Google

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

 找回密码
 注册
楼主: Ryan

重建的Y染色体谱系树揭示藏缅语人群的两个始祖群体

[复制链接]
发表于 2018-6-23 19:40 | 显示全部楼层
37# 剪径者

如果真测得那么准,为什么没有发表到国际期刊上,毕竟当年能成功检测这个年代的父系或母系单倍群在国际上也算很厉害了,而且为何中国在十多年前就已经能检测新石器时期的父系单倍群,但在近几年欧美古DNA检测风生水起的时候,中国这边除了付巧妹之外基本万马齐喑?

我对贾湖,大溪,良渚这些父系古DNA持怀疑态度。
发表于 2018-6-23 19:41 | 显示全部楼层
34# 剪径者  

整个汉藏语起源于北方黄河流域的可能性也很大,至于东亚祖语我觉得可能来自华中
MNOPS 发表于 2018-6-23 19:33

Sagart关于华澳语系的文献中,认为汉藏语和南岛语的谷子、稻米、渔网、猪是同源词,说明这个语系的原始祖语在一个种稻子和谷子,打渔养猪的地方。
发表于 2018-6-23 19:43 | 显示全部楼层
42# 剪径者

我不反对东亚祖语可能起源于长江流域的观点,但这并不代表汉藏语也起源于南方。
发表于 2018-6-23 19:57 | 显示全部楼层
37# 剪径者  

如果真测得那么准,为什么没有发表到国际期刊上,毕竟当年能成功检测这个年代的父系或母系单倍群在国际上也算很厉害了,而且为何中国在十多年前就已经能检测新石器时期的父系单倍群,但在近几年欧美 ...
MNOPS 发表于 2018-6-23 19:40

你这就是瞎扯了。现在国外流行测全基因组,跟以前测个SNP是一回事吗?
发表于 2018-6-23 20:07 | 显示全部楼层
中国最专业的两个搞现代人类学的研究机构,事实证明,M117(事实上指的就是F5,他们的数据基本不太可能有M117xF5)都判断错了。所以,不懂考古学不懂体质人类学的分子人类学,结论都需要谨慎对待。文献结论,我一般不看 ...
Yungsiyebu 发表于 2018-6-22 19:54

人家说M117在发源于东南亚,现在说M117的后代F5诞生于中原。这两个判断互不影响。

相当于有人说爷爷生在东南亚,孙子生在河南。你这种喷子就在喷:“看看,孙子明明生在河南,你说爷爷生在东南亚肯定是假的。”
发表于 2018-6-23 20:13 | 显示全部楼层
O下三大支分离各处比较久远,如果华澳语系成立的话,更可能是七八千年前有接触融合。
我猜测O3在山东沿海与O1接触。
O3南下在大溪文化高庙文化一带与m95接触融合、
而M117先向西,后来又返回向中原,
9985916 发表于 2018-6-23 19:35

华澳语系被认为是包括汉藏、南岛、侗台的大语系。实际上,根据目前一些考古学者关于新石器时代考古文化关联的意见,考古文化基本能够和语言学的谱系对应,可以把这个华澳语系的大框架给搭起来。猜想是这样的,目前大地湾文化的形成有学者认为和贾湖文化有关,而贾湖的后裔裴李岗参与了北辛文化的形成,北辛文化是大汶口文化的源头。贾湖文化种稻用三足器,可能和来自南方的农业人群有关,过去说是彭头山,现在见有人说是上山文化。
这样看,华澳语系源头可能在上山、彭头山等长江中下游文化,长江中游的支系(彭头山-大溪-屈家岭-石家河)就是苗瑶语(也许还有南亚语)的祖先,长江下游的支系就是侗台语(百越)和南岛语的祖先(按Sagart的说法,南岛语也可能以大汶口文化为源),向中原南部迁徙的一支和北方狩猎采集人群融合就是贾湖文化,它是汉藏和东夷诸语的共同祖先,贾湖文化西迁和关中、豫西、晋南的人群融合形成大地湾-仰韶文化,贾湖的后裔裴李岗东迁和山东的后李文化(早期沿海岸北上的南方农人)融合成为北辛-大汶口文化,仰韶文化是汉藏语系的祖先,北辛-大汶口文化是东夷诸语的祖先。仰韶文化西扩和甘青的高地采猎人群融合的马家窑、马厂等文化就是藏缅语的祖先(后来南下羌塘、川西高原等,形成藏缅诸语),仰韶文化东延和东夷语、屈家岭的苗瑶祖语结合部就形成了汉语。
这里我觉得考古文化谱系和语言谱系契合的还是不错的,当然,这些还只是猜想。
发表于 2018-6-23 21:00 | 显示全部楼层
44# geoanth

能测出七八千年前的SNP在十多年前已经很厉害了,为什么近几年在科技发展古DNA检测技术也发展的同时中国这边古DNA特别是父系单倍群却基本检测不出来了?不觉得这里面有水分吗?
发表于 2018-6-23 21:03 | 显示全部楼层
45# geoanth

可问题是并没有证据表明M117始祖类型起源于东南亚
发表于 2018-6-23 21:19 | 显示全部楼层
44# geoanth  

能测出七八千年前的SNP在十多年前已经很厉害了,为什么近几年在科技发展古DNA检测技术也发展的同时中国这边古DNA特别是父系单倍群却基本检测不出来了?不觉得这里面有水分吗?
MNOPS 发表于 2018-6-23 21:00

谁说检测不出来了?吉大不是去测全基因组了吗?这个消耗资源,挤占其他课题了。
发表于 2018-6-23 21:20 | 显示全部楼层
45# geoanth  

可问题是并没有证据表明M117始祖类型起源于东南亚
MNOPS 发表于 2018-6-23 21:03

不是有证据说南边多样性高于北方吗?这个当然是证据。至少比北边的证据多。
发表于 2018-6-23 22:06 | 显示全部楼层
http://www.ranhaer.com/thread-26061-10-1.html
剪径者 发表于 2018-6-23 19:13

请问人骨来自贾湖遗址几期?
发表于 2018-6-23 22:09 | 显示全部楼层
人家说M117在发源于东南亚,现在说M117的后代F5诞生于中原。这两个判断互不影响。

相当于有人说爷爷生在东南亚,孙子生在河南。你这种喷子就在喷:“看看,孙子明明生在河南,你说爷爷生在东南亚肯定是假的。”
geoanth 发表于 2018-6-23 20:07

他的样本都是F5。说M117东南亚起源,等于说F5东南亚起源。

评分

1

查看全部评分

发表于 2018-6-23 22:43 | 显示全部楼层
他的样本都是F5。说M117东南亚起源,等于说F5东南亚起源。
Yungsiyebu 发表于 2018-6-23 22:09

可笑。有人说爷爷生在东南亚,孙子生在河南。你跳出喷:“全部孙子都生在河南,所以爷爷必然生在河南。”
发表于 2018-6-23 22:51 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 ChinaHistory 于 2018-6-23 22:57 编辑

Reconstruction of Y-DNA phylogeny helps also reconstruct Tibeto-Burman expansion

June 23, 2018        

New paper (behind paywall) Reconstruction of Y-chromosome phylogeny reveals two neolithic expansions of Tibeto-Burman populations by Wang et al. Mol Genet Genomics (2018).

Interesting excerpts(原文摘要):

Archeological studies suggest that a subgroup of ancient populations of the Miaodigou culture (庙底沟文化,~ 6300–5500 BP) moved westward to the upper stream region of the Yellow River(黄河上游) and created the Majiayao culture (马家窑文化,~ 5400–4900 BP) (Liu et al. 2010), which was proposed to be the remains of direct ancestors of Tibeto-Burman populations (法国学者沙加尔,Sagart 2008). On the other hand, Han populations, the other major descendant group of the Yang-Shao culture (~ 7000–5500 BP), are composed of many other sub-lineages of Oα-F5 and extremely low frequencies of D-M174 (Additional files 1: Figure S1; Additional files 2: Table S1). Therefore, we propose that Oα-F5 may be one of the dominant paternal lineages in ancient populations of Yang-Shao culture and its successors(仰韶文化和继承者).

In this study, we demonstrated that both sub-lineages of D-M174 and Oα-F5 are founding paternal lineages of modern Tibeto-Burman populations. The genetic patterns suggested that the ancestor group of modern Tibeto-Burman populations may be an admixture of two distinct ancient populations. One of them may be hunter–gatherer populations who survived on the plateau since the Paleolithic Age, represented by varied sub-lineages of sub-lineages of D-M174. The other one was comprised of farmers who migrated from the middle Yellow River basin, represented by sub-lineages of Oα-F5. In general, the genetic evidence in this study supports the conclusion that the appearance of the ancestor group of Tibeto-Burman populations was triggered by the Neolithic expansion from the upper-middle Yellow River basin and admixture with local populations on the Tibetan Plateau (Su et al. 2000).



Simplified phylogenetic tree showing sample locations. The size of the circle for each sampling location corresponds to the number of samples

Two neolithic expansion origins of Tibeto‑Burman populations

We also observed significant differences in the paternal gene pool of different subgroups of Tibeto-Burman populations. Haplogroup D-M174 contributed ~ 54% percent in a sampling of 2354 Tibetan males throughout the Tibetan Plateau (Qi et al. 2013). Previous studies have also found high frequencies of D-M174 in other populations on the Tibetan Plateau (Shi et al. 2008), including Sherpa (Lu et al. 2016) and Qiang (Wang et al. 2014). In contrast, haplogroup D-M174 is rare or absent from Tibeto-Burman populations from Northeast India and Burma (Shi et al. 2008). In populations of the Ngwi-Burmese language subgroup, the average frequencies of haplogroup D-M174 are ~ 5% (Dong et al. 2004; Peng et al. 2014). Furthermore, we found that lineage Oα1c1b-CTS5308 is mainly found in Tibeto-Burman populations from the Tibetan Plateau. In contrast, lineage Oα1c1a-Z25929 was found in Tibeto-Burman populations from Northeast India, Burma, and the Yunan and Hunan provinces of China (Additional files 1: Figure S1; Additional files 2: Table S1). In general, enrichment of lineage Oα1c1b- CTS5308 and high frequencies of D-M174 can be found in most Tibeto-Burman populations on the Tibetan Plateau and adjacent regions, whereas Tibeto-Burman populations from other regions tend to have lineage Oα1c1a-Z25929 and a little to no percentage of D-M174.

The inconsistent pattern we observed in the paternal gene pool of modern Tibeto-Burman populations suggested that there may be two distinct ancestor groups (Fig. 3). The proposed migration routes shown in Fig. 3 are somewhat different from those proposed by Su et al. (2000). According to our age estimation, most of the D1a2a-P47 samples belong to sub-lineage PH116, a young lineage that emerged ~ 2500 years ago (95% CI 1915–3188 years). On the other hand, continuous differentiation can be observed on a phylogenetic tree of lineages D1a1a1a1-PH4979 and D1a1a1a2-Z31591 since 6000 years ago. Therefore, we proposed that a group of ancient populations may have moved to the upper basin of the Yellow River and admixed intensively with local populations with high frequencies of haplogroup D-M174, including its sub-lineage D1a2a-P47 (Fig. 3). This ancestor group eventually gave birth to modern Tibeto-Burman populations on the Tibetan Plateau and adjacent regions. The other ancestor group moved toward the southwest and finally reached South East Asia (Burma and other locations) and the northeastern part of India (Fig. 3). This ancestor group may have had no or a minor admixture of D-M174 in their paternal gene pool.



Two proposed ancestor groups and migration routes for Tibeto-Burman populations(藏缅人群祖先迁移路线图)

Long‑term admixture before expansion to a high‑altitude region(扩张前长期混合)

It is interesting to investigate the time gap between the appearance of Neolithic cultures in the northeastern part of the Tibetan Plateau and the final phase of human expansion across the Tibetan Plateau. The Majiayao culture (~ 5400–4900 BP) is the earliest Neolithic culture in the northeastern part of the Tibetan Plateau (Liu et al. 2010). However, previous archeological study has suggested that the final phase of diffusion into the high-altitude area of the Tibetan Plateau occurred at approximately 3.6 kya (Chen et al. 2015). Our genetic evidence in this study is consistent with this scenario based on archeological evidence. Based on Y-chromosome analysis in this study, many unique lineages of Tibeto-Burman populations emerged between 6000 years ago and 2500 years ago (Additional files 3: Table S2). The most recent common age of D1a2-PH116, a sub-lineage that spread throughout the Tibetan Plateau, is only 2500 years ago.

We propose that there may be two important factors for the observed age gap. First, living in a high-altitude environment may require some crucial physical characteristics that were lacking from Neolithic immigrants from the middle Yellow River Basin. Intense genetic admixture with local people who had survived on the Tibetan Plateau since the Paleolithic Age may have actually guaranteed the expansion of humans across the Tibetan Plateau. Therefore, a long period of admixture, lasting from 5.4 to 3.6 kya, may be necessary for the appearance of a population with beneficial genetic variants that was genetically adapted to the high-altitude environment. Second, technological innovations, such as the domestication of wheat and highland barley (Chen et al. 2015), establishment of yak pastoralism (Rhode et al. 2007), and introduction of other culture elements in the Bronze Age (Ma et al. 2016), are also important factors that facilitated permanent settlements with large population sizes in the high-altitude area of the Tibetan Plateau.
发表于 2018-6-23 23:00 | 显示全部楼层
此文中的估年主要是用千人组的数据算的。而Yfull没有用千人组的数据,好像是说测序质量不合他们估年的要求?

当然本文估年算法和参数选择可能也不同于Yfull。
Tocharian_2 发表于 2018-6-22 21:06

他们应该不只这些数据吧,估计论文里只写了公开的数据,附件里估年的表格也很简单
发表于 2018-6-23 23:09 | 显示全部楼层
49# geoanth

十多年前一测一个准,近几年却测不出来了,不觉得蹊跷吗?
发表于 2018-6-23 23:12 | 显示全部楼层
50# geoanth

str多态性高不一定是祖源地
发表于 2018-6-23 23:21 | 显示全部楼层
49# geoanth  

十多年前一测一个准,近几年却测不出来了,不觉得蹊跷吗?
MNOPS 发表于 2018-6-23 23:09

谁告诉你近几年测不出来了?磨沟不是近一年测的?你自己无知还有理了?
发表于 2018-6-23 23:22 | 显示全部楼层
50# geoanth  

str多态性高不一定是祖源地
MNOPS 发表于 2018-6-23 23:12

至少比没有多态性的地方有说服力。
发表于 2018-6-23 23:24 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Tocharian_2 于 2018-6-23 23:26 编辑
他们应该不只这些数据吧,估计论文里只写了公开的数据,附件里估年的表格也很简单
Lep1dus 发表于 2018-6-23 23:00

"Supplementary material 2 Table S1." 对样本来源交代得很清楚了。作者实验室自己新测序的样本只有16个,其中没有一个F5。

其他样本都是来自已公开的数据。
捕获.JPG
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, 2018-10-16 16:20 , Processed in 0.164228 second(s), 17 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表