]Ancient North African as introduced by Lazaridis[/URL] were ancestral to Taforalt. [/QUOTE]Thnk you for your detailed reply other than the thought comment Here's what Lazaridis said, I'm not an adherent to some of his theories, for instances talking about basal Eurasian like it's real but having no remains of a basal Eurasian. anyway he say in the article you linked the following about North Africa [b]Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry Iosif Lazaridis[/b] we report genome-wide data from two ∼26 thousand year old individuals from Dzudzuana Cave in Georgia in the Caucasus from around the beginning of the LGM. Surprisingly, the Dzudzuana population was more closely related to early agriculturalists from western Anatolia ∼8 thousand years ago8 than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ∼13-10 thousand years ago [b]We analyzed teeth from two individuals 63 recovered from Dzudzuana Cave, Southern Caucasus, from an archaeological layer previously dated to ~27-24kya (…). Both individuals had mitochondrial DNA sequences (U6 and N) that are consistent with deriving from lineages that are rare in the Caucasus or Europe today.[/b] Most of the Dzudzuana population's ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the 'Villabruna cluster', but it also had ancestry from a lineage that had separated from the great majority of non-African populations before they separated from each other, proving that such 'Basal Eurasians' were present in West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians. [b]If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa. Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt-related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source11; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans23. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources.[/b] [b]The ancestry of present-day Europeans has been traced to the proximate sources of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Early European/Anatolian farmers, and steppe pastoralists, but the ancestry of Near Eastern and North African populations has not been investigated due to lack of appropriate ancient sources. We present a unified analysis of diverse European, Near Eastern, North African populations in terms of the deepest known sources of ancestry (Fig. 3), which suggests that Dzudzuana-related ancestry makes up ∼46-88% of the ancestry of all these populations, with Dzudzuana-related ancestry more strongly found in southern populations across West Eurasia [/b] [i]Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). [/i] ____________________________ Maestro ^^ he's on some Caucus stuff here, U6 found in 26K in Georgia Say Taforalt (U6 bearers) are ancestors of Natufians but the Taforalt population was "mixed' [i]If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa.[/i] [i][b]Dzudzuana-related ancestry can be viewed as the common core of the ancestry of West Eurasian-North African populations. [/b][/i] @ElMaestro my question is if Taforalt is a mixed population (with DNA also similar to many modern day barbers - U6 and E together ) and if U6 has Eurasian roots Then if they are mixed then what was the paternal DNA of Dzudzuana or any other similarly old U6 bearing population in the Caucus? Or U5 ? what is the typical brother Y group there? Now going back to the OP: [QUOTE]Originally posted by BrandonP: [qb] [URL=https://revoiye.com/update-ana-related-admixture-in-select-populations]Courtesy of revoiye[/URL] Some findings of interest: 1) ANA (Ancient North African) ancestry appears to be most heavily concentrated in Northeast African populations, although West and Central Africans, as well as ancient Maghrebis, have some ANA as well. 2) Various ancient populations in West Eurasia have small but significant ANA ancestry components as well. Minoans actually have a rather large chunk of it as far as EEF-descended populations go. 3) The Abusir el Meleq mummies have less ANA than modern Egyptians (either Coptic or Muslim). The former have approximately as much ANA as Natufians. Make of that what you will. [/qb][/QUOTE][i](note: I have converted the asterisks in quote to numbers for easy reference)[/i] reactions 1) Lazaridis doesn't explicitly use this term ANA but it's easy to infer he's calling E1b1b North African and that is a common view, nothing unique (and older than the sub clade M81) This combined with Eurasian DNA U6 "heavily concentrated in Northeast African populations" ? No, because so called ANA ancient African DNA is being described in this analysis as actually a combination of male African DNA and Caucasus female DNA (spicy) >and U6 is not that common in Northeast African populations as it is in North West African populations _______________________ Modern Egyptians: In 2009 Mitochondrial data was sequenced for 277 unrelated Egyptian individuals[37] by Jessica L Saunier et al. in the journal Forensic Science International, as follows R0 and its subgroups (31.4%) L3 (12.3%); and Asian origin (n = 33) including M (6.9%) T (9.4%) U (9.0%) J (7.6%) N (5.1%) K (4.7%) L2 (3.6%) L1 (2.5%) I (3.2%) W (0.7%) X (1.4%); African origin (n = 57) including L0 (2.2%) ____________________ ^^ Yes some U6 9% but not as much as berbers in the Maghreb much higher U6 Their L lineages add up are 18.4% and notably mtDNA R0 2) the blog posts says: [i]Surprisingly, among Non African populations the Minoan individuals from Odigitria report the highest amounts of ANA/African-related ancestry with Haobinhan as Y. Otherwise as expected, early neighboring populations of Israel associated with the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and Natufian cultures are estimated to have the highest amounts.[/i] and they list a Lazaridis article in their references: [b]10. Lazaridis, I. et al. Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans. Nature 548, 214–218 (2017).[/b] yet that article says: [QUOTE] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/35014964/5565772.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans Lazaridis 2017 Other proposed migrations, such as settlement by Egyptian or Phoenician colonists22 are not discernible in our data, as there is no measurable Levantine or African influence in the Minoans and Myceneans, thus rejecting the hypothesis that the cultures of the Aegean were seeded by migrants from the old civilizations of these regions. [/QUOTE]from a table Extended Data Table 1 Information on ancient samples reported in this study Y groups: J2,G2, J1 MtDNA K1 U5 H1 H5 H X2 U5 J2 I5 H+163 U3 K1 X2 H X2 T2 Also https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2871 Published: 14 May 2013 [b]A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete[/b] Jeffery R. Hughey, To address the question of the origin of the Minoans, we analysed mtDNA polymorphisms in skeletal materials from two Minoan populations. The first population consisted of osseous remains of 39 individuals from an excavation of pre-palatial tholos tombs near the Odigitria monastery in southern Crete (Fig. 1); [b]Here we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by analysing mitochondrial DNA from Minoan osseous remains from a cave ossuary in the Lassithi plateau of Crete dated 4,400–3,700 years before present. Shared haplotypes, principal component and pairwise distance analyses refute the Evans North African hypothesis. Minoans show the strongest relationships with Neolithic and modern European populations and with the modern inhabitants of the Lassithi plateau. Our data are compatible with the hypothesis of an autochthonous development of the Minoan civilization by the descendants of the Neolithic settlers of the island. The majority of Minoans were classified in haplogroups H (43.2%), T (18.9%), K (16.2%) and I (8.1%). Haplogroups U5A, W, J2, U, X and J were each identified in a single individual. The greatest percentage of shared Minoan haplotypes was observed with European populations, particularly with individuals from Northern and Western Europe (26.98% and 29.28%, respectively) (Figs 2, 3, 4; Supplementary Table S7). Notably, in Fig. 4, a gradient can be observed, with the lowest affinity for Minoans found with Northern African populations [/b] _______________________ *Various ancient populations in West Eurasia have small but significant ANA ancestry components as well. Minoans actually have a rather large chunk of it as far as EEF-descended populations go. __________________ ^^ OP statement, I dont' see this large chunk Here's the supplement https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fncomms2871/MediaObjects/41467_2013_BFncomms2871_MOESM77_ESM.pdf No U6 here although this was exclusively mitochondrial, Lazraidis had both 3) [QUOTE] * The Abusir el Meleq mummies have less ANA than modern Egyptians (either Coptic or Muslim). The former have approximately as much ANA as Natufians. Make of that what you will. [/QUOTE]well that is if you define "ANA" as U6 + E1b1b this is what the blog says: [i]Ancient Egyptians of Abusir el Meleq show minimal or negligible changes between Y populations. This pattern could be explained by either variation among Early Eurasian populations as they relate to Africans or by ANA substructure which was poorly encapsulated by using the Haobinhan sample as a reference population. [/b] ^^ this is a pretty blurry remark, thats everything he says about Abusir BP paraphrasing and looing at the charts says [i]"The Abusir el Meleq mummies have less ANA than modern Egyptians (either Coptic or Muslim)... Make of that what you will."[/i] Considering Abusir el-Meleq was an mtDNA study with the exception of 3 mummies what this kind of come down to is U6 being declared the ANA marker, U6 like was found at Taforalt And they are defining ANA as a mixed ancestry where though U6 has a higher frequency in NA it originates in the Caucus OK, so using those definitions if we look at Abusir el-Meleq yes although there are several U bearing mummies there only 2 out of the 90 are U6 The crazy thing here is that we are urged to be skeptical by BP, "Make of that what you will" but the evidence is plain The Abusir el Meleq mummies do have have less ANA than modern Egyptians But that is only if you accept the definition of ANA, Ancient West Africans as U6 bearers (with E on the paternal side) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3