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

查看: 551|回复: 14

Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry

发表于 2018-9-22 08:26 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
The earliest ancient DNA data of modern humans from Europe dates to ~40 thousand years ago, but that from the Caucasus and the Near East to only ~14 thousand years ago, from populations who lived long after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) ~26.5-19 thousand years ago. To address this imbalance and to better understand the relationship of Europeans and Near Easterners, 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 ago than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ~13-10 thousand years ago. 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 document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region were formed by 'Ancient North Eurasian' admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. 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.




发表于 2018-9-22 09:21 | 显示全部楼层
Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) ~26.5-19 thousand years ago

发表于 2018-9-22 10:47 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2018-9-22 13:00 编辑



发表于 2018-9-22 13:12 | 显示全部楼层
     这个研究报告,相比15年拉扎团队关于欧洲人血统来源的那份颇具影响力的报告,应该是有了很大的进步,起码不再像以前那样,拼命撇清与南亚安达曼矮黑人群的关系,也只字不提他们的先祖与非洲人的密切关系(就好像我一直嘲讽他们的奇特发明:basal Eurasian而不是basal Asiafrican或basal Africasian,呵呵)

     好吧,不管是basal Asiafrican也好,或basal Africasian也罢,还是名从主人依然称之为basal Eurasian吧。 从本文最新的数据来看。这种成分无疑在整个西亚欧历史上占据非常巨大的分量。 尽管这次依然未能发现更纯粹的B.E.人群,不过提供了比例超过六成的摩洛哥taforalt古人的数据,也算是一个重大进展吧。

     不过本文依然未能摆脱西方学者之前一直存在的一个重大缺陷,即只显示了B.E.人群与西亚欧的交流,而且还很不全面。事实上,B.E.人群与整个亚欧人群的交流从未间断,只不过进入AMB时期之后,这种交流开始加速,尤其是在西亚欧,进入全新世之后达到了某种高潮。   而在东亚,这种交流随着东亚人种的崛起,这种交流相比田园洞的AMA时期,已经大大减弱,甚至可以忽略不计了~~
发表于 2018-9-22 13:22 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cpan0256 于 2018-9-22 13:43 编辑


Dzudzuana cave is located in the Chiatura region, westerm Georgia, in the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains

All in all the UP in the Caucasus retains its own local characteristics, differing both from Europe (no Aurignacian industry) and the Levant (no el Wad points, yet with rich bone artefacts industries) (and see Golovanova et al. 2014).

上面 UP = Upper Paleolithic


We summarize our main conclusions from this section:
• “Western” Near Eastern populations, including Dzudzuana from the Caucasus, belonged to a cline of decreasing Villabruna/increasing deep ancestry: Villabruna → Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N →PPNB → Natufian → Taforalt
• “Eastern” Near Eastern populations, including Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and Neolithic Iranians (Iran_N) traced most of their ancestry from populations of this cline, but also had additional Ancient North Eurasian/Eastern non-African (ANE/ENA) admixture.
• Similar ANE/ENA admixture was represented in Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) from Karelia; both Europe and the Near East was impacted by this eastern influence.
• Within the main Villabruna/Basal Eurasian cline, we can determine that there was both Dzudzuana/Villabruna-like influence in North Africa (Taforalt), but also Taforalt-like admixture in the Levant
发表于 2018-9-22 13:50 | 显示全部楼层

··· ···
In this section, we use the following sources to study the ancestry of West Eurasians.

Sources: Villabruna, ElMiron, Dzudzuana, AG3, Russia_Baikal_EN, Mbuti

Villabruna is representative of the WHG group. We also include ElMiron, the best sample from the Magdalenian era as we noticed that within the WHG group there were individuals that could not be modeled as a simple clade with Villabruna but also had some ElMiron-related ancestry. Ddudzuana is representative of the Ice Age Caucasus population, differentiated from Villabruna by Basal Eurasian ancestry. AG3 represents ANE/Upper Paleolithic Siberian ancestry, sampled from the vicinity of Lake Baikal, while Russia_Baikal_EN related to eastern Eurasians and represents a later layer of ancestry from the same region of Siberia as AG3. Finally, Mbuti are a deeply diverged African population that is used here to represent deep strains of ancestry (including Basal Eurasian) prior to the differentiation between West Eurasians and eastern non-Africans that are otherwise not accounted for by the remaining five sources. Collectively, we refer to this as ‘Basal’ or ‘Deep’ ancestry, which should be understood as referring potentially to both Basal Eurasian and African ancestry.

··· ···
Turning to the present-day West Eurasians and North Africans, we discuss the distribution of the ancestral populations:

Villabruna: This type of ancestry differentiates between present-day Europeans and non-Europeans within West Eurasia, attaining a maximum of ~20% in the Baltic in accordance with previous observations1 and with the finding of a later persistence of significant hunter-gatherer ancestry in the region. Its proportion drops to ~0% throughout the Near East. Interestingly, a hint of such ancestry is also inferred in all North African populations west of Libya in the speculative proportions, consistent with an archaeogenetic inference of gene flow from Iberia to North Africa during the Late Neolithic.

ElMiron: This type of ancestry is absent in present-day West Eurasians. This may be because most of the Villabruna-related ancestry in Europeans traces to WHG populations that lacked it (since ElMiron-related ancestry is quite variable within European hunter-gatherers). However, ElMiron ancestry makes up only a minority component of all WHG populations sampled to date and WHGrelated ancestry is a minority component of present-day Europeans. Thus, our failure to detect it in present day people may be simply be too little of it to detect with our methods.

Dzudzuana: Our analysis identifies Dzudzuana-related ancestry as the most important component of West Eurasians and the one that is found across West Eurasian-North African populations at ~46-88% levels. Thus, Dzudzuana-related ancestry can be viewed as the common core of the ancestry of West Eurasian-North African populations. Its distribution reaches its minima in northern Europe and appears to be complementary to that of Villabruna, being most strongly represented in North Africa, the Near East (including the Caucasus) and Mediterranean Europe. Our results here are expected from those of Supplementary Information section 3 in which we modeled ancient Near Eastern/North African populations (the principal ancestors of present-day people from the same regions) as deriving much of their ancestry from a Dzudzuana-related source. Migrations from the Near East/Caucasus associated with the spread of the Neolithic, but also the formation of steppe populations introduced most of the Dzudzuana-related ancestry present in Europe, although (as we have seen above) some such ancestry was already present in some pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers in Europe.

AG3: Ancestry related to the AG3 sample from Siberia has a northern distribution, being strongly represented in both central-northern Europe and the north Caucasus.

Russia_Baikal_EN: Ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Lake Baikal in Siberia (postdating AG3) appears to have affected primarily northeastern European populations which have been previously identified as having East Eurasian ancestry; some such ancestry is also identified for a Turkish population from Balıkesir, likely reflecting the Central Asian ancestry of Turkic speakers which has been recently confirmed directly in an Ottoman sample from Anatolia.

Mbuti: This is a catch-all category of ‘Basal’ ancestry defined as stemming from lineages that split off prior to the differentiation of the Sources and Outgroups. It is used to account for extra Basal Eurasian ancestry (than what is contributed by Dzudzuana), as well as other Basal ancestry (e.g., from North or Sub-Saharan Africans). Note that populations from the Levant and Iran/Caucasus have extra ‘Basal’ ancestry compared to Dzudzuana, as do North Africans from Taforalt and the Early Neolithic. We do not attempt to pinpoint the origin of this ancestry, as this will be better studied when representative samples from across Africa are available. It is clear (Extended Data Fig. 6) that some of this ancestry cannot be explained by admixture from Levantine/Iran/Caucasus populations as some of the Near Eastern and North African populations share more drift with a Sub-Saharan African population than can be explained by non-African sources alone.
发表于 2018-9-22 13:52 | 显示全部楼层

发表于 2018-9-22 14:00 | 显示全部楼层

··· ···
Collectively, we refer to this as ‘Basal’ or ‘Deep’ ancestry, which should be understood as referring potentially to both Basal Eurasian and African ancestry
cpan0256 发表于 2018-9-22 13:50

发表于 2018-9-22 14:25 | 显示全部楼层
Extended Data Figure 6: Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown. (b) ‘Speculative’ estimates. The highest number of sources (≤5) with admixture estimates within [0,1] are shown for each population. Some of the admixture proportions are not significantly different from 0 (Supplementary Information section 4).

发表于 2018-9-22 14:45 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2018-9-22 14:47 编辑

Dzudzuana cave is located in the Chiatura region, westerm Georgia, in the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains

All in all the UP in the Caucasus retains its own local charact ...
cpan0256 发表于 2018-9-22 13:22

和Laza博士在2016年的文章《Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East》基本是一致的。
发表于 2018-9-22 15:11 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2018-9-22 15:35 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cpan0256 于 2018-9-22 15:36 编辑

楼上的Extended Data Figure 6是qpAdm计算的两种可能结果。浅绿色成分在西欧和北非的现代人群中占46-88%(按正文第218行和补充材料第四节讲的)。


发表于 2018-9-22 16:05 | 显示全部楼层
     这个研究报告,相比15年拉扎团队关于欧洲人血统来源的那份颇具影响力的报告,应该是有了很大的进步,起码不再像以前那样,拼命撇清与南亚安达曼矮黑人群的关系,也只字不提他们的先祖与非洲人的密切关系(就 ...
imvivi001 发表于 2018-9-22 13:12

发表于 2018-9-22 16:15 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2018-9-22 16:19 编辑


2013年03月24日 09:39

摘要:大约3万年前,在格鲁吉亚的高加索丘陵地带的采猎者已经在从事纺织、染色及编结野生的亚麻纤维。 这些绳索可能被用来系缚石制 ...

     3万年前的彩色麻线,来自Georgia.UB Dzudzuana洞穴的野生亚麻纤维(

大约3万年前,在格鲁吉亚的高加索丘陵地带的采猎者已经在从事纺织、染色及编结野生的亚麻纤维。 这些绳索可能被用来系缚石制工具的把手、编织篮子或缝纫衣服;它们仅代表了在这个时期的一些已知的植物纤维被人使用的一个例子。



发表于 2018-9-22 21:09 | 显示全部楼层
楼上的Extended Data Figure 6是qpAdm计算的两种可能结果。浅绿色成分在西欧和北非的现代人群中占46-88%(按正文第218行和补充材料第四节讲的)。

    给一个粗略的类比,虽然严格的讲不一定确切。用非直角坐标系 ...
cpan0256 发表于 2018-9-22 15:35

  年初给58坛友讲解的时候,认为高加索人种形成的历史不算太长,主要是考虑所谓的‘高加索人种’的成分来源毕竟纷杂。不过现在从本文最新的aDNA数据来看,当时过于保守了。 当然,彼时的高加索古人还不能说是完全的现代意义上的‘高加索人种’,不单是ANE比例明显偏低,而且WHG比例还比较高(绝对是遥遥领先的第一主成分),因此体现在体质上,尽管看上去蛮像传统人类学意义上的‘高加索人种’,但其实差异还是蛮大的~


imvivi001 发表于 2018-2-17 09:31
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册


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

GMT+8, 2018-10-24 10:51 , Processed in 0.295439 second(s), 20 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表