Paper: The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Robert Karl Stonjek - 27 Apr 2008 03:32 GMT Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 24 April 2008
doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.04.002
The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity
Doron M. Behar1, 13, Richard Villems2, 13, Himla Soodyall3, Jason Blue-Smith4, Luisa Pereira5, 6, Ene Metspalu2, Rosaria Scozzari7, Heeran Makkan3, Shay Tzur1, David Comas8, Jaume Bertranpetit8, Lluis Quintana-Murci9, Chris Tyler-Smith10, R. Spencer Wells4, Saharon Rosset11, 12, The Genographic Consortium14
1 Molecular Medicine Laboratory, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 31096, Israel 2 Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre, Tartu 51010, Estonia 3 School of Pathology, Division of Human Genetics, National Health Laboratory Service and University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa 4 Mission Programs, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 20036, USA 5 Instituto de Patologia e Imunologia Molecular da Universidade do Porto, Porto 4200-465, Portugal 6 Medical Faculty, University of Porto, Porto 4200-319, Portugal 7 Dipartimento di Genetica e Biologia Molecolare, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome 00185, Italy 8 Evolutionary Biology Unit, Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona 08003, Catalonia, Spain 9 Unit of Human Evolutionary Genetics, CNRS URA3012, Institut Pasteur, Paris 75724, France 10 The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambs CB10 1SA, UK 11 Data Analytics Research Group, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA 12 Department of Statistics and Operations Research, School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel 13 These authors contributed equally to this work. 14 See Acknowledgments.
Abstract The quest to explain demographic history during the early part of human evolution has been limited because of the scarce paleoanthropological record from the Middle Stone Age. To shed light on the structure of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) phylogeny at the dawn of Homo sapiens, we constructed a matrilineal tree composed of 624 complete mtDNA genomes from sub-Saharan Hg L lineages. We paid particular attention to the Khoi and San (Khoisan) people of South Africa because they are considered to be a unique relic of hunter-gatherer lifestyle and to carry paternal and maternal lineages belonging to the deepest clades known among modern humans. Both the tree phylogeny and coalescence calculations suggest that Khoisan matrilineal ancestry diverged from the rest of the human mtDNA pool 90,000-150,000 years before present (ybp) and that at least five additional, currently extant maternal lineages existed during this period in parallel. Furthermore, we estimate that a minimum of 40 other evolutionarily successful lineages flourished in sub-Saharan Africa during the period of modern human dispersal out of Africa approximately 60,000-70,000 ybp. Only much later, at the beginning of the Late Stone Age, about 40,000 ybp, did introgression of additional lineages occur into the Khoisan mtDNA pool. This process was further accelerated during the recent Bantu expansions. Our results suggest that the early settlement of humans in Africa was already matrilineally structured and involved small, separately evolving isolated populations.
Introduction Current genetic data support the hypothesis of a predominantly single origin for anatomically modern humans. The phylogeny of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has played a pivotal role in this model by anchoring our most recent maternal common ancestor to sub-Saharan Africa and suggesting a single dispersal wave out of that continent which populated the rest of the world much later. However, despite its importance as the cradle of humanity and the main location of anatomically modern humans for most of their existence, the initial Homo sapiens population dynamics and dispersal routes remain poorly understood. The potential to use present-day genetic patterns to detect the existence, or lack thereof, of matrilineal genetic structure among early Homo sapiens populations in sub-Saharan Africa is therefore of particular interest. The human mtDNA phylogeny can be collapsed into two daughter branches, L0 and L1'2'3'4'5'6 (L1'5), located on opposite sides of its root (Figure 1). The L1'5 branch is far more widespread and has given rise to almost every mtDNA lineage found today, with two clades on this branch, (L3)M and (L3)N, forming the bulk of worldwide non-African genetic diversity and marking the out-of-Africa dispersal 50,000-65,000 years before present (ybp) (Figure 1). Current models, predating the recognition of L0 as sister to L1'5, suggest that the contemporary sub-Saharan mtDNA gene pool is the result of an early expansion of modern humans from their homeland, often suggested to be East Africa, to most of the African continent by exclusively L1 Hg clades, before being overwhelmed by a later expansion wave of L2 and L3 clades dated to 60,000-80,000 ybp. A more recent geographically restricted enrichment of the African maternal gene pool was shown to have occurred during the early Upper Paleolithic, when populations carrying mtDNA clades M1 and U6 arrived to north and northeast Africa from Eurasia, hardly penetrating the sub-Saharan portion of the continent, except Ethiopia. Therefore, the current sub-Saharan mtDNA gene pool is overwhelmingly a rich mix of L0 and L1'5 clades, found at varying frequencies throughout the continent.
Source: The American Journal of Human Genetics (AJHG) [Open Access Paper] http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(08)00255-3?large_figure=true
Posted by Robert Karl Stonjek [Thanks John Roth]
GoldLions - 28 Apr 2008 03:10 GMT On Apr 26, 10:32�pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Copyright � 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved. > The American Journal of Human Genetics, 24 April 2008 [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Posted by > Robert Karl Stonjek [Thanks John Roth] ====================
Refreshing read and many thanks for sharing! Was wondering what about Neanderthals? Did these ancients arise out of Africa as well?
rmacfarl - 29 Apr 2008 01:43 GMT > On Apr 26, 10:32�pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > what about Neanderthals? Did these ancients arise out of > Africa as well? Ultimately all hominids originate from Africa, bhere's now quite a lot of evidence that Neanderthals evolved as a distinct lineage in Europe from the early humans who were evolving in Africa. DNA evidence from late Neanderthals such as the old man from La Chapelle Aux Saints suggests last common ancestor with modern humans to be ca. 600KYA, although this is a subject of warm debate. But there are older fossils such as the heidelbergensis fossils from Europe (300-600 KYA?) & the Homo "antecessor" fossils from Sima de los Huesos (possibly 900 KYA?) that have some morphological features that appear to be precursors to the distinct Neanderthal morphologies. I can't quote the references off the top of my head but they are around & have been discussed before...
Ross Macfarlane
GoldLions - 30 Apr 2008 01:51 GMT > > On Apr 26, 10:32�pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ========================== Hello Ross Macfarlane,
Interesting, but do these dates apply to just how old the fossils are or regarding how more closely we are RELATED to each fossil? Think about it, in some ways it's the LATER Neanderthals that are more specialized and different morphologically from "us", (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) than the earlier fossils, particuarly their bizarre elongated midfaces and nasal bones/sinuses which is unique from all earlier hominids. So then my question here is why would the later fossils be genetically "closer" to the modern day human lineage? If anything shouldn't their lineage from our tree be more distant?......
rmacfarl - 30 Apr 2008 05:59 GMT ...
> ========================== > Hello Ross Macfarlane, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > anything shouldn't their lineage from our tree be more > distant?...... They aren't. That's the point - the evidence is that the last common ancestor (LCA) for anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals was at least 600,000 years ago, and hence AMH & Ns were evolving apart for all of that time...
Ross Macfarlane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Chappelle-aux-Saints_1
caldervangogh@gmail.com - 01 May 2008 03:47 GMT > ... > > ========================== [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > least 600,000 years ago, and hence AMH & Ns were evolving apart for > all of that time... I agree with this 600 kya number, from the material I have read. Science News uses that date.
Although it is slightly OT for this thread, I am curious what you think about the difference between speciation and what one might call "race." (of course, the quid pro quo is that race doesn't actually exist, and is also an emotional topic, especially for you folks down under and those of us in the US.)
Anyway, if we had a (random & isolated) speciation event at 600 kya, what does that imply about the so-called five races of hss, who developed independently for at least 40 kya? possibly 200kya? Do you believe that we would have become different species if we had evolved in isolation for another 540,000 years? In other words, in your opinion, is there any way to put a yardstick on all this mess and figure out the timing for speciation?
just curious, calder
> Ross Macfarlanehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Chappelle-aux-Saints_1- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Daryl Krupa - 01 May 2008 23:19 GMT On Apr 30, 8:47 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" <caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
> Anyway, if we had a (random & isolated) speciation event at 600 kya, > what does that imply about the so-called five races of hss, who > developed independently for at least 40 kya? possibly 200kya? <snip>
calder: What are these five races, please? The are only two "independent" groups in "The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity": souther Africans (Khoisan) and eastern Africans (everybody else). If you are referring to Caucasians, Mongolians, Negros, Australians, and I-don't-know-what-else, then I would have to say that those categories of people did not develop independently for at least 40 kya, but rather they came into existence in the last century, as abstract (and proven-inaccurate and - inadequate) categories intended to simplify the very wide and intermingled range of variations on Hss.
just curious, Daryl Krupa
caldervangogh@gmail.com - 02 May 2008 03:58 GMT > On Apr 30, 8:47 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"<caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > just curious, > Daryl Krupa and Native Americans... the "old" system of defining the races. If you are in education, one STILL has to define people with these, and also with "Hispanic" and a few other designations. We are forced by government to so designate. I am not saying I agree with it, but it is the current state of things.
And those designations are more than a century old just in my country (the United States). They are defined in the 1850 census, for example, which would be some 160 years ago as a minimum. ... Actually, there are two races defined in the 1790 census, which pushes that back another 60 years....
However, I get your point. Sorry if I offended you.
Nevertheless, it does appear that various groups of AMH spread out from Africa, and evolved some independent physical characteristics. That begs the question of when a group would cease to be able to interbreed with each other, and for that, we have no timelines in our own species and those closely related to us.
It is my belief that there is just one race of humans on this planet, and we will always be just one species for the foreseeable future... say the next 500,000 years or so... Ian Tattersall says this is true because we are so large as a world population that we cannot evolve any more physically; we are forever destined to be just plain old ordinary people. (I also believe that humans will one day... hopefully quite soon... live in total peace with ech other... but that is OT for sap. I believe in the Unity of Man and Woman-kind.) regards calder
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/twps0029.html
"The classification of the population by race reflects common or social usage. It does not denote any clear-cut scientific definition of biological stock. Through 1950, the classification of the population by race was usually obtained by the census enumerator's observation. Individuals of mixed White and other parentage were usually classified with the other race. In 1960, census data on race were collected by a combination of self-classification, direct interview, and observation. In the 1970 census, data on race and Hispanic origin were obtained primarily through self-classification. In the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the data were obtained entirely through self-classification." see also: http://www.martygrant.com/gen/origins/race-codes.htm http://www.martygrant.com/gen/origins/ethnic-origins.htm
rmacfarl - 03 May 2008 02:37 GMT On May 2, 12:58 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" <caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 8:47 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"<caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > http://www.martygrant.com/gen/origins/race-codes.htm > http://www.martygrant.com/gen/origins/ethnic-origins.htm The divergence in your discussion stems from the biological fact that while human "races" can be (imperfectly) defined on physical differences and to some extent geographic & morphological grounds, they cannot be defined in biological terms based on genetics - human "races" are not genetically distinct. It also stems from the fact that this is a politically charged and overly divisive topic which is generally treated as "*off*-topic" on sci.anthropology.paleo...
Ross Macfarlane
caldervangogh@gmail.com - 03 May 2008 17:58 GMT > On May 2, 12:58 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > this is a politically charged and overly divisive topic which is > generally treated as "*off*-topic" on sci.anthropology.paleo... http://danny.oz.au/communities/sci.anthropology/Charter.html "the origins of distinctive human morphological features (bipedalism, brain size, hairlessness, etc.) biological and genetic variation in Homo sapiens relevant to our evolution (e.g. mitochondrial DNA studies) sociobiological arguments that rely on evolutionary considerations "
While I am not totally dismissing your thumping, I am not convinced that "race" is OT for sap. If there is a sociobiological consideration about race, that "helps" to define some sort of marker for genetic variation, then that would be on-topic for this group as an evolutionary argument. <grin> It is quite true that my question is OT for the thread! At least I acknowedged that off the bat.
Isn't it axiomatic that somewhere in our genetic code is a specific allele for skin color and etc.?
And if that is so, then a long line of similar mutations/changes/ differences would indeed lead to speciation, and a timeline for that event would be interesting.
Anyway, forget it then. But just FYI, I am a white southern male (in the USA, there are specific connotations to that phrase). For years, I was in love with a black female (or African-American if you wish to use the PC term)... and so I am quite accustomed to stares and wayward comments and etc. Ultimately, race is irrelevant to human-hood. We do live a politically-charged environment. regards calder
> Ross Macfarlane- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - rmacfarl - 04 May 2008 02:09 GMT On May 4, 2:58 am, "caldervang...@gmail.com" <caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 2, 12:58 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > an evolutionary argument. <grin> It is quite true that my question > is OT for the thread! At least I acknowedged that off the bat. Yes you did, and I wasn't "having a crack" at you personally - apologies if it came across that way.
> Isn't it axiomatic that somewhere in our genetic code is a specific > allele for skin color and etc.? > > And if that is so, then a long line of similar mutations/changes/ > differences would indeed lead to speciation, and a timeline for that > event would be interesting. It isn't axiomatic, becuase there isn't a single specific allele for skin colour.
> Anyway, forget it then. Yeah, good idea. Whatever may have been said in the SAP charter in 1994, my comment was that the topic of race is 'generally treated as "*off*-topic" on sci.anthropology.paleo' because it is divisive. Over on sci.anthropology they have some particularly nasty racist netloons who are much less likeable than the village idiots we endure, aka Messrs Verhaegen, Denk-McGinn & Crowley...
Ross Macfarlane
caldervangogh@gmail.com - 04 May 2008 05:31 GMT > On May 4, 2:58 am, "caldervang...@gmail.com" <caldervang...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > > - Show quoted text - <smile> all is forgotten & lets try to figure out this evolution thing, then. It is far too complicated already without adding in new arguments & inviting in netloons from the bomb squad.
that boating accident in sydney harbor was in the news here in the states. sorry about that; sounds like bad karma for those kids & hope the injured recover properly. regards c
GoldLions - 10 May 2008 19:37 GMT > > Isn't it axiomatic that somewhere in our genetic code is a specific > > allele for skin color and etc.? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It isn't axiomatic, becuase there isn't a single specific allele for > skin colour. =================
Hey "brothers/sisters", chill it........ 'K?
I read some where that whites/Asians are actually slight newer mutations from the original African strain? Nothing is wrong with that, that's just what evolution is about, genetic changes due to both environmental and internal changes. It doesn't make anyone any better or worse than the former. I see living things as "God's untility function" .....something like an art medium like clay, it can be shaped and formed to what adaptation suits it best and only the "winners" survived...... Cheers
GoldLions - 10 May 2008 19:24 GMT > Anyway, forget it then. �But just FYI, I am a white southern male (in > the USA, there are specific connotations to that phrase). �For years, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > regards > calder ======================== Correct Calder,
IMO, "race" is a stupid wrong term to use anymore since it's now genetically proven that all peoples living rose from a single ancient lineage from Africa anyway. If we were REALLY RACIALLY DIFFERENT from each other it would not be possible for individuals with slight color, facial, or whatever variation/s to have fertile offspring would it? It's time to throw this "old hat" away already, genetically we're the same. Yes, it would be nice if people could finally embrace each other for what we are, one big human family, cheers.
Claudius Denk - 04 May 2008 16:55 GMT > On May 2, 12:58 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > they cannot be defined in biological terms based on genetics - human > "races" are not genetically distinct. Simply false. Certain genetic markers show up more frequently in some races than others.
> It also stems from the fact that > this is a politically charged and overly divisive topic which is > generally treated as "*off*-topic" on sci.anthropology.paleo... Ross, why don't you make a list of the things we are not allowed to talk about.
> Ross Macfarlane- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Makouli - 04 May 2008 19:51 GMT On May 2, 6:37 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> On May 2, 12:58 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" ["race" stuff]
>> It also stems from the fact that >> this is a politically charged and overly divisive topic which is >> generally treated as "*off*-topic" on sci.anthropology.paleo...
> Ross, why don't you make a list of the things we are not allowed to > talk about. Can I start this list off? Purty Please? OK then:
1). Dimmy's credentials....
> Ross Macfarlane =================================== "Let's be sensible" Dimmy --04/25/2008
Rick Wagler - 05 May 2008 00:17 GMT On May 2, 6:37 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>> The divergence in your discussion stems from the biological fact that >> while human "races" can be (imperfectly) defined on physical >> differences and to some extent geographic & morphological grounds, >> they cannot be defined in biological terms based on genetics - human >> "races" are not genetically distinct.
>Simply false. Certain genetic markers show up more frequently in some >races than others. This is also true for genetic variation within 'races'. Races are a social construct not a biological fact ie human races are not discrete biological entities which is why physical anthropology has no use for the term never mind all the odious socio-historic baggage that is attached.
>> It also stems from the fact that >> this is a politically charged and overly divisive topic which is >> generally treated as "*off*-topic" on sci.anthropology.paleo...
>Ross, why don't you make a list of the things we are not allowed to >talk about. Ross is not being a censor. He is pointing out to his correspondent that the term 'race' is scientifically meaningless and far more trouble than it's worth. You can talk about how your invisible guardian angels pull your car along if you like but as a discussion about how the internal combustion engine works it is of no practical value.
Rick Wagler
Daryl Krupa - 08 May 2008 00:28 GMT On May 1, 8:58 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" <caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
> Sorry if I offended you. <snip>
Nope, no offense taken, just tryiong to pont out that we can't be classified as easily as some would like.
- Daryl Krupa
jerry warner - 01 May 2008 08:44 GMT very interesting discussion - wish more of this here. Thanks, Jerry
> > > On Apr 26, 10:32�pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > "closer" to the modern day human lineage? If anything shouldn't their > lineage from our tree be more distant?......
|
|
|