More statistical evidence for a deep Palaeoafrican layer in modern Sub-Saharan Africans in the preprint by Ragsdale and Gravel (below). When I proposed that modern Africans are a mixture of Afrasians and diverse Palaeoafricans I only had two things to go on: greater African genetic diversity (produced by admixture between diverse Palaeoafricans and Afrasians), and cranioskeletal archaicity in known African specimens.
Current models of African origins have African groups tracing their ancestry to groups that split off 200-300 thousand years from the rest of mankind, as well as even more archaic Africans (such as the ones proposed in this preprint) that split off as early as 500 thousand years ago. I'm pretty sure there are multiple layers in-between yet to be discovered: counterintuitively archaic admixture is easiest to discover if it is more distant (as it's more distinctive). But, it's unimaginable that Afrasians admixed with people that split off 200 thousand years ago, 500 thousand years ago, and none in-between.
We now know that Eurasians are not pure Afrasian either: they have some admixture with archaic Eurasians. Interestingly, archaic Eurasians are the most deeply splitting branches of humans to have contributed to modern mankind. All African genetic lineages (both Palaeoafrican and Afrasian) are nested within Eurasian genetic variation, with the jury still out on whether this happened when (1) African Afrasian populations left Africa and met archaic Eurasians, or (2) Eurasian Afrasian populations left West Eurasia and met archaic Africans.
Related:
Models of archaic admixture and recent history from two-locus statistics
Aaron P Ragsdale, Simon Gravel
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/489401
We learn about population history and underlying evolutionary biology through patterns of genetic polymorphism. Many approaches to reconstruct evolutionary histories focus on a limited number of informative statistics describing distributions of allele frequencies or patterns of linkage disequilibrium. We show that many commonly used statistics are part of a broad family of two-locus moments whose expectation can be computed jointly and rapidly under a wide range of scenarios, including complex multi-population demographies with continuous migration and admixture events. A full inspection of these statistics reveals that widely used models of human history fail to predict simple patterns of linkage disequilibrium. To jointly capture the information contained in classical and novel statistics, we implemented a tractable likelihood-based inference framework for demographic history. Using this approach, we show that human evolutionary models that include archaic admixture in Africa, Asia, and Europe provide a much better description of patterns of genetic diversity across the human genome. We estimate that individuals in two African populations have 6−8% ancestry through admixture from an unidentified archaic population that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans 500 thousand years ago.
Link
Showing posts with label Admixture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Admixture. Show all posts
December 12, 2018
April 13, 2018
R1ans still at large (or, the story of India)
Ten ago, in the pre-ancient DNA "Dark Ages" a big debate raged on about the origin of R1a men in India. The stage had been set even earlier, by the pioneering Eurasian heartland paper which was the first (to my memory) to link M17 with steppe migrations and Indo-Iranians. Yet, there was pushback as the distribution of M17 was better described, and people started using Y-STRs to try to date and place phylogeographically its migrations.
The two poles of the debate were the "Out-of-India", which relied primarily on Y-STR based time estimates that seemed very old (even Paleolithic, if one used the wrong mutation rate) in India, and the "Into-India" which thought that the R1a distribution pointed to its being brought into India by the Indo-Aryans in the conventional ~3,500BC time frame of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" (AIT).
AIT has been much maligned because it has been received as a Western colonialist imposition on Indian history: a way to claim that Indian civilization was not native but European in origin. Europeans were certainly guilty of misusing AIT: for British colonials it represented a precedent for their colonization of India; for German National Socialists it was evidence for the greatness of the Aryan race and its past expansions eastward. It also played into internal Indian politics, espoused by some as a means of furthering their superiority as either descendants of "Aryan conquerors" or as oppressed victims of the same.
Of course, a misuse of a theory does not mean it is wrong, and if a new preprint based on ancient and modern DNA is correct, it means that AIT was basically correct: Indo-Aryans did come to India in the Late Bronze Age, via the steppe, and ultimately from central Europe.
The opposing Out-of-India theory is all but dead, although failed theories often have a long half-life, especially if they are espoused for psycho-political reasons. I would argue that Out-of-India was dead for thousands of years before it was conceived, since even in Homer's time it was known that "India" was not "one thing" but was peopled by Indians in the north and "Eastern Ethiopians" in the south (which differed from their western "actual" Ethiopians of Africa by their possession of straight rather than curly hair). These were the "Ancestral North Indians" and "Ancestral South Indians" that modern science has revealed. Out-of-India is little more than a nationalistic myth functioning as an antidote to this basic dichotomy, a way to imbue India's diverse citizens with a myth of common origins.
Yet, proponents of AIT (who have a non-trivial overlap with R1an enthusiasts) are also scratching their heads because of the 27 ancient South Asian males from South Asia studied in the preprint there is exactly one R1a, who also happened to live after the time of the Buddha and not during the Bronze Age.
Both OIT enthusiasts (who expected copious and abundant R1a in India and its environs since the Paleolithic) and AIT/R1an enthusiasts (who expected to see it come in c. 3,500BC) are bound to be disappointed.
Perhaps the R1a Indo-Aryans did come to South Asia in a conventional AIT time frame and they haven't been sampled. Or, maybe they were, indeed, there, but were not R1ans. Or, maybe both sides missed the bigger story which is that the Indo-Aryans (so closely associated with India today) were simply not there as early as people have thought.
bioRxiv: doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/292581
The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia
Vagheesh M Narasimhan, Nick J Patterson et al.
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.
Link
The two poles of the debate were the "Out-of-India", which relied primarily on Y-STR based time estimates that seemed very old (even Paleolithic, if one used the wrong mutation rate) in India, and the "Into-India" which thought that the R1a distribution pointed to its being brought into India by the Indo-Aryans in the conventional ~3,500BC time frame of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" (AIT).
AIT has been much maligned because it has been received as a Western colonialist imposition on Indian history: a way to claim that Indian civilization was not native but European in origin. Europeans were certainly guilty of misusing AIT: for British colonials it represented a precedent for their colonization of India; for German National Socialists it was evidence for the greatness of the Aryan race and its past expansions eastward. It also played into internal Indian politics, espoused by some as a means of furthering their superiority as either descendants of "Aryan conquerors" or as oppressed victims of the same.
Of course, a misuse of a theory does not mean it is wrong, and if a new preprint based on ancient and modern DNA is correct, it means that AIT was basically correct: Indo-Aryans did come to India in the Late Bronze Age, via the steppe, and ultimately from central Europe.
The opposing Out-of-India theory is all but dead, although failed theories often have a long half-life, especially if they are espoused for psycho-political reasons. I would argue that Out-of-India was dead for thousands of years before it was conceived, since even in Homer's time it was known that "India" was not "one thing" but was peopled by Indians in the north and "Eastern Ethiopians" in the south (which differed from their western "actual" Ethiopians of Africa by their possession of straight rather than curly hair). These were the "Ancestral North Indians" and "Ancestral South Indians" that modern science has revealed. Out-of-India is little more than a nationalistic myth functioning as an antidote to this basic dichotomy, a way to imbue India's diverse citizens with a myth of common origins.
Yet, proponents of AIT (who have a non-trivial overlap with R1an enthusiasts) are also scratching their heads because of the 27 ancient South Asian males from South Asia studied in the preprint there is exactly one R1a, who also happened to live after the time of the Buddha and not during the Bronze Age.
Both OIT enthusiasts (who expected copious and abundant R1a in India and its environs since the Paleolithic) and AIT/R1an enthusiasts (who expected to see it come in c. 3,500BC) are bound to be disappointed.
Perhaps the R1a Indo-Aryans did come to South Asia in a conventional AIT time frame and they haven't been sampled. Or, maybe they were, indeed, there, but were not R1ans. Or, maybe both sides missed the bigger story which is that the Indo-Aryans (so closely associated with India today) were simply not there as early as people have thought.
bioRxiv: doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/292581
The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia
Vagheesh M Narasimhan, Nick J Patterson et al.
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.
Link
June 21, 2016
Panorama of African admixture
Well, I won't dismiss the role of climate altogether, but it's hard to argue for it much anymore now that we know that the two big fish in the African ocean of human diversity were the spread of Niger-Congo languages (from the west), and of Caucasoids (from the east) over the last few thousands of years, with a healthy seasoning of minor admixtures before and after. Once again it seems that old-style anthropology was right and the more fashionable and trendy attempts to dismiss it as "typology", "imposition of European colonialism through science" and the like were wrong.
eLife 2016;5:e15266
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa
George BJ Busby et al.
Similarity between two individuals in the combination of genetic markers along their chromosomes indicates shared ancestry and can be used to identify historical connections between different population groups due to admixture. We use a genome-wide, haplotype-based, analysis to characterise the structure of genetic diversity and gene-flow in a collection of 48 sub-Saharan African groups. We show that coastal populations experienced an influx of Eurasian haplotypes over the last 7000 years, and that Eastern and Southern Niger-Congo speaking groups share ancestry with Central West Africans as a result of recent population expansions. In fact, most sub-Saharan populations share ancestry with groups from outside of their current geographic region as a result of gene-flow within the last 4000 years. Our in-depth analysis provides insight into haplotype sharing across different ethno-linguistic groups and the recent movement of alleles into new environments, both of which are relevant to studies of genetic epidemiology.
Link
May 28, 2016
British Celts have more steppe ancestry than British English
An interesting tidbit in a preprint about blood pressure genes:
But, it seems that the English have less steppe ancestry than both modern Celts and ancient Saxons, so they're not really intermediate. My guess is that the English have Norman ancestry that the Celts don't. While the original Normans were Scandinavians with presumably lots of steppe ancestry, I'd be surprised if the post-1066 Normans that settled England were not already heavily admixed with the "French" and so had less steppe ancestry than the modern British Celts from Wales and Scotland.
bioRxiv http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055855
Population structure of UK Biobank and ancient Eurasians reveals adaptation at genes influencing blood pressure
Kevin Galinsky et al.
Analyzing genetic differences between closely related populations can be a powerful way to detect recent adaptation. The very large sample size of the UK Biobank is ideal for detecting selection using population differentiation, and enables an analysis of UK population structure at fine resolution. In analyses of 113,851 UK Biobank samples, population structure in the UK is dominated by 5 principal components (PCs) spanning 6 clusters: Northern Ireland, Scotland, northern England, southern England, and two Welsh clusters. Analyses with ancient Eurasians show that populations in the northern UK have higher levels of Steppe ancestry, and that UK population structure cannot be explained as a simple mixture of Celts and Saxons. A scan for unusual population differentiation along top PCs identified a genome-wide significant signal of selection at the coding variant rs601338 in FUT2 (p=9.16×10-9). In addition, by combining evidence of unusual differentiation within the UK with evidence from ancient Eurasians, we identified new genome-wide significant (p less than 5×10-8) signals of recent selection at two additional loci: CYP1A2/CSK and F12. We detected strong associations to diastolic blood pressure in the UK Biobank for the variants with new selection signals at CYP1A2/CSK (p=1.10×10-19)) and for variants with ancient Eurasian selection signals in the ATXN2/SH2B3 locus (p=8.00×10-33), implicating recent adaptation related to blood pressure.
Link
We consistently obtained significantly positive f4 statistics, implying that both the modern Celtic samples and the ancient Saxon samples have more Steppe ancestry than the modern Anglo-Saxon samples from southern and eastern England. This indicates that southern and eastern England is not exclusively a genetic mix of Celts and Saxons.Southeastern England is genetically very homogeneous. If the people there were a mix of ancient Celts and Saxons you'd expect them to be intermediate between modern Celts (who should have more Celtic ancestry than the modern English) and ancient Saxons (who should have more Saxon ancestry than the modern English).
But, it seems that the English have less steppe ancestry than both modern Celts and ancient Saxons, so they're not really intermediate. My guess is that the English have Norman ancestry that the Celts don't. While the original Normans were Scandinavians with presumably lots of steppe ancestry, I'd be surprised if the post-1066 Normans that settled England were not already heavily admixed with the "French" and so had less steppe ancestry than the modern British Celts from Wales and Scotland.
bioRxiv http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055855
Population structure of UK Biobank and ancient Eurasians reveals adaptation at genes influencing blood pressure
Kevin Galinsky et al.
Analyzing genetic differences between closely related populations can be a powerful way to detect recent adaptation. The very large sample size of the UK Biobank is ideal for detecting selection using population differentiation, and enables an analysis of UK population structure at fine resolution. In analyses of 113,851 UK Biobank samples, population structure in the UK is dominated by 5 principal components (PCs) spanning 6 clusters: Northern Ireland, Scotland, northern England, southern England, and two Welsh clusters. Analyses with ancient Eurasians show that populations in the northern UK have higher levels of Steppe ancestry, and that UK population structure cannot be explained as a simple mixture of Celts and Saxons. A scan for unusual population differentiation along top PCs identified a genome-wide significant signal of selection at the coding variant rs601338 in FUT2 (p=9.16×10-9). In addition, by combining evidence of unusual differentiation within the UK with evidence from ancient Eurasians, we identified new genome-wide significant (p less than 5×10-8) signals of recent selection at two additional loci: CYP1A2/CSK and F12. We detected strong associations to diastolic blood pressure in the UK Biobank for the variants with new selection signals at CYP1A2/CSK (p=1.10×10-19)) and for variants with ancient Eurasian selection signals in the ATXN2/SH2B3 locus (p=8.00×10-33), implicating recent adaptation related to blood pressure.
Link
May 27, 2016
The great migration of African Americans
The Great Migration and African-American Genomic Diversity
Soheil Baharian et al.
We present a comprehensive assessment of genomic diversity in the African-American population by studying three genotyped cohorts comprising 3,726 African-Americans from across the United States that provide a representative description of the population across all US states and socioeconomic status. An estimated 82.1% of ancestors to African-Americans lived in Africa prior to the advent of transatlantic travel, 16.7% in Europe, and 1.2% in the Americas, with increased African ancestry in the southern United States compared to the North and West. Combining demographic models of ancestry and those of relatedness suggests that admixture occurred predominantly in the South prior to the Civil War and that ancestry-biased migration is responsible for regional differences in ancestry. We find that recent migrations also caused a strong increase in genetic relatedness among geographically distant African-Americans. Long-range relatedness among African-Americans and between African-Americans and European-Americans thus track north- and west-bound migration routes followed during the Great Migration of the twentieth century. By contrast, short-range relatedness patterns suggest comparable mobility of ∼15–16km per generation for African-Americans and European-Americans, as estimated using a novel analytical model of isolation-by-distance.
Link
March 31, 2016
Denisovan ancestry in Oceanians (and some in South Asians)
Current Biology DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.037
The Combined Landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal Ancestry in Present-Day Humans
Sriram Sankararaman et al.
Some present-day humans derive up to ∼5% [ 1 ] of their ancestry from archaic Denisovans, an even larger proportion than the ∼2% from Neanderthals [ 2 ]. We developed methods that can disambiguate the locations of segments of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans and applied them to 257 high-coverage genomes from 120 diverse populations, among which were 20 individual Oceanians with high Denisovan ancestry [ 3 ]. In Oceanians, the average size of Denisovan fragments is larger than Neanderthal fragments, implying a more recent average date of Denisovan admixture in the history of these populations (p = 0.00004). We document more Denisovan ancestry in South Asia than is expected based on existing models of history, reflecting a previously undocumented mixture related to archaic humans (p = 0.0013). Denisovan ancestry, just like Neanderthal ancestry, has been deleterious on a modern human genetic background, as reflected by its depletion near genes. Finally, the reduction of both archaic ancestries is especially pronounced on chromosome X and near genes more highly expressed in testes than other tissues (p = 1.2 × 10−7 to 3.2 × 10−7 for Denisovan and 2.2 × 10−3 to 2.9 × 10−3 for Neanderthal ancestry even after controlling for differences in level of selective constraint across gene classes). This suggests that reduced male fertility may be a general feature of mixtures of human populations diverged by >500,000 years.
Link
The Combined Landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal Ancestry in Present-Day Humans
Sriram Sankararaman et al.
Some present-day humans derive up to ∼5% [ 1 ] of their ancestry from archaic Denisovans, an even larger proportion than the ∼2% from Neanderthals [ 2 ]. We developed methods that can disambiguate the locations of segments of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans and applied them to 257 high-coverage genomes from 120 diverse populations, among which were 20 individual Oceanians with high Denisovan ancestry [ 3 ]. In Oceanians, the average size of Denisovan fragments is larger than Neanderthal fragments, implying a more recent average date of Denisovan admixture in the history of these populations (p = 0.00004). We document more Denisovan ancestry in South Asia than is expected based on existing models of history, reflecting a previously undocumented mixture related to archaic humans (p = 0.0013). Denisovan ancestry, just like Neanderthal ancestry, has been deleterious on a modern human genetic background, as reflected by its depletion near genes. Finally, the reduction of both archaic ancestries is especially pronounced on chromosome X and near genes more highly expressed in testes than other tissues (p = 1.2 × 10−7 to 3.2 × 10−7 for Denisovan and 2.2 × 10−3 to 2.9 × 10−3 for Neanderthal ancestry even after controlling for differences in level of selective constraint across gene classes). This suggests that reduced male fertility may be a general feature of mixtures of human populations diverged by >500,000 years.
Link
March 20, 2016
Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from Melanesians
Admixture models are out of control these days, with 4 inferred archaic introgressions into three groups of Eurasians (Europeans, East Asians, Melanesians). The model on the left has to be a simplification/incomplete/wrong in some way (Melanesians are not an outgroup to Europeans and East Asians; Europeans have "Basal Eurasian" ancestry via Early European Farmers; Denisovans have some kind of weird archaic ancestry that Neandertals don't, and according to a recent study, the Altai Neandertal also has some kind of weird Proto-Modern Human lineage). In any case, this may not matter much for the problem at hand which is excavating archaic DNA from Melanesian genomes.
But, if you combined all the admixtures inferred in the literature, you'd probably need something like 8 admixtures to model 5 populations. Time and data will show which of them are real, and reveal news ones (e.g., in Africans, who remain blissfully simple in the absence of archaic African genomes).
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aad9416
Excavating Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from the genomes of Melanesian individuals
Benjamin Vernot et al.
Although Neandertal sequences that persist in the genomes of modern humans have been identified in Eurasians, comparable studies in people whose ancestors hybridized with both Neandertals and Denisovans are lacking. We developed an approach to identify DNA inherited from multiple archaic hominin ancestors and applied it to whole-genome sequences from 1523 geographically diverse individuals, including 35 new Island Melanesian genomes. In aggregate, we recovered 1.34 Gb and 303 Mb of the Neandertal and Denisovan genome, respectively. We leverage these maps of archaic sequence to show that Neandertal admixture occurred multiple times in different non-African populations, characterize genomic regions that are significantly depleted of archaic sequence, and identify signatures of adaptive introgression.
Link
February 20, 2016
Are living Africans nested within Eurasian genetic variation (?)
(Early modern human lineage detected as admixture in the Altai Neandertal, ((Asians, Europeans), Africans)),
and then there are two deeper layers of Eurasian hominins (Neandertal/Denisovans) and the "Mystery hominin" that mixed into Denisovans.
Africans are thus just a leaf of the Eurasian family tree, casting serious doubt -if this model is to be believed- to the position that H. sapiens originated in Africa and are descended from people who never left the continent. It seems much simpler to derive them from an early migration (~200kya?) from Asia which would nicely explain why the continent's first sapiens populations appear tentatively in the northeastern corner, and why they do not replace archaic hominins for most of the 200 thousand years until today. In a reversal of perspective it is not Skhul/Qafzeh that are the "migration that failed", but rather the Omo 1 outlier is.
One might argue that this is just a consequence of the fact that lots of ancient genomes have been published from Eurasia, but none from Africa. So, there are all these branches of deep archaic Eurasians simply because there are no genomes of deep archaic Africans.
But, this explanation does not really work. If Africans had any significant ancestry deeper than the split of "Early modern human lineage", then this lineage would be closer to (Asians, Europeans) than to Africans. However, Kulhwilm et al. assert that it is "equally related to present-day Africans and non-Africans". If they had any ancestry deeper than ((Denisovans, Neandertals), H. sapiens), then (Denisovans, Neandertals) would be closer to non-Africans than to Africans. Well, they are, but this is now satisfactorily explained by admixture from (Denisovans, Neandertals) into non-Africans, thanks to genomes like Ust Ishim, K14, and Oase which have big chunks of Neandertal ancestry that can't be explained any other way. No need to invoke any such lineage when a simpler well-documented alternative exists.
The presented phylogeny negates the possibility of the existence of collateral archaic African kin of the extant Africans that admixed with them, and leads to the conclusion that Africans are nested within Eurasian variation because they really are. This is, of course, incompatible with the statistically inferred archaic introgression into Africans which indeed postulates the existence of such archaic Africans and their contribution to extant ones.
I don't see any obvious flaw with Kulhwilm et al. but if its model is right, then it does lead to some rather extreme conclusions. It contradicts the evidence for archaic introgression; if Hsieh et al. is wrong (and I don't seen any evidence for that either), then Kulhwilm et al. can be saved, but only if Africans are really nested within several layers of Eurasian variation and did not admix at all with the morphologically diverse archaic Africans of the paleoanthropological record. This also doesn't seem right now that we know that sapiens-archaic admixture was a common occurrence in Eurasia. The reversal of perspective alluded to above may help here by removing the opportunity for admixture, but that too is, of course, an extraordinary claim.
In sum, I am rather convinced that the latest discoveries have muddled the origin story of our species and some major rethink is needed to evaluate the totality of the evidence.
February 19, 2016
Archaic introgression in Pygmies
We must remember that detecting archaic admixture in Africa is a statistical power game where only a particular type of such introgression can be detected:
First, it needs to be from highly diverged Palaeoafrican sources so that it will look very different from plain H. sapiens DNA. Unlike Eurasia, there's no genome of an ancient Palaeoafrican one can compare against. All inference is based on African genomes having an improbable amount of heterozygosity in parts of their genome.
Second, it needs to have happened recently enough so that it will come in big chunks that can be distinguished from the plain H. sapiens background. Given enough time, recombination breaks down archaic segments into ever tinier bits. You can argue that an unusually long divergent haplotype with a deep TMRCA is archaic, but you can't argue that a single SNP is.
I have little doubt that most if not all of the supposedly "old divergences" between African populations are a mirage created by admixture between modern humans and archaic "Palaeoafricans" diverging and admixing at different time depths. The palaeoanthropological record is quite clear that modern humans were not the only game in town for most of the 200 thousand years since modern humans first appeared in the continent's northeastern corner.
A handful or two of archaic genomes from Eurasia needs an ever-more-complex web of admixtures to make sense of; Africa will need no less, and -if morphological variability persistence is any criterion- a lot more.
Genome Research Published in Advance February 17, 2016, doi: 10.1101/gr.196634.115
Model-based analyses of whole-genome data reveal a complex evolutionary history involving archaic introgression in Central African Pygmies
PingHsun Hsieh et al.
Comparisons of whole-genome sequences from ancient and contemporary samples have pointed to several instances of archaic admixture through interbreeding between the ancestors of modern non-Africans and now extinct hominids such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. One implication of these findings is that some adaptive features in contemporary humans may have entered the population via gene flow with archaic forms in Eurasia. Within Africa, fossil evidence suggests that anatomically modern humans (AMH) and various archaic forms coexisted for much of the last 200,000 yr; however, the absence of ancient DNA in Africa has limited our ability to make a direct comparison between archaic and modern human genomes. Here, we use statistical inference based on high coverage whole-genome data (greater than 60×) from contemporary African Pygmy hunter-gatherers as an alternative means to study the evolutionary history of the genus Homo. Using whole-genome simulations that consider demographic histories that include both isolation and gene flow with neighboring farming populations, our inference method rejects the hypothesis that the ancestors of AMH were genetically isolated in Africa, thus providing the first whole genome-level evidence of African archaic admixture. Our inferences also suggest a complex human evolutionary history in Africa, which involves at least a single admixture event from an unknown archaic population into the ancestors of AMH, likely within the last 30,000 yr.
Link
Genome Research Published in Advance February 17, 2016, doi: 10.1101/gr.192971.115
Whole-genome sequence analyses of Western Central African Pygmy hunter-gatherers reveal a complex demographic history and identify candidate genes under positive natural selection
PingHsun Hsieh et al.
African Pygmies practicing a mobile hunter-gatherer lifestyle are phenotypically and genetically diverged from other anatomically modern humans, and they likely experienced strong selective pressures due to their unique lifestyle in the Central African rainforest. To identify genomic targets of adaptation, we sequenced the genomes of four Biaka Pygmies from the Central African Republic and jointly analyzed these data with the genome sequences of three Baka Pygmies from Cameroon and nine Yoruba famers. To account for the complex demographic history of these populations that includes both isolation and gene flow, we fit models using the joint allele frequency spectrum and validated them using independent approaches. Our two best-fit models both suggest ancient divergence between the ancestors of the farmers and Pygmies, 90,000 or 150,000 yr ago. We also find that bidirectional asymmetric gene flow is statistically better supported than a single pulse of unidirectional gene flow from farmers to Pygmies, as previously suggested. We then applied complementary statistics to scan the genome for evidence of selective sweeps and polygenic selection. We found that conventional statistical outlier approaches were biased toward identifying candidates in regions of high mutation or low recombination rate. To avoid this bias, we assigned P-values for candidates using whole-genome simulations incorporating demography and variation in both recombination and mutation rates. We found that genes and gene sets involved in muscle development, bone synthesis, immunity, reproduction, cell signaling and development, and energy metabolism are likely to be targets of positive natural selection in Western African Pygmies or their recent ancestors.
Link
First, it needs to be from highly diverged Palaeoafrican sources so that it will look very different from plain H. sapiens DNA. Unlike Eurasia, there's no genome of an ancient Palaeoafrican one can compare against. All inference is based on African genomes having an improbable amount of heterozygosity in parts of their genome.
Second, it needs to have happened recently enough so that it will come in big chunks that can be distinguished from the plain H. sapiens background. Given enough time, recombination breaks down archaic segments into ever tinier bits. You can argue that an unusually long divergent haplotype with a deep TMRCA is archaic, but you can't argue that a single SNP is.
I have little doubt that most if not all of the supposedly "old divergences" between African populations are a mirage created by admixture between modern humans and archaic "Palaeoafricans" diverging and admixing at different time depths. The palaeoanthropological record is quite clear that modern humans were not the only game in town for most of the 200 thousand years since modern humans first appeared in the continent's northeastern corner.
A handful or two of archaic genomes from Eurasia needs an ever-more-complex web of admixtures to make sense of; Africa will need no less, and -if morphological variability persistence is any criterion- a lot more.
Genome Research Published in Advance February 17, 2016, doi: 10.1101/gr.196634.115
Model-based analyses of whole-genome data reveal a complex evolutionary history involving archaic introgression in Central African Pygmies
PingHsun Hsieh et al.
Comparisons of whole-genome sequences from ancient and contemporary samples have pointed to several instances of archaic admixture through interbreeding between the ancestors of modern non-Africans and now extinct hominids such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. One implication of these findings is that some adaptive features in contemporary humans may have entered the population via gene flow with archaic forms in Eurasia. Within Africa, fossil evidence suggests that anatomically modern humans (AMH) and various archaic forms coexisted for much of the last 200,000 yr; however, the absence of ancient DNA in Africa has limited our ability to make a direct comparison between archaic and modern human genomes. Here, we use statistical inference based on high coverage whole-genome data (greater than 60×) from contemporary African Pygmy hunter-gatherers as an alternative means to study the evolutionary history of the genus Homo. Using whole-genome simulations that consider demographic histories that include both isolation and gene flow with neighboring farming populations, our inference method rejects the hypothesis that the ancestors of AMH were genetically isolated in Africa, thus providing the first whole genome-level evidence of African archaic admixture. Our inferences also suggest a complex human evolutionary history in Africa, which involves at least a single admixture event from an unknown archaic population into the ancestors of AMH, likely within the last 30,000 yr.
Link
Genome Research Published in Advance February 17, 2016, doi: 10.1101/gr.192971.115
Whole-genome sequence analyses of Western Central African Pygmy hunter-gatherers reveal a complex demographic history and identify candidate genes under positive natural selection
PingHsun Hsieh et al.
African Pygmies practicing a mobile hunter-gatherer lifestyle are phenotypically and genetically diverged from other anatomically modern humans, and they likely experienced strong selective pressures due to their unique lifestyle in the Central African rainforest. To identify genomic targets of adaptation, we sequenced the genomes of four Biaka Pygmies from the Central African Republic and jointly analyzed these data with the genome sequences of three Baka Pygmies from Cameroon and nine Yoruba famers. To account for the complex demographic history of these populations that includes both isolation and gene flow, we fit models using the joint allele frequency spectrum and validated them using independent approaches. Our two best-fit models both suggest ancient divergence between the ancestors of the farmers and Pygmies, 90,000 or 150,000 yr ago. We also find that bidirectional asymmetric gene flow is statistically better supported than a single pulse of unidirectional gene flow from farmers to Pygmies, as previously suggested. We then applied complementary statistics to scan the genome for evidence of selective sweeps and polygenic selection. We found that conventional statistical outlier approaches were biased toward identifying candidates in regions of high mutation or low recombination rate. To avoid this bias, we assigned P-values for candidates using whole-genome simulations incorporating demography and variation in both recombination and mutation rates. We found that genes and gene sets involved in muscle development, bone synthesis, immunity, reproduction, cell signaling and development, and energy metabolism are likely to be targets of positive natural selection in Western African Pygmies or their recent ancestors.
Link
February 17, 2016
Ancestors of Eastern Neandertals admixed with modern humans 100 thousand years ago
If true, this is very hard to reconcile with late (60kya) out of Africa and may be a smoking gun for pre-100kya presence of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia. From the paper:
If the new discovery checks out, it will no longer be possible to assert that the deepest split in our species, H. sapiens, involves African populations. A modest interpretation of these results would assert an earlier (pre-100kya) exodus of our species from Africa, and a more bold one would seek to re-examine the geographical origin of H. sapiens itself. I don't know if anyone is working on getting DNA from the progressive Neandertals of the Near East, but they should.
Things are bound to get more interesting.
Nature (2016) doi:10.1038/nature16544
Ancient gene flow from early modern humans into Eastern Neanderthals
Martin Kuhlwilm, Ilan Gronau, Melissa J. Hubisz, Cesare de Filippo, Javier Prado-Martinez, Martin Kircher, Qiaomei Fu, Hernán A. Burbano, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Marco de la Rasilla, Antonio Rosas, Pavao Rudan, Dejana Brajkovic, Željko Kucan, Ivan Gušic, Tomas Marques-Bonet, Aida M. Andrés, Bence Viola, Svante Pääbo, Matthias Meyer, Adam Siepel & Sergi Castellano
It has been shown that Neanderthals contributed genetically to modern humans outside Africa 47,000–65,000 years ago. Here we analyse the genomes of a Neanderthal and a Denisovan from the Altai Mountains in Siberia together with the sequences of chromosome 21 of two Neanderthals from Spain and Croatia. We find that a population that diverged early from other modern humans in Africa contributed genetically to the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains roughly 100,000 years ago. By contrast, we do not detect such a genetic contribution in the Denisovan or the two European Neanderthals. We conclude that in addition to later interbreeding events, the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains and early modern humans met and interbred, possibly in the Near East, many thousands of years earlier than previously thought.
Link
The inferred demographic model confirms and provides quantitative estimates of previously inferred gene flow events among modern and archaic humans2, 3 (Extended Data Fig. 1). These include Neanderthal gene flow into modern humans outside Africa (3.3–5.8%) and gene flow from an unknown archaic hominin into the ancestors of Denisovans (0.0–0.5%). Interestingly, we also detect a signal of gene flow from modern humans into the ancestors of the Altai Neanderthal (1.0–7.1%). The precise source of this gene flow is unclear, but it appears to come from a population that either split from the ancestors of all present-day Africans or from one of the early African lineages, as significant admixture rates are estimated from San as well as Yoruba individuals. This introgression thus occurred in the opposite direction from the previously reported gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans outside AfricaAnd:
However, it is clear that the source of the gene flow is a population equally related to present-day Africans and non-Africans (Extended Data Fig. 3). We conclude that the introgressing population diverged from other modern human populations before or shortly after the split between the ancestors of San and other Africans (Fig. 3a), which occurred approximately 200,000 years ago11.The implications of this inference (if correct) for modern human origins are potentially monumental as they suggest a Eurasian modern human lineage (only detected in the Altai Neandertal) that diverges from other modern humans as early (if not earlier) than any two African ones.
If the new discovery checks out, it will no longer be possible to assert that the deepest split in our species, H. sapiens, involves African populations. A modest interpretation of these results would assert an earlier (pre-100kya) exodus of our species from Africa, and a more bold one would seek to re-examine the geographical origin of H. sapiens itself. I don't know if anyone is working on getting DNA from the progressive Neandertals of the Near East, but they should.
Things are bound to get more interesting.
Nature (2016) doi:10.1038/nature16544
Ancient gene flow from early modern humans into Eastern Neanderthals
Martin Kuhlwilm, Ilan Gronau, Melissa J. Hubisz, Cesare de Filippo, Javier Prado-Martinez, Martin Kircher, Qiaomei Fu, Hernán A. Burbano, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Marco de la Rasilla, Antonio Rosas, Pavao Rudan, Dejana Brajkovic, Željko Kucan, Ivan Gušic, Tomas Marques-Bonet, Aida M. Andrés, Bence Viola, Svante Pääbo, Matthias Meyer, Adam Siepel & Sergi Castellano
It has been shown that Neanderthals contributed genetically to modern humans outside Africa 47,000–65,000 years ago. Here we analyse the genomes of a Neanderthal and a Denisovan from the Altai Mountains in Siberia together with the sequences of chromosome 21 of two Neanderthals from Spain and Croatia. We find that a population that diverged early from other modern humans in Africa contributed genetically to the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains roughly 100,000 years ago. By contrast, we do not detect such a genetic contribution in the Denisovan or the two European Neanderthals. We conclude that in addition to later interbreeding events, the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains and early modern humans met and interbred, possibly in the Near East, many thousands of years earlier than previously thought.
Link
February 12, 2016
Phenotypic effects of Neandertal admixture
Now that we know that Neandertal-introgressed DNA had (deleterious) functional consequences for modern humans, I think we also need a study on "useful stuff" conferred by Neandertal admixture. So far, the Neandertal genome has been used (mostly) as our closest relative, in order to identify novel gene variants shared by all modern humans but absent in Neandertals: the goal is to find things that "made us special". Pickings of this search have been slim.
Doubtlessly, as we begin to better understand the genetics underlying positive human traits, some of these will end up having come from archaic humans. Neandertal admixture was a huge injection of "new stuff" into the Eurasian modern human gene pool, and there is every reason to think that even if the "bad stuff" outweighed the "good", there was still plenty of room for functionally beneficial variants to be acquired from them.
Science 12 Feb 2016:
Vol. 351, Issue 6274, pp. 737-741
The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neandertals
Corinne N. Simonti et al.
Many modern human genomes retain DNA inherited from interbreeding with archaic hominins, such as Neandertals, yet the influence of this admixture on human traits is largely unknown. We analyzed the contribution of common Neandertal variants to over 1000 electronic health record (EHR)–derived phenotypes in ~28,000 adults of European ancestry. We discovered and replicated associations of Neandertal alleles with neurological, psychiatric, immunological, and dermatological phenotypes. Neandertal alleles together explained a significant fraction of the variation in risk for depression and skin lesions resulting from sun exposure (actinic keratosis), and individual Neandertal alleles were significantly associated with specific human phenotypes, including hypercoagulation and tobacco use. Our results establish that archaic admixture influences disease risk in modern humans, provide hypotheses about the effects of hundreds of Neandertal haplotypes, and demonstrate the utility of EHR data in evolutionary analyses.
Link
Doubtlessly, as we begin to better understand the genetics underlying positive human traits, some of these will end up having come from archaic humans. Neandertal admixture was a huge injection of "new stuff" into the Eurasian modern human gene pool, and there is every reason to think that even if the "bad stuff" outweighed the "good", there was still plenty of room for functionally beneficial variants to be acquired from them.
Science 12 Feb 2016:
Vol. 351, Issue 6274, pp. 737-741
The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neandertals
Corinne N. Simonti et al.
Many modern human genomes retain DNA inherited from interbreeding with archaic hominins, such as Neandertals, yet the influence of this admixture on human traits is largely unknown. We analyzed the contribution of common Neandertal variants to over 1000 electronic health record (EHR)–derived phenotypes in ~28,000 adults of European ancestry. We discovered and replicated associations of Neandertal alleles with neurological, psychiatric, immunological, and dermatological phenotypes. Neandertal alleles together explained a significant fraction of the variation in risk for depression and skin lesions resulting from sun exposure (actinic keratosis), and individual Neandertal alleles were significantly associated with specific human phenotypes, including hypercoagulation and tobacco use. Our results establish that archaic admixture influences disease risk in modern humans, provide hypotheses about the effects of hundreds of Neandertal haplotypes, and demonstrate the utility of EHR data in evolutionary analyses.
Link
February 02, 2016
Admixture within and into Africa
bioRxiv, http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/038406
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa
George Busby, Gavin Band, Quang Si Le, Muminatou Jallow, Edith Bougama, Valentina Mangano, Lucas Amenga-Etego, Anthony Emil, Tobias Apinjoh, Carolyne Ndila, Alphaxard Manjurano, Vysaul Nyirongo, Ogobara Doumbo, Kirk Rockett, Domnic Kwiatkowski, Chris Spencer, The Malaria Genomic Epidemiology Network
Understanding patterns of genetic diversity is a crucial component of medical research in Africa. Here we use haplotype-based population genetics inference to describe gene-flow and admixture in a collection of 48 African groups with a focus on the major populations of the sub-Sahara. Our analysis presents a framework for interpreting haplotype diversity within and between population groups and provides a demographic foundation for genetic epidemiology in Africa. We show that coastal African populations have experienced an influx of Eurasian haplotypes as a series of admixture events over the last 7,000 years, and that Niger-Congo speaking groups from East and Southern Africa share ancestry with Central West Africans as a result of recent population expansions associated with the adoption of new agricultural technologies. We demonstrate that most sub-Saharan populations share ancestry with groups from outside of their current geographic region as a result of large-scale population movements over the last 4,000 years. Our in-depth analysis of admixture provides an insight into haplotype sharing across different geographic groups and the recent movement of alleles into new climatic and pathogenic environments, both of which will aid the interpretation of genetic studies of disease in sub-Saharan Africa.
Link
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa
George Busby, Gavin Band, Quang Si Le, Muminatou Jallow, Edith Bougama, Valentina Mangano, Lucas Amenga-Etego, Anthony Emil, Tobias Apinjoh, Carolyne Ndila, Alphaxard Manjurano, Vysaul Nyirongo, Ogobara Doumbo, Kirk Rockett, Domnic Kwiatkowski, Chris Spencer, The Malaria Genomic Epidemiology Network
Understanding patterns of genetic diversity is a crucial component of medical research in Africa. Here we use haplotype-based population genetics inference to describe gene-flow and admixture in a collection of 48 African groups with a focus on the major populations of the sub-Sahara. Our analysis presents a framework for interpreting haplotype diversity within and between population groups and provides a demographic foundation for genetic epidemiology in Africa. We show that coastal African populations have experienced an influx of Eurasian haplotypes as a series of admixture events over the last 7,000 years, and that Niger-Congo speaking groups from East and Southern Africa share ancestry with Central West Africans as a result of recent population expansions associated with the adoption of new agricultural technologies. We demonstrate that most sub-Saharan populations share ancestry with groups from outside of their current geographic region as a result of large-scale population movements over the last 4,000 years. Our in-depth analysis of admixture provides an insight into haplotype sharing across different geographic groups and the recent movement of alleles into new climatic and pathogenic environments, both of which will aid the interpretation of genetic studies of disease in sub-Saharan Africa.
Link
January 26, 2016
History of extant populations of India
The differentiation of the four main components seems clear enough on the figure (left). The big question is how and in what order the different components got into India. I would wager that ASI was first and I modify my New Year's wish to ask for some ancient DNA from India too.
An interesting bit from the paper:
...that the practice of endogamy was established almost simultaneously, possibly by decree of the rulers, in upper-caste populations of all geographical regions, about 70 generations before present, probably during the reign (319–550 CE) of the ardent Hindu Gupta rulersHow plausible is that to anyone familiar with Indian history?
PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513197113
Genomic reconstruction of the history of extant populations of India reveals five distinct ancestral components and a complex structure
Analabha Basu, Neeta Sarkar-Roya, and Partha P. Majumder
India, occupying the center stage of Paleolithic and Neolithic migrations, has been underrepresented in genome-wide studies of variation. Systematic analysis of genome-wide data, using multiple robust statistical methods, on (i) 367 unrelated individuals drawn from 18 mainland and 2 island (Andaman and Nicobar Islands) populations selected to represent geographic, linguistic, and ethnic diversities, and (ii) individuals from populations represented in the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP), reveal four major ancestries in mainland India. This contrasts with an earlier inference of two ancestries based on limited population sampling. A distinct ancestry of the populations of Andaman archipelago was identified and found to be coancestral to Oceanic populations. Analysis of ancestral haplotype blocks revealed that extant mainland populations (i) admixed widely irrespective of ancestry, although admixtures between populations was not always symmetric, and (ii) this practice was rapidly replaced by endogamy about 70 generations ago, among upper castes and Indo-European speakers predominantly. This estimated time coincides with the historical period of formulation and adoption of sociocultural norms restricting intermarriage in large social strata. A similar replacement observed among tribal populations was temporally less uniform.
Link
November 16, 2015
West_Asian in the flesh (hunter-gatherers from Georgia) (Jones et al. 2015)
Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.
A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG). From the paper:
The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources.The authors also make the connection to South Asia:
In modern populations, the impact of CHG also stretches beyond Europe to the east. Central and South Asian populations received genetic influx from CHG (or a population close to them), as shown by a prominent CHG component in ADMIXTURE (Supplementary Fig. 5; Supplementary Note 9) and admixture f3-statistics, which show many samples as a mix of CHG and another South Asian population (Fig. 4b; Supplementary Table 9).Also of interest:
Both Georgian hunter-gatherer samples were assigned to haplogroup J with Kotias belonging to the subhaplogroup J2a (see methods).The paper is open access, so go ahead and read it for other details.
Nature Communications 6, Article number: 8912 doi:10.1038/ncomms9912
Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians
Eppie R. Jones et al.
We extend the scope of European palaeogenomics by sequencing the genomes of Late Upper Palaeolithic (13,300 years old, 1.4-fold coverage) and Mesolithic (9,700 years old, 15.4-fold) males from western Georgia in the Caucasus and a Late Upper Palaeolithic (13,700 years old, 9.5-fold) male from Switzerland. While we detect Late Palaeolithic–Mesolithic genomic continuity in both regions, we find that Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ~45 kya, shortly after the expansion of anatomically modern humans into Europe and from the ancestors of Neolithic farmers ~25 kya, around the Last Glacial Maximum. CHG genomes significantly contributed to the Yamnaya steppe herders who migrated into Europe ~3,000 BC, supporting a formative Caucasus influence on this important Early Bronze age culture. CHG left their imprint on modern populations from the Caucasus and also central and south Asia possibly marking the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages.
Link
November 04, 2015
Selection against Neandertal deleterious alleles
Sampled Neandertals (from Europe, the Caucasus, and Siberia) certainly had lower effective population size than living humans, but I wonder what the comparison would be between ancient tribes of modern humans and Neandertals in the Near East where admixture presumably took place.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/030387
The Genetic Cost of Neanderthal Introgression
Kelley Harris, Rasmus Nielsen
Approximately 2-4% of the human genome is in non-Africans comprised of DNA intro- gressed from Neanderthals. Recent studies have shown that there is a paucity of introgressed DNA around functional regions, presumably caused by selection after introgression. This observation has been suggested to be a possible consequence of the accumulation of a large amount of Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities, i.e. epistatic effects between human and Neanderthal specific mutations, since the divergence of humans and Neanderthals approx. 400-600 kya. However, using previously published estimates of inbreeding in Neanderthals, and of the distribution of fitness effects from human protein coding genes, we show that the average Neanderthal would have had at least 40% lower fitness than the average human due to higher levels of inbreeding and an increased mutational load, regardless of the dominance coefficients of new mutations. Using simulations, we show that under the assumption of additive dominance effects, early Neanderthal/human hybrids would have experienced strong negative selection, though not so strong that it would prevent Neanderthal DNA from entering the human population. In fact, the increased mutational load in Neanderthals predicts the observed reduction in Neanderthal introgressed segments around protein coding genes, without any need to invoke epistasis. The simulations also predict that there is a residual Neanderthal derived mutational load in non-African humans, leading to an average fitness reduction of at least 0.5%. Although there has been much previous debate about the effects of the out-of-Africa bottleneck on mutational loads in non-Africans, the significant deleterious effects of Neanderthal introgression have hitherto been left out of this discussion, but might be just as important for understanding fitness differences among human populations. We also show that if deleterious mutations are recessive, the Neanderthal admixture fraction would gradually increase over time due to selection for Neanderthal haplotypes that mask human deleterious mutations in the heterozygous state. This effect of dominance heterosis might partially explain why adaptive introgression appears to be widespread in nature.
Link
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/030148
The Strength of Selection Against Neanderthal Introgression
Ivan Juric, Simon Aeschbacher, Graham Coop
Hybridization between humans and Neanderthals has resulted in a low level of Neanderthal ancestry scattered across the genomes of many modern-day humans. After hybridization, on average, selection appears to have removed Neanderthal alleles from the human population. Quantifying the strength and causes of this selection against Neanderthal ancestry is key to understanding our relationship to Neanderthals and, more broadly, how populations remain distinct after secondary contact. Here, we develop a novel method for estimating the genome-wide average strength of selection and the density of selected sites using estimates of Neanderthal allele frequency along the genomes of modern-day humans. We confirm that East Asians had somewhat higher initial levels of Neanderthal ancestry than Europeans even after accounting for selection. We find that there are systematically lower levels of initial introgression on the X chromosome, a finding consistent with a strong sex bias in the initial matings between the populations. We find that the bulk of purifying selection against Neanderthal ancestry is best understood as acting on many weakly deleterious alleles. We propose that the majority of these alleles were effectively neutral-and segregating at high frequency-in Neanderthals, but became selected against after entering human populations of much larger effective size. While individually of small effect, these alleles potentially imposed a heavy genetic load on the early-generation human-Neanderthal hybrids. This work suggests that differences in effective population size may play a far more important role in shaping levels of introgression than previously thought.
Link
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/030387
The Genetic Cost of Neanderthal Introgression
Kelley Harris, Rasmus Nielsen
Approximately 2-4% of the human genome is in non-Africans comprised of DNA intro- gressed from Neanderthals. Recent studies have shown that there is a paucity of introgressed DNA around functional regions, presumably caused by selection after introgression. This observation has been suggested to be a possible consequence of the accumulation of a large amount of Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities, i.e. epistatic effects between human and Neanderthal specific mutations, since the divergence of humans and Neanderthals approx. 400-600 kya. However, using previously published estimates of inbreeding in Neanderthals, and of the distribution of fitness effects from human protein coding genes, we show that the average Neanderthal would have had at least 40% lower fitness than the average human due to higher levels of inbreeding and an increased mutational load, regardless of the dominance coefficients of new mutations. Using simulations, we show that under the assumption of additive dominance effects, early Neanderthal/human hybrids would have experienced strong negative selection, though not so strong that it would prevent Neanderthal DNA from entering the human population. In fact, the increased mutational load in Neanderthals predicts the observed reduction in Neanderthal introgressed segments around protein coding genes, without any need to invoke epistasis. The simulations also predict that there is a residual Neanderthal derived mutational load in non-African humans, leading to an average fitness reduction of at least 0.5%. Although there has been much previous debate about the effects of the out-of-Africa bottleneck on mutational loads in non-Africans, the significant deleterious effects of Neanderthal introgression have hitherto been left out of this discussion, but might be just as important for understanding fitness differences among human populations. We also show that if deleterious mutations are recessive, the Neanderthal admixture fraction would gradually increase over time due to selection for Neanderthal haplotypes that mask human deleterious mutations in the heterozygous state. This effect of dominance heterosis might partially explain why adaptive introgression appears to be widespread in nature.
Link
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/030148
The Strength of Selection Against Neanderthal Introgression
Ivan Juric, Simon Aeschbacher, Graham Coop
Hybridization between humans and Neanderthals has resulted in a low level of Neanderthal ancestry scattered across the genomes of many modern-day humans. After hybridization, on average, selection appears to have removed Neanderthal alleles from the human population. Quantifying the strength and causes of this selection against Neanderthal ancestry is key to understanding our relationship to Neanderthals and, more broadly, how populations remain distinct after secondary contact. Here, we develop a novel method for estimating the genome-wide average strength of selection and the density of selected sites using estimates of Neanderthal allele frequency along the genomes of modern-day humans. We confirm that East Asians had somewhat higher initial levels of Neanderthal ancestry than Europeans even after accounting for selection. We find that there are systematically lower levels of initial introgression on the X chromosome, a finding consistent with a strong sex bias in the initial matings between the populations. We find that the bulk of purifying selection against Neanderthal ancestry is best understood as acting on many weakly deleterious alleles. We propose that the majority of these alleles were effectively neutral-and segregating at high frequency-in Neanderthals, but became selected against after entering human populations of much larger effective size. While individually of small effect, these alleles potentially imposed a heavy genetic load on the early-generation human-Neanderthal hybrids. This work suggests that differences in effective population size may play a far more important role in shaping levels of introgression than previously thought.
Link
September 19, 2015
Recent admixture in contemporary West Eurasians
After applying Globetrotter to the world and to the British, a new study in Current Biology applies to the intermediately-sized region of West Eurasia. This is an open-access article, so go ahead and read it.
Current Biology DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.007
The Role of Recent Admixture in Forming the Contemporary West Eurasian Genomic Landscape
George B.J. Busby et al.
Over the past few years, studies of DNA isolated from human fossils and archaeological remains have generated considerable novel insight into the history of our species. Several landmark papers have described the genomes of ancient humans across West Eurasia, demonstrating the presence of large-scale, dynamic population movements over the last 10,000 years, such that ancestry across present-day populations is likely to be a mixture of several ancient groups [ 1–7 ]. While these efforts are bringing the details of West Eurasian prehistory into increasing focus, studies aimed at understanding the processes behind the generation of the current West Eurasian genetic landscape have been limited by the number of populations sampled or have been either too regional or global in their outlook [ 8–11 ]. Here, using recently described haplotype-based techniques [ 11 ], we present the results of a systematic survey of recent admixture history across Western Eurasia and show that admixture is a universal property across almost all groups. Admixture in all regions except North Western Europe involved the influx of genetic material from outside of West Eurasia, which we date to specific time periods. Within Northern, Western, and Central Europe, admixture tended to occur between local groups during the period 300 to 1200 CE. Comparisons of the genetic profiles of West Eurasians before and after admixture show that population movements within the last 1,500 years are likely to have maintained differentiation among groups. Our analysis provides a timeline of the gene flow events that have generated the contemporary genetic landscape of West Eurasia.
Link
July 21, 2015
British origins (with ancient data)
Related:
bioRxiv http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/022723
Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history
Stephan Schiffels, Wolfgang Haak, Pirita Paajanen, Bastien Llamas, Elizabeth Popescu, Louise Lou, Rachel Clarke, Alice Lyons, Richard Mortimer, Duncan Sayer, Chris Tyler-Smith, Alan Cooper, Richard Durbin
British population history has been shaped by a series of immigrations and internal movements, including the early Anglo-Saxon migrations following the breakdown of the Roman administration after 410CE. It remains an open question how these events affected the genetic composition of the current British population. Here, we present whole-genome sequences generated from ten ancient individuals found in archaeological excavations close to Cambridge in the East of England, ranging from 2,300 until 1,200 years before present (Iron Age to Anglo-Saxon period). We use present-day genetic data to characterize the relationship of these ancient individuals to contemporary British and other European populations. By analyzing the distribution of shared rare variants across ancient and modern individuals, we find that today’s British are more similar to the Iron Age individuals than to most of the Anglo-Saxon individuals, and estimate that the contemporary East English population derives 30% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations, with a lower fraction in Wales and Scotland. We gain further insight with a new method, rarecoal, which fits a demographic model to the distribution of shared rare variants across a large number of samples, enabling fine scale analysis of subtle genetic differences and yielding explicit estimates of population sizes and split times. Using rarecoal we find that the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxon samples are closest to modern Danish and Dutch populations, while the Iron Age samples share ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain.
Link
bioRxiv http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/022723
Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history
Stephan Schiffels, Wolfgang Haak, Pirita Paajanen, Bastien Llamas, Elizabeth Popescu, Louise Lou, Rachel Clarke, Alice Lyons, Richard Mortimer, Duncan Sayer, Chris Tyler-Smith, Alan Cooper, Richard Durbin
British population history has been shaped by a series of immigrations and internal movements, including the early Anglo-Saxon migrations following the breakdown of the Roman administration after 410CE. It remains an open question how these events affected the genetic composition of the current British population. Here, we present whole-genome sequences generated from ten ancient individuals found in archaeological excavations close to Cambridge in the East of England, ranging from 2,300 until 1,200 years before present (Iron Age to Anglo-Saxon period). We use present-day genetic data to characterize the relationship of these ancient individuals to contemporary British and other European populations. By analyzing the distribution of shared rare variants across ancient and modern individuals, we find that today’s British are more similar to the Iron Age individuals than to most of the Anglo-Saxon individuals, and estimate that the contemporary East English population derives 30% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations, with a lower fraction in Wales and Scotland. We gain further insight with a new method, rarecoal, which fits a demographic model to the distribution of shared rare variants across a large number of samples, enabling fine scale analysis of subtle genetic differences and yielding explicit estimates of population sizes and split times. Using rarecoal we find that the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxon samples are closest to modern Danish and Dutch populations, while the Iron Age samples share ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain.
Link
June 24, 2015
Oase1 had a Neandertal ancestor no earlier than ~200 years before his time
Several important conclusions of the discovery that Oase1 had a Neandertal ancestor 4-6 generations before his time (37-42 thousand years ago):
Nature (2015) doi:10.1038/nature14558
An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor
Qiaomei Fu, Mateja Hajdinjak, Oana Teodora Moldovan, Silviu Constantin, Swapan Mallick, Pontus Skoglund, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Iosif Lazaridis, Birgit Nickel, Bence Viola, Kay Prüfer, Matthias Meyer, Janet Kelso, David Reich & Svante Pääbo
Neanderthals are thought to have disappeared in Europe approximately 39,000–41,000 years ago but they have contributed 1–3% of the DNA of present-day people in Eurasia1. Here we analyse DNA from a 37,000–42,000-year-old2 modern human from Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Although the specimen contains small amounts of human DNA, we use an enrichment strategy to isolate sites that are informative about its relationship to Neanderthals and present-day humans. We find that on the order of 6–9% of the genome of the Oase individual is derived from Neanderthals, more than any other modern human sequenced to date. Three chromosomal segments of Neanderthal ancestry are over 50 centimorgans in size, indicating that this individual had a Neanderthal ancestor as recently as four to six generations back. However, the Oase individual does not share more alleles with later Europeans than with East Asians, suggesting that the Oase population did not contribute substantially to later humans in Europe.
Link
- This is a smoking gun that modern humans interbred with Neandertals, following up on the publication of the Ust'Ishim and Kostenki-14 genomes; these two had longer Neandertal chunks than modern humans, from which it was estimated that their Neandertal admixture happened more than 50,000 years ago, roughly what one gets when looking at Neandertal chunks in modern humans alone. The Oase1 has even longer Neandertal chunks, and Neandertal admixture happened in its very recent past.
- So, it seems that Neandertal admixture was not a one-off event but is bracketed at least by the period 50-40 thousand years ago and happened in at least two places: Europe and the Near East.
- The fact that the earliest European sample (N=1) has a recent Neandertal ancestor indicates that Neandertal admixture in the earliest Europeans cannot have been extremely rare or non-existent; if it were, the chances of finding one with the first try would be extremely low.
- It is unlikely that Neandertals were killed off by modern humans immediately after the arrival of the latter in Europe, as the Oase1 is dated well after the arrival of modern humans to Europe.
- Modern Europeans don't seem to be particularly related to the population of Oase1. After one substracts contamination and Neandertal admixture, what is left over is actually closer to East Asians than modern Europeans. But, it's equally close to East Asians and European hunter-gatherers. This can be explained if modern Europeans have ancestry from the mysterious "Basal Eurasians" via the Neolithic farmers.
Why did the Neandertals (and the significantly-Neandertal admixed AMH like Oase1) disappear? My bet is on the Campanian Ignibrite eruption.
An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor
Qiaomei Fu, Mateja Hajdinjak, Oana Teodora Moldovan, Silviu Constantin, Swapan Mallick, Pontus Skoglund, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Iosif Lazaridis, Birgit Nickel, Bence Viola, Kay Prüfer, Matthias Meyer, Janet Kelso, David Reich & Svante Pääbo
Neanderthals are thought to have disappeared in Europe approximately 39,000–41,000 years ago but they have contributed 1–3% of the DNA of present-day people in Eurasia1. Here we analyse DNA from a 37,000–42,000-year-old2 modern human from Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Although the specimen contains small amounts of human DNA, we use an enrichment strategy to isolate sites that are informative about its relationship to Neanderthals and present-day humans. We find that on the order of 6–9% of the genome of the Oase individual is derived from Neanderthals, more than any other modern human sequenced to date. Three chromosomal segments of Neanderthal ancestry are over 50 centimorgans in size, indicating that this individual had a Neanderthal ancestor as recently as four to six generations back. However, the Oase individual does not share more alleles with later Europeans than with East Asians, suggesting that the Oase population did not contribute substantially to later humans in Europe.
Link
June 09, 2015
Nilo-Saharan component
Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 9996 doi:10.1038/srep09996
The genetics of East African populations: a Nilo-Saharan component in the African genetic landscape
Begoña Dobon et al.
East Africa is a strategic region to study human genetic diversity due to the presence of ethnically, linguistically, and geographically diverse populations. Here, we provide new insight into the genetic history of populations living in the Sudanese region of East Africa by analysing nine ethnic groups belonging to three African linguistic families: Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic. A total of 500 individuals were genotyped for 200,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Principal component analysis, clustering analysis using ADMIXTURE, FST statistics, and the three-population test were used to investigate the underlying genetic structure and ancestry of the different ethno-linguistic groups. Our analyses revealed a genetic component for Sudanese Nilo-Saharan speaking groups (Darfurians and part of Nuba populations) related to Nilotes of South Sudan, but not to other Sudanese populations or other sub-Saharan populations. Populations inhabiting the North of the region showed close genetic affinities with North Africa, with a component that could be remnant of North Africans before the migrations of Arabs from Arabia. In addition, we found very low genetic distances between populations in genes important for anti-malarial and anti-bacterial host defence, suggesting similar selective pressures on these genes and stressing the importance of considering functional pathways to understand the evolutionary history of populations.
Link
The genetics of East African populations: a Nilo-Saharan component in the African genetic landscape
Begoña Dobon et al.
East Africa is a strategic region to study human genetic diversity due to the presence of ethnically, linguistically, and geographically diverse populations. Here, we provide new insight into the genetic history of populations living in the Sudanese region of East Africa by analysing nine ethnic groups belonging to three African linguistic families: Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic. A total of 500 individuals were genotyped for 200,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Principal component analysis, clustering analysis using ADMIXTURE, FST statistics, and the three-population test were used to investigate the underlying genetic structure and ancestry of the different ethno-linguistic groups. Our analyses revealed a genetic component for Sudanese Nilo-Saharan speaking groups (Darfurians and part of Nuba populations) related to Nilotes of South Sudan, but not to other Sudanese populations or other sub-Saharan populations. Populations inhabiting the North of the region showed close genetic affinities with North Africa, with a component that could be remnant of North Africans before the migrations of Arabs from Arabia. In addition, we found very low genetic distances between populations in genes important for anti-malarial and anti-bacterial host defence, suggesting similar selective pressures on these genes and stressing the importance of considering functional pathways to understand the evolutionary history of populations.
Link
May 13, 2015
Neandertal in the (immediate) family tree
Early European may have had Neanderthal great-great-grandparent
One of Europe’s earliest known humans had a close Neanderthal ancestor: perhaps as close as a great-great-grandparent.
The finding, announced on 8 May at the Biology of Genomes meeting in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, questions the idea that humans and Neanderthals interbred only in the Middle East, more than 50,000 years ago.
Qiaomei Fu, a palaeogenomicist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, told the meeting how she and her colleagues had sequenced DNA from a 40,000-year-old jawbone that represents some of the earliest modern-human remains in Europe. They estimate that 5–11% of the bone's genome is Neanderthal, including large chunks of several chromosomes. (The genetic analysis also shows that the individual was a man). By analysing how lengths of DNA inherited from any one ancestor shorten with each generation, the team estimated that the man had a Neanderthal ancestor in the previous 4–6 generations. (The researchers declined to comment on the work because it has not yet been published in a journal).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)