Google

蓝海人类学在线 Ryan WEI's Forum of Anthropology

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 3186|回复: 29

The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia

[复制链接]
发表于 2018-4-1 22:10 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
The genetic formation of Central and South Asian populations has been unclear because of an absence of ancient DNA. To address this gap, we generated genome-wide data from 362 ancient individuals, including the first from eastern Iran, Turan (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan), Bronze Age Kazakhstan, and South Asia. Our data reveal a complex set of genetic sources that ultimately combined to form the ancestry of South Asians today. We document a southward spread of genetic ancestry from the Eurasian Steppe, correlating with the archaeologically known expansion of pastoralist sites from the Steppe to Turan in the Middle Bronze Age (2300-1500 BCE). These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. Instead, Steppe communities integrated farther south throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, and we show that they mixed with a more southern population that we document at multiple sites as outlier individuals exhibiting a distinctive mixture of ancestry related to Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gathers. We call this group Indus Periphery because they were found at sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and along its northern fringe, and also because they were genetically similar to post-IVC groups in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. By co-analyzing ancient DNA and genomic data from diverse present-day South Asians, we show that Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia — consistent with the idea that the Indus Periphery individuals are providing us with the first direct look at the ancestry of peoples of the IVC — and we develop a model for the formation of present-day South Asians in terms of the temporally and geographically proximate sources of Indus Periphery-related, Steppe, and local South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581
发表于 2018-4-1 22:13 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2018-4-1 22:19 编辑

又是预印本欧,亲
发表于 2018-4-1 22:18 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2018-4-1 22:19 编辑

这个倒是有些符合以前的研究结论:印度雅利安人没有和BMAC融合;

印度雅利安人进入印度次大陆以前,和其发生过融合的人群另有其人,而伊朗雅利安人很可能和BMAC有过一定程度的融合。
发表于 2018-4-2 03:47 | 显示全部楼层
文章附有一个古样本Y-DNA和mtDNA单倍群的表。但这个草稿的表似乎有一些错误,比如过去发表过的Mal'ta男孩的单倍群被列成R1b1a1a2(R1b-M269)。

在推特上,有人问文章的第一作者Vagheesh Narasimhan:“The YDNA tables have seemingly incorrect results that need another look over. Is anyone re analyzing this? Thanks!”

他的回答是:“These were done using a new automated caller that will be released in next version. Choice of ISOGG tree, extremely low coverage samples with only 1 informative pos, Contamination; lots of challenges but we will look at your comments carefully to make it do a better job!”
发表于 2018-4-2 03:56 | 显示全部楼层
文章提到西伯利亚西部猎人样本(314-321):"Three individuals from the West Siberian forest zone with direct dates ranging from 6200 BCE to 4000 BCE play an important role in this study as they are representatives of a never-before reported mixture of ancestry that we call West_Siberian_HG: ~30% derived from EHG, ~50% from Ancestral North Eurasians (defined as being related deeply to 22000-15000 BCE Siberians (29, 30)), and ~20% related to present-day East Asians. This ancestry type also existed in the southern Steppe and in Turan, as it formed about 80% of the ancestry of an early 3rd millennium BCE agro-pastoralist from Dali, Kazakhstan, and also contributed to multiple outlier individuals from 2nd millennium sites in Kazakhstan and Turan (Fig. 2)."
f2a.jpg
发表于 2018-4-2 03:57 | 显示全部楼层
f2b.jpg
发表于 2018-4-2 03:59 | 显示全部楼层
f2c.jpg
发表于 2018-4-2 04:05 | 显示全部楼层
f4.jpg
发表于 2018-4-2 09:31 | 显示全部楼层
文章提到西伯利亚西部猎人样本(314-321):"Three individuals from the West Siberian forest zone with direct dates ranging from 6200 BCE to 4000 BCE play an important role in this study as they are repr ...
cpan0256 发表于 2018-4-2 03:56

这三人有可能是前苏考古学家定义的安德罗诺沃人种(缩小版的原欧人种)
发表于 2018-4-2 10:42 | 显示全部楼层
这三人有可能是前苏考古学家定义的安德罗诺沃人种(缩小版的原欧人种)
lindberg 发表于 2018-4-2 09:31


在259-268行,作者猜测他们与克尔捷米纳尔文化(Kelteminar Culture)有关系。

好像后来这个地区转到了安德罗诺沃文化。
发表于 2018-4-2 11:24 | 显示全部楼层
We built an admixture graph using qpGraph co-modeling Palliyar (as a representative of the
ASI) and Juang (an Austroasiatic speaking group in India with low West Eurasian-relatedness), and show that it fits when the ASI have ~27% Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry and the
Juang also harbor ancestry from an AASI population without Iranian admixture (Fig. 3). This model is also notable in showing that early Iranian agriculturalists fit without AASI admixture, and thus the patterns we observe are driven by gene flow into South Asia and not the reverse
(Fig. 3; Supplementary Materials). The fitted admixture graph also reveals that the deep ancestry of the indigenous hunter-gather population of India represents an anciently divergent branch of Asian human variation that split off around the same time that East Asian, Onge and
Australian aboriginal ancestors separated from each other. This finding is consistent with a model in which essentially all the ancestry of present-day eastern and southern Asians (prior to West Eurasian-related admixture) derives from a single eastward spread, which gave rise in a short span of time to the lineages leading to AASI, East Asians, Onge, and Australians (19).
发表于 2018-4-2 11:24 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2018-4-2 11:57 编辑

10# cpan0256
Kelteminar文化可能与Q单倍群有关;

据考古研究:

南西伯利亚的阿凡那谢沃和西边的鲍里斯梅卡红铜文化,都被认为是Yamnaya和Kelteminar的混合。

西边的鲍里斯梅卡红铜文化比起东边的阿凡那谢沃,Kelteminar元素反倒是更重,阿凡那谢沃还是以Yamnaya元素为主的。
发表于 2018-4-2 12:23 | 显示全部楼层
文章附有一个古样本Y-DNA和mtDNA单倍群的表。但这个草稿的表似乎有一些错误,比如过去发表过的Mal'ta男孩的单倍群被列成R1b1a1a2(R1b-M269)。

在推特上,有人问文章的第一作者Vagheesh Narasimhan:“The YDNA  ...
cpan0256 发表于 2018-4-2 03:47

可能确实问题比较多,中石器时代的多瑙河铁门遗址和拉脱维亚的狩猎采集者算出了很多R1b-M269下非常深的单倍群,Yfull上TMRCA最早只有6000bp左右。

原先这些单倍群基本上都是R1b1a和R1b1a1a,这个预印本感觉糙了一些啊。
发表于 2018-4-3 10:02 | 显示全部楼层
文章提到西伯利亚西部猎人样本(314-321):"Three individuals from the West Siberian forest zone with direct dates ranging from 6200 BCE to 4000 BCE play an important role in this study as they are repr ...…a  never-before reported mixture of ancestry that we call West_Siberian_HG: ~30% derived from EHG, ~50% from Ancestral North Eurasians (defined as being related deeply to 22000-15000 BCE Siberians (29, 30)), and ~20% related to present-day East Asians. This ancestry type also existed in the southern Steppe and in Turan, as it formed about 80% of the ancestry of an early 3rd millennium BCE agro-pastoralist from Dali, Kazakhstan, and also contributed to multiple outlier individuals from 2nd millennium sites in Kazakhstan and Turan (Fig. 2)."
cpan0256 发表于 2018-4-2 03:56

     .这个5千年前东亚血统的哈萨克斯坦古人的y是什么? 有一点好奇,N1a还是Q1?
发表于 2018-4-3 10:12 | 显示全部楼层
18040203571d0bfb8a5b7b704e.jpg.thumb.jpg


cpan0256 发表于 2018-4-2 03:57

从这个图可以看出,小亚农夫和伊朗农夫对后期欧洲人(逐渐演化成印欧语人群)影响巨大,其中小亚农夫不单是通过欧洲新石器农夫对欧洲日耳曼族群的形成贡献巨大,同时也与伊朗农夫一道,直接参与了中亚多种文化族群的形成,其中包括BMAC文化人群、印度雅利安人群(应该也包括IVC哈拉帕人群),继而影响到后期整个印巴地区人群。(对东亚地区的影响我认为也是存在的,比如说红山文化,不过这个仅仅是初步的猜测,需要今后DNA的证实)
当然,这个图还是存在一些不足,比如说著名的IVC人群的位置在哪里? 图中没有标注。另外,著名的bell beaker人群位置在哪里,也没有标注(尽管现在已经有足够多的数据了)
发表于 2018-4-3 11:21 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 NIT44 于 2018-4-3 11:31 编辑

8# cpan0256 这张图,印证了一直有的一个推测,
西部、中亚人群,通过所谓西域——丝绸之路一线,进入中原,晚于2000BCE,
他们如果比这个时间更早来到中国地区,应是走北线,
通过蒙古草原——西伯利亚,直接到达东北,比如:融合、影响、或参与形成了红山文化。
这还带来两个结论:
1、因为中国青铜器及原始文字(汉字前身)都早于2000BCE,所以自然应该是北线传播;
2、黄炎蚩的历史也要早于2000BCE几百年,所以所谓来自中亚乃至北非自是无稽之谈。
另外,这张图上2000BCE以后,到1500BCE最早的西域——丝绸之路打通,所以,并不反驳商周起源西来说,商周本土起源还需要继续通过本土古文化、考古、古DNA深入研究坐实,让西来说彻底崩盘。
发表于 2018-4-3 14:33 | 显示全部楼层
文明就像一种烈性传染病……
发表于 2018-4-3 19:37 | 显示全部楼层
简单看了下数据,有不少亮眼的结果,也有不少明显匹配错误的

4000多年的阿富汗有1个L151
3000年前的巴基斯坦有1个S21728
中亚新疆历史上有印欧语西支族群还是可能的
靠近新疆的Krasnoyarsk3600年前有个Z283(CTS1211-P278.2),如果可靠的话,小河的Z93-也不算太奇怪

从文章收集的M269来看,最早的两个M269出现在1万年前的塞尔维亚铁门遗址,然后是7500年之前的拉脱维亚,再往后是7000年左右的乌克兰,俄罗斯出现的最晚,之前的数据早期的R1b主要是V88是偏南欧的,如果这些分析正确的话,看上去M269可能是新仙女木事件后从东南欧向北迁徙的。另外虽然新增了不少古样本,但东欧草原的M269还是压倒性的以Z2103为主,只有拉脱维亚7千年前测出1个L51,此外最早的Z2103在7000多年前的伊朗,这个有点劲爆,怀疑是错的

明显错误的匹配:
马尔他男孩匹配成M269
1万年前塞尔维亚有个Z375
6000多年Samara有一个R1b1a2a1a1b1a1a,不清楚具体下游究竟是什么,反正应该不对



此外4000年前的哈萨克有1个C2b,从分化时间来看,F1918和M48应该是比较晚的,有可能是F3918,之前复旦的F1756论文没有采集到YFULL上的Y10420支系,这个支系看上去来自于F1756较早的分化,而不是后来蒙古语族的游牧民族扩张,F1756看上去5000多年分化以后就分开了,不像抱团几千年等到历史时期再一起扩张的,怀疑这个C2b包括之前论文Elunino的C2北支可能是这个F1756支系的近支,当然也不排除是研究较少的Y11990
发表于 2018-4-3 21:59 | 显示全部楼层
简单看了下数据,有不少亮眼的结果,也有不少明显匹配错误的

4000多年的阿富汗有1个L151
3000年前的巴基斯坦有1个S21728
中亚新疆历史上有印欧语西支族群还是可能的
靠近新疆的Krasnoyarsk3600年前有个Z283(C ...
Lep1dus 发表于 2018-4-3 19:37

常染可以先看看,Y还是等到最终版吧,感觉非常不靠谱。
发表于 2018-4-4 13:09 | 显示全部楼层
再次印证莱希-lipson三年前的推测,EE也是印欧人群的底层之一
Using the West_Siberian_HG individuals as a reference population along with other pre-Chalcolithic groups that have been previously reported in the ancient DNA literature, we  document the presence of a genetically relatively homogeneous population spread across a vast   region of the eastern European and trans-Ural Steppe between 2000-1400 BCE (Steppe_MLBA) 7 (17).
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|人类生物学在线 ( 苏ICP备16053048号 )

GMT+8, 2018-12-13 18:50 , Processed in 0.123364 second(s), 19 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表