tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post2189888303356234201..comments2023-10-31T06:00:32.091-04:00Comments on Ethio Helix ኢትዮ:ሒሊክስ: TreeMix analysis on the African DatasetAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06247500186976801582noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-75430272972046809142012-03-27T20:18:39.403-04:002012-03-27T20:18:39.403-04:00"Whatever the case African greater diversity ..."Whatever the case African greater diversity is not any argument for the PC analysis: they are not really related because what the PC graph measures (or rather illustrates) is relative similitude and difference"<br /><br />"This has nothing to do with African genetic diversity, at least not in any straightforward manner."<br /><br />It is true that PCA graph shows is basically the decomposition of a similarity/dissimilarity matrix like IBS or ASD into linearly independent components, however the genetic diversity decrease with distance from Africa, as another independent metric, also correlates (maybe not exactly 1:1 but close enough) with the path traced by the 'L' shape on a PC1 vs. PC2 plot of a global PCA . It is quite obvious if you think about it actually.<br /><br />"There South Asians are also genetically most diverse and some of the blue-colored confusing pops are also South Asian, like Balochi, Sindhi and other Pakistanis, surely most important in the Eurasian genesis (others are Palestinians or Palestinian-Bedouins, who have known African admixture - or maybe you could argue to be ancestral to Eurasians???)."<br /><br />For Allele Size Variance, this is partial of the decreasing Order of Eurasian populations:<br />Bedouin > Balochi > Palestinian > Hindi > Pathan > Kannada > Punjabi > Temani > Makrani > Uygur > Telugu > Sindhi > Tamil > Hazara > Kashmiri > Brahui > Adygei > Bengali > Druze > Assamese > Parsi > Oriya > Konkani > Marathi > Italian..................<br /><br />For Hetrozygoisity, the order is:<br />Bedouin > Kashmiri > Palestinian > Pathan > Sindhi > Balochi > Italian > Marathi > Russian > Uygur > Punjabi > Brahui > Tamil > Kannada > Adygei > Burusho > Assamese > Oriya > French > Bengali > Parsi > Hazara > Hindi > Malayalam.......................Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-49173272660869049092012-03-27T17:09:14.920-04:002012-03-27T17:09:14.920-04:00Don't get me wrong: I'm not wishy-washy ab...Don't get me wrong: I'm not wishy-washy about African diversity but it does require some qualification (I'm being more nit-picky than anything else). Whatever the case African greater diversity is not any argument for the PC analysis: they are not really related because what the PC graph measures (or rather illustrates) is relative similitude and difference, just like the ADMIXTURE-like algorithms but with a different display. <br /><br />This has nothing to do with African genetic diversity, at least not in any straightforward manner. If Africans would be more numerically dominant in the sample, maybe some of the PC dimensions would show that African diversity (actually you get some of that in the EV1-3 graph of the Behar link above: EV3 is essentially a cline between the Mbuti and West Africans). <br /><br />The Tishkoff graphs are a great choice; I was actually looking for them but could not remember which was the source. There South Asians are also genetically most diverse and some of the blue-colored confusing pops are also South Asian, like Balochi, Sindhi and other Pakistanis, surely most important in the Eurasian genesis (others are Palestinians or Palestinian-Bedouins, who have known African admixture - or maybe you could argue to be ancestral to Eurasians???).<br /><br />Europeans also have some post-OoA African admixture, what surely confuses the matter a bit. <br /><br />"... a path crossing South Arabia."<br /><br />Even better (I knew that but had forgotten). After all what that paper does is to corroborate (apparently) the coastal route for the OoA.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-6199775505706593812012-03-27T15:30:33.689-04:002012-03-27T15:30:33.689-04:00"But, most importantly, genetic diversity as ..."But, most importantly, genetic diversity as a function of distance from Africa only really exists if the line measuring that distance goes through South Asia"<br /><br />In addition you need to read your own sources carefully:<br /><br />"We also observe that the patterns of recombinational diversity of these populations correlate with distance out of Africa if that distance is measured along a path crossing <b>South Arabia.</b>"<br /><br /><a href="http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/01/molbev.msr213.short" rel="nofollow">Recombination gives a new insight in the effective population size and the history of the Old World human populations<br /></a>Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-97758932566278442012-03-27T15:13:30.155-04:002012-03-27T15:13:30.155-04:00Indians don't generally have more genetic dive...Indians don't generally have more genetic diversity than West Asians/Europeans, perhaps in some cases , but not really generally speaking:<br /><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tt8oKdUSpDk/T3IHHvU8HuI/AAAAAAAAAVs/Qqiv9P76-SM/s1600/African_private_alleles.jpg" rel="nofollow">Private Alleles By Region</a><br /><br /> <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rl0uiScuHKs/T3IHgyjQsUI/AAAAAAAAAV0/dFSJnCbwdT0/s1600/Tishkoff_allele_size_variance.jpg" rel="nofollow">Allele Size Variance</a><br /><br /> <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qzdoRAoOaDo/T3IHxHUsfjI/AAAAAAAAAV8/Cd4gzMw2YdA/s1600/Tishkoff_hetroziogisity_variance.jpg" rel="nofollow">Heterozygousity</a><br /><br />Source : Tishkoff (2009) Supplemental material, which used more microsatellite loci than the 377 used by Rosenberg (2002) and what cited by you.<br /><br />The rest of your 'points', I can't really argue with, since you are showing a wishy-washy position over the proven fact that Africans have more genetic diversity than non-Africans!, sorry, but that is just some basic stuff from over 10 years ago, it is like arguing with a person about trigonometry when the person is not even sure that 2+2=4, there simply is no point and we would be both better off moving on and not wasting our time.Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-20632789161703305592012-03-27T13:42:01.158-04:002012-03-27T13:42:01.158-04:00I must still disagree, sorry: the L shape is not a...I must still disagree, sorry: the L shape is not any measure of anything but just a byproduct of an specific set of samples and their relative affinities as shown in the PC plot. <br /><br />The PC/eigenvector plot has two dimensions each one measuring a major set of genetic differences. In the global plot, almost invariably, one of the axes (eigenvector 1 in Behar's) separates Africans from non-Africans (with Ethiopians in between) and the other East Asians from West Eurasians (with Tropical Africans other than Horners tending to neutrality). <br /><br />Also vectors are often just a mathematical way of visualizing and operating points in Euclidean spaces or planes. Ex. (5,3) can be seen as a dot in a plane or as the vector, originating in (0,0) towards that dot. But the origin is arbitrary, so it's just a mathematical construct. It'd be different if the vector would go from (2,1) to (5,3), which are both specific non-arbitrary references. This should not confuse us.<br /><br />Additionally, as it seems somehow important in your confused discourse, both African greater genetic diversity and genetic diversity as function of distance from Africa must be carefully qualified:<br /><br />(1) African greater genetic diversity is largely between populations and is not so outstanding once we remove hunter-gatherers (Bushmen, Pygmy, Hadza...), which host most of that diversity (this means that there have been processes of homogenization and diversity-reduction within Africa probably in relation with the spread of Neolithic by specific populations). There are maybe more detailed studies but right now what I found is <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf" rel="nofollow">Rosenberg 2002</a>, which in table 1 shows that Africans have lower intra-population diversity than Eurasians (but still greater than Native Americans and Oceanian peoples). (Note: what I'm saying in this point also probably needs to be qualified or debated in greater detail, mostly because Rosenberg 2002 does not include a single East African sample, but let it be an entrant anyhow).<br /><br />(2) But, most importantly, genetic diversity as a function of distance from Africa only really exists if the line measuring that distance goes through South Asia (i.e. Indians are more diverse than Europeans and West Asians), as explained by Melé 2011 (older papers typically ignored Indians altogether). I can send you a copy of this paper ("Recombination gives a new insight in the effective population size and the history of the Old World human populations") if you wish.<br /><br />Neither of these facts are apparent in the PCA, L-shaped or not. In fact South Asia is quite hidden in the middle-left of the West-East Eurasian cline and, unless you remove Africans from the sample, it only shows up its distinctiveness and relevance somewhat in PC3 and such. South Asia, even if it is the pivoting region of the OoA, does not look apparent at all in the PCA: we need other methods to unveil its relevance and centrality.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-69498424695058962772012-03-27T09:07:21.654-04:002012-03-27T09:07:21.654-04:00I never said all PCA's come in an 'L' ...I never said all PCA's come in an 'L' shape, I said the first two dimensions of a Global PCA approximate an 'L' shape, that still remains the fact, it also remains the fact that on one side of the 'L', where the highest amount of the PCA's variation (eigenvalue) is explained, Africans are found, on the other side non-Africans are found, the corner of the 'L' houses those that are intermediate between Africans and Non-Africans, including some North Africans, Southern Euro and Near Eastern Populations, this is consistent with global genetic diversity decreasing as a function of distance from Africa. <br /><br />Since PCA's are essentially vector spaces with both magnitude and direction, their dimensions specify the number of independent directions in space, hence PC1,PC2,.... are roughly independent and also orthogonal. Eigenvectors are only a special case of vectors, where an orthogonal basis for such vectors, is required to explain the variance of the data for a square matrix, like for instance an <a href="http://www.chromosomechronicles.com/2009/10/22/identity-by-state-snp-analysis-find-relatives-test-paternity-and-determine-allele-sharing/" rel="nofollow">IBS</a> matrix with an N X N size will yield N orthagonal eigenvectors after decomposition.Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-70559811114158077742012-03-27T01:06:17.292-04:002012-03-27T01:06:17.292-04:00...
Y shaped Swedish PCA and the second PCA of t......<br /><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GOqcnheTdzQ/Tj1WVAZAjRI/AAAAAAAAAng/eST_78QeLso/s1600/SwedishPCuncut.png" rel="nofollow"> Y shaped Swedish PCA</a> and <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Snh7MyXdRZo/Tj1XRvGQhFI/AAAAAAAAAnk/fttyZW87xxY/s1600/SwedishCountiesPCA.png" rel="nofollow">the second PCA</a> of the same paper after removing the samples likely to have Finnish ancestry, which I'd describe as a line with some outliers or "thin branches".<br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/S_07tlECD3I/AAAAAAAAATY/FRcwNzNHULA/s1600/PCgraphWorld.png" rel="nofollow">a global PCA focused in Spain</a> that is your "L" but so fragmented (for lack of sufficient samples) that is not recognizable easily anymore.<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1001373" rel="nofollow">this interesting paper</a> on the "Africanness" of Europeans and North Africans, there is a very interesting supplement 1 (which you'd have to download) which compares YRI (green), CEU (red) and a West Eurasian population (blue). <br /><br />In all cases YRI is at one extreme of the PC1 and West Eurasians in the other, with a huge void in between, but the interesting thing is in PC2 whis is in most cases defined only inside YRI, with the other West Eurasian sample clustering tightly with CEU. So for example there is less difference between CEU and Dutch or Swiss French than internally among Yoruba. <br /><br />But in some cases the intra-WEA differences are larger than among the Yoruba, for example with Basques or with Italians or even Russians. I included all those examples in <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/04/africanness-of-europeans-and-west.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018389.g001&representation=PNG_M" rel="nofollow">An irregularly-shaped PCA of Europeans and North Africans</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017548.g004&representation=PNG_M" rel="nofollow">a two clusters - two corners PCA</a> of Central Asian Y-DNA.<br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7OjvSM3zVPY/TWA0oDeV1NI/AAAAAAAAAgI/t-vMMMKA2Yc/s400/LaosmtDNA.png" rel="nofollow">a horizontal line with outliers</a>: PCA of SE Asian and Chinese mtDNA.<br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/TTERAYPRl2I/AAAAAAAAAfQ/vYvQLuTTMtE/s400/AAIndia.jpg" rel="nofollow">L and V shaped</a>: Eurasians with Indian focus.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000686&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000686.g003" rel="nofollow">abstract example of how uneven sampling distorts PCA</a> (from <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000686" rel="nofollow">a paper discussing the worth and the issues of PCA</a>).<br /><br />"I hope you are just not wasting my time"...<br /><br />Not at all: you have a misconception here with that idea of the L shape meaning anything other than two clines that converge at a single point (in our case West Eurasia).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-25029387674746925332012-03-27T01:04:17.716-04:002012-03-27T01:04:17.716-04:00Not at all. You have a drastic misunderstanding he...Not at all. You have a drastic misunderstanding here.<br /><br />The L-shape is a possible shape among many. I am sure you have seen many PCAs without an L shape: scattered clusters, single central cluster with some outliers, even almost parallel lines... that depends on the location that each sample will adopt. <br /><br />The global plot tends to take an L-shape but that's a peculiarity of the global plot (and possibly others), which shows a cline between Africa and West Eurasia and another cline between West and East Eurasia. <br /><br />In any case the two "lines" of the L mean nothing on their own (they are clines in fact), what means are the values each sample has in the X,Y axis. <br /><br />For example in the Behar plot all Eurasian samples are high in EV1 while all African ones (but North Africans and Horners) are very low. The EV1 therefore indicates the Africa-Eurasia duality. On the other hand the EV2 indicates the West Eurasian (and also largely African and South Asian) contrast with East Asians.<br /><br />It is the same in your example.<br /><br />Examples of other shapes:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011855.g004&representation=PNG_M" rel="nofollow">East Asian PCA focused on Korea</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/TNp1KDtKtkI/AAAAAAAAAdM/Y92lJY_FQU8/s400/LBKmtDNAPCAannotated.png" rel="nofollow">PCA of Modern and Neolithic WEA mtDNA</a>, with a line/V/cluster for moderns and a separate cluster for the very anomalous Neolithic samples (annotated by me but from <a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536" rel="nofollow">Balanovski's paper</a>).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029687.g002&representation=PNG_M" rel="nofollow">An almost linear PCA of West African and Afroamerican Y-DNA</a><br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7ofSrrXv-sE/TkK836eDSXI/AAAAAAAAAns/1FFHMVGSpSM/s400/BasqueAutosomal%2528Young%2529.jpg" rel="nofollow">A central cluster with outliers</a> of Europeans, Iberians, Basques and some others. Notice how non-Europeans form a parallel line at the bottom.<br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bFKqdSchAwI/TkTZo0-ySkI/AAAAAAAAD6g/zXO52SbYeLc/s400/mds_armenians.png" rel="nofollow">An almost cross-shaped PCA of West Eurasians and controls focused on Armenians</a>.<br /><br />(cont.)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-45021126804368166282012-03-26T22:31:54.507-04:002012-03-26T22:31:54.507-04:00I hope you are just not wasting my time....I hope you are just not wasting my time....Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-74650859613285219202012-03-26T22:28:50.669-04:002012-03-26T22:28:50.669-04:00"Eigenvector 1 (equivalent to PC1) actually s..."Eigenvector 1 (equivalent to PC1) actually separates Africans (except Horners and North Africans) from Eurasians."<br /><br />Look Maju, I am sorry to say but you do not really know how to read a PCA (which I find odd, unless you are pretending or playing devil's advocate as if you don't know). <br /><br />A two dimensional global PCA plot approximates an <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUVsGrwiY4/T2p7Vs4VlII/AAAAAAAAATI/m0hSMUfm9wQ/s1600/Global_MDS_Average_C1C2.png" rel="nofollow">'L' shape</a>, one side of the 'L' is where ALL Africans are found and the other side is where non-Africans are found.<br /><br />PC1 (one side of the 'L')on a global plot separates Africans from non-Africans, East Africans and North Africans sequentially lie on PC1 along with all other Africans. Non-Africans DO NOT lie on PC1, they lie on PC2 (the other side of the 'L') which separates East Eurasians from West Eurasians.<br /><br />PC1 on an African plot separates East and North Africans from other Africans.<br /><br />Hence, PC1 on an African plot describes a different set of Variations than PC1 on a Global plot, thus the separation of East/North Africans on an intra African plot from other Africans DISAPPEARS on a global plot on PC1. <br /><br />No need to talk about model based clustering analysis here, they are different but complimentary methods.Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-10892838129017133752012-03-26T21:21:28.938-04:002012-03-26T21:21:28.938-04:00And again Behar 2010 offers an example (including ...And again Behar 2010 offers an example (including Ethiopians) in <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/extref/nature09103-s3.pdf" rel="nofollow">this massive eigenvector analysis</a> (legend <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/abs/nature09103.html#supplementary-information" rel="nofollow">here</a>). North Africans and Ethiopians are closer to West Eurasians than to other Africans. <br /><br />Eigenvector 1 (equivalent to PC1) actually separates Africans (except Horners and North Africans) from Eurasians. But not radically all Africans from all non-Africans, "the differentiation of North/East Africans from other subsaharan Africans" does not vanish.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-79419368279110121922012-03-26T21:11:27.126-04:002012-03-26T21:11:27.126-04:00"... are you disputing this??"
No. I am..."... are you disputing this??"<br /><br />No. I am disputing this:<br /><br />... "the differentiation of North/East Africans from other subsaharan Africans vanishes". <br /><br />That does not happen in the PCA either, which is not that different from Bayesian clustering analysis (normally PC1 tends to resemble K1-2, while PC2 resembles K3, etc.) In fact, in global PC analysis North Africans usually cluster with West Asians, although with some tendency towards mainstream Africans.<br /><br />What I say is that, in all my experience, North Africans cluster with West Eurasians primarily (although with some deviation towards Africa). That's probably also the case of Horners but I'm less familiar with the specifics.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-38726985768681310502012-03-26T21:02:04.676-04:002012-03-26T21:02:04.676-04:00What's not correct? I am talking about PCA, wh...What's not correct? I am talking about PCA, which is what the Dr.Mcdonald map that joshua.gatera posted was, who was talking about ADMIXTURE? <br />It is a <b>FACT</b> that the first principal component separates Africans from non-Africans in a global data-set and the first principal component in an African data-set separates east/North Africans from every one else, are you disputing this??Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-80051769164884494782012-03-26T20:45:00.503-04:002012-03-26T20:45:00.503-04:00"... until enough non-African samples are add..."... until enough non-African samples are added at which point it would become a global PCA and the differentiation of North/East Africans from other subsaharan Africans vanishes, and the main differentiation becomes Africans from non-Africans"<br /><br />That's not correct and you should be familiar with global datasets in ADMIXTURE/STRUCTURE analysis. For example Behar 2010 (<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/extref/nature09103-s2.pdf" rel="nofollow">sup. figures</a>, scroll down to fig. 4a) at K=3 has North Africans (Moroccans, Mozabites, Egyptians) looking 80% West Eurasian and some 20% (West-Central-Southern) African. Ethiopians also look that way although the apportions are different: like 60% and 40%. <br /><br />And that is a sample full of non-Africans of all kinds. And it is just an example. <br /><br />(And curiously enough, maybe because Africans are not sampled in sufficient numbers, the main distinction at K=2 in that case is East Asians versus the rest - just for the record because IMO this is a matter of sample size and less important admixture between West Eurasia and Tropical Africa).<br /><br />There are other examples and you can experiment with the 1000 genomes yourself and see if what you just said is correct or rather does not hold. And I think it does not hold in fact (based on all my genetic experience).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-46681154425049309342012-03-26T19:35:19.131-04:002012-03-26T19:35:19.131-04:00"Eastern Sudan, Eritrea, and Northern Ethiopi..."Eastern Sudan, Eritrea, and Northern Ethiopia, whom cluster away (in the direction of Arabia) from groups like the Somali and some Oromos who lack "excess" Eurasian and/or other African admixture."<br /><br />It is a genetic cline, which is not necessarily only in the direction of Arabia but also in the Direction of Egypt, it is part of the cline that moves in general towards the directions of Eurasians in genetic space, Principal Component 1 in a global dataset clearly demonstrates this. The Dr.Mcdonald PCA map that you have shown with the Dinka stops with Northern Ethiopians and is actually an inter African, or rather an inter subsaharan African PCA only, if extended to include the whole of Africa then Northern Sudanese, Egyptians, and Northwest Africans would continue in that same cline, i.e. Northern Ethiopians > N.Sudanese > Egypt, Morroco ,...>Yemen>.... until enough non-African samples are added at which point it would become a global PCA and the differentiation of North/East Africans from other subsaharan Africans vanishes, and the main differentiation becomes Africans from non-Africans.Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-3926268673695603482012-03-26T18:52:58.869-04:002012-03-26T18:52:58.869-04:00That's a very interesting meditation, Joshua. ...That's a very interesting meditation, Joshua. I think I can agree with all or most of it. The estimate using a Dinka proxy is a very good idea and your inferences on realistic admixture in the horn not being larger than 25% is probably quite accurate. Certainly it must be quite less than the 2/3 that I got with a West African reference, which MUST be distorted because of pre-admixture Eurasian affinity of Ethiopians (and some admixture of Arabs maybe). When I designed that exercise however I was hoping for a clearly defined Ethiopian (East African) component of some sort but I did not find it until an admixed (equidistant to WEA and West Africa) component showed up but I'm not satisfied either with that result.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-9355389090723006702012-03-26T18:29:10.724-04:002012-03-26T18:29:10.724-04:00"Etyopis said it might be proto-Eurasian/East..."Etyopis said it might be proto-Eurasian/East African affinity..."<br /><br />It's no longer possible to deny or rather disregard the importance of indigenous East African genetic variation in reference to the relationship(s) between NE Africans and other important ancestral populations, especially Eurasians (specifically Western Eurasians). <br /><br />East Africans (Afrasan speakers, Southern Sudanese Nilotic speakers, and indigenous SE Hunter-Gather groups, i.e. the Hadze and Sandawe) are closer to Eurasians than other Africans (Niger-Kordofanian speakers, Central African pygmies, and the Khoisan) are to the later. <br /><br />This "Eurasian" cline in Africa, in reference to Eurasian affinity or vise-versa, is likely primarily related to the time depth of divergence between the respective ancestral African populations (I'll use linguistic terms in a rough association with these aforementioned AAPs) and the ancestors of non-Africans. <br /><br />In the order of oldest to most recent divergence date with the ancestors of non-Africans...<br /><br />Khoisan > Mbuti > Biaka > Niger-Kordofanian > Nilo-Saharan > Hadze-Sandawe > Afrasan in relation to non-Africans<br /><br />Take a look at the results of this Dinka sample from 23andme...<br /><br />http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/Y.png<br />http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/Mtdna.png<br />http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/Paint.png<br />http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/Globalsim.png<br /><br />Independent PCA...<br /><br />http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/Full_20120201123442BGA2.png<br /><br />^ As you can see, this Dinka sample clusters in between Somalis and West Africans; his results are supported by Tishkoff et al. 2009 whom also sampled groups from South Sudan. It's clearly obvious that what ever's causing the Eurasian affinity in this particular Dinka sample, and the Southern Sudanese in general, isn't due to any admixture (or commonality) from/with any other particular source, either be it Eurasian admixture and/or other indigenous East African gene-flow by way of the African Horn or groups like the Sandawe. What ever the case, a closer similarity to Eurasia relative to other parts of Africa seems to be the norm among all groups in East Africa, either be it Nilo-Saharan, Afrasan, or Hadze-Sandawe. <br /><br />If we were to use the Dinka as a proxy for the African component of the Somalis for example, the African ratio would increase from ~50% African (with a West African proxy) to about ~67% with the Dinka proxy, it would then increase to about ~75% African if we were to use indigenous Hunter-Gather groups from SE Africa. It's therefore logical to assume that the pre-Western Eurasian admixed NE Africans would have been more similar to Eurasians than their SE African and S.Sudanese counterpartsa.<br /><br />Western Eurasian admixture is clearly playing a notable role in the genetic affinities of at least some NE Africans; most importantly NE Africans groups in the northern Horn of Africa, i.e. Eastern Sudan, Eritrea, and Northern Ethiopia, whom cluster away (in the direction of Arabia) from groups like the Somali and some Oromos who lack "excess" Eurasian and/or other African admixture. <br /><br />If I had to make an estimated guess Arabian admixture would peak in the northern Horn of Africa at about ~20-25%, where it would then decrease significantly to about ~10% among Somalis and other lowlander NE Africans.joshua.gaterahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06232006659412454430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-68715593892993584362012-03-26T16:31:17.481-04:002012-03-26T16:31:17.481-04:00"the first map that says 30-17KBP, that is ba..."the first map that says 30-17KBP, that is based on carbon dating right?"<br /><br />Calibrated C14, yes. All remains mentioned in that map are from Gravettian or Solutrean ages. You can always contrast with the original papers via Jean Manco's <a href="http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml" rel="nofollow">Ancient Eurasian DNA page</a>, which lists everything methodically, including the reference papers and links. <br /><br />As for the modeled 60 Ka. divergence: they just placed those 60 Ka on their pre-existent chronology: IMO they are comparing apples and oranges and is a useless exercise. In other words if the "20 Ka" are in fact 80 Ka, as I estimate, then their modeled "60 Ka" would be 240 Ka., what is a pointless comparison, as there was no OoA c. 240 Ka ago that we know of.<br /><br />"this mutation rate agrees well with the rates estimated between primates averaged over millions of years"...<br /><br />But then the paleoanthropologists totally ignore the dates proposed by the molecular clock fanatics from the field of genetics and have in fact older ages for nearly all nodes, ages that generally tend to become older as new discoveries are made or unsustainable inconsistencies are denounced. <br /><br />For example, looking for something else, I just stumbled in Wikipedia with this:<br /><br />"The discoverers conclude that Orrorin [tugenensis] is a hominin on the basis of its bipedal locomotion and dental anatomy; based on this, they date the split between hominins and African great apes to at least 7 million years ago, in the Messinian. This date is markedly different from those derived using the molecular clock approach, but has found general acceptance among paleoanthropologists".<br /><br />Which is almost exactly what <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2010/11/chimps-and-humans-divereged-some-eight.html" rel="nofollow">I discussed</a> in relation to another similarly aged ancestor: Salanthropus tchadiensis and other posts (like <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/06/very-slow-and-variable-mutation-rate-in.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2010/10/very-low-mutation-rate-mwahahaha.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/03/mutation-rate-is-less-than-half.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/11/molecular-clock-two-to-six-times-slower.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/01/molcular-clock-speculation-obscuring.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> or <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/01/molcular-clock-speculation-obscuring.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> - not comprehensive but certainly an ample list of examples by which the MCH is questioned quite radically from two or more viewpoints: paleoanthropology and mutation rate measure itself).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-51061458702281555412012-03-26T13:43:19.408-04:002012-03-26T13:43:19.408-04:00Thanks for the maps, I can not comment on that pag...Thanks for the maps, I can not comment on that page, so I'll ask here, the first map that says 30-17KBP, that is based on carbon dating right? <br /><br />Another thing is that the Li&Durbin paper does provide a caveat for mutation rates, however, even with an inaccurate mutation rate they surmise that it was unlikely that the OOA and African populations just parted ways with no breeding exchange since the former's exit from Africa ~60 KYA:<br /><br />"An important caveat to this conclusion is the uncertainty of the per-year mutation rate of 1E-09 (2.5E-08/25). Although this mutation rate agrees well with the rates estimated between primates averaged over millions of years (Supplementary Information, section 3.1), generation intervals as high as 29 years per generation over the last few thousand years(23), and present mutation rates lower than 2.5E-08 per generation(9), are possible in principle. These factors could make our recent date estimates too recent,<b> although it seems unlikely that such inaccuracies would be consistent with a date of final genetic exchange as far back as 60 kyr ago.</b>"Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-66108666523841623522012-03-26T13:09:14.753-04:002012-03-26T13:09:14.753-04:00Also, I was realizing that we do have specific dir...Also, I was realizing that we do have specific direct evidence which shows that the descendants of N were inhabiting Europe some 30,000 years ago, what is consistent with the no-massive-replacement model, which I spouse, and contradictory with the no-differentiation model until 20 or, in the case of Europeans, less than 20 Ka ago.<br /><br />We know and nobody questions it that an individual in Kostenki, Russia, was mtDNA U2 some 30 Ka ago, what implies that U2 itself but also its ancestors U2'3'4'7'8'9, U, R and N had coalesced previously to that date. In about the same same period (before 17 Ka ago) there are also U5, R0 (reported as HV(xH)), and some other R-derived lineages (of which one I think is an H subclade almost for sure) <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html" rel="nofollow">directly spotted via HVS-I in Europe</a>. <br /><br />The less-than-20-Ka hypothesis of Li and Durbin is not sustainable on light of the actual empirical data. That much is the kind of confusion that trusting MCH age estimates can lead to.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-34880762748733075692012-03-26T11:46:15.624-04:002012-03-26T11:46:15.624-04:00I already replied to you by email (thanks again fo...I already replied to you by email (thanks again for the copy of Li & Durbin) that the paper seems inconclusive (and so extremely technical that its hard to criticize or accept as valid critically without being a super-expert). Very specially my greatest issue is the production of alleged molecular clock age estimates (without any sort of confidence interval), which are just too easy to be wrong. <b>If their "20 Ka" is actually 80 Ka</b> (and I see no reason why it would not be), then what they'd be describing would be the pre-OoA almost total genetic identity of all humans in East/Central Africa.<br /><br />Otherwise the model seems roughly correct: the Eur lines diverge from YRI later than the East Asian ones, what is consistent with late re-admixture in the Western Old World (I doubt the model would be able to pick the difference with any certainty).<br /><br />"Even with your estimates that would make for Ethiopians possessing ~70-75% Aboriginal African haplogroups on average, which is only 5-10% off my ~80% average estimate".<br /><br />I usually give more importance to mtDNA. Years ago, when algorithms like ADMIXTURE were not so popular, I figured out the 'rule of thumb' that, in order to estimate the overall admixture, one should consider that the mtDNA side weights double or even triple than the Y-DNA one. It's not scientific but it tends to be roughly correct. <br /><br />"Most of those pre-70K populations could have very well died out"...<br /><br />And replaced by what? Just because one random genetic modeling age estimate says T, it does not have to be right. I do not think it's so easy to replace populations (although it's surely possible to some degree in certain cases) and, anyhow, a model of replacement and a putative origin of the new populations would have to be ascertained and reasonably demonstrated, at least as plausible. <br /><br />I'm a bit tired of reading claims of mass replacement by populations originated nowhere of whose existence there is not even any evidence. We could imagine that those populations were <b>replaced all through Eurasia and Australasia</b> (sharing the same lineges, all populations must have been erased simultaneously from Europe to Japan and Australia) but then where is the evidence of the new population which replaced them? I mean other than in some esoteric modeling of a letter (not even a full fledged paper) which was laying on some desk for two full years before someone allowed publication. <br /><br />Allow me to be extremely skeptic. I think I have good reasons. <br /><br />"... but suffice it to say that I accept the Academic orthodoxy on this matter" [molecular clock].<br /><br />I do not think that there is an academic orthodoxy here, just academic self-complacency in many cases. There's a lot of papers that challenge the MCH but still many remain hopeful or just attached to old methodologies. <br /><br />Whatever the "orthodoxy" the molecular clock hypothesis has never been proven empirically and therefore remains in the realm of mere unproven hypothesis, unlike radiocarbon and other dating methods of Archaeological science. Using and abusing MCH estimates may be academically "orthodox" (scholastic: I cite you, you cite me and together we control the pseudoknowledge for a time) but it's also pseudoscientific, specially when one builds all conclusions only on that. <br /><br />"Considering ANY haplogroup outside of Africa to be a remnant of OOA is not wrong at all"...<br /><br />It's a matter of word choices: I meant remnant of the process of OoA migration between East Africa (L3 node) and Southern Asia (M and N nodes). Of course all M and N are <i>product</i> of the OoA but I would not use the word <i>remnant</i>, which has the meaning of <i>residue</i> or <i>subproduct</i>: M and N are the <i>main product</i> instead. <br /><br />But of course it's a matter of word choices.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-74268626646951772942012-03-26T09:55:38.548-04:002012-03-26T09:55:38.548-04:00“Considering M1 to be a remnant of the OoA is simp...“Considering M1 to be a remnant of the OoA is simply wrong.”<br />Considering ANY haplogroup outside of Africa to be a remnant of OOA is not wrong at all, it is simply a fact. Even if you consider the Ethiopian specific M1 to have coalesced 30 KYA outside of Africa as, we have evidence, like I pointed out to you from Li and Durbin from studying complete diploid genome sequences that the West and East Eurasian populations did not even genetically diverge at that time. They may very well have diverged physically by that time but signatures of what we identify today as West Eurasian and East Eurasian Autosomal genetics may not even have appeared at that time, therefore trying to use M1's presence in Ethiopia as evidence to back up the seemingly West Eurasian genetic affinity found in Ethiopians in ADMIXTURE runs is dubious at best.<br /><br /><b>“In summary, the existence of long segments of low divergence between YRI1 and KOR supports the inference from PSMC that there was substantial genetic exchange between West African and non-African populations up until 20–40 kyr ago, and is not consistent with a simple separation approximately 60 kyr ago.”</b><br /><br /><b>“Notably, a recent study using an orthogonal type of data (analysis of allele frequencies) also inferred that gene flow between Africans and non- Africans continued well after the initial out-of-Africa migration: in the case of that study, until 17–26 kyr ago25."</b><br /><br />^ Li & Durbin (2011) <br /><br />“but there was a small back-migration of Eurasians into the Horn and other areas of East Africa long ago.”<br />We have uniparental evidence for back migrations, but we do not have any evidence of what the Autosomal affinity of these OOA populations that back migrated could have been, for instance they could, possibly, have been more African-like than Eurasian like autosomally back then.<br /><br />“For Y-DNA that's more than correct but not so for mtDNA, showing like 30-40% of Eurasian lineages (M1, HV and others).” <br />Even with your estimates that would make for Ethiopians possessing ~70-75% Aboriginal African haplogroups on average, which is only 5-10% off my ~80% average estimate.<br /><br />“c. 125 Ka ago: First indications of OoA in Arabia and Palestine (but possibly not beyond)<br />- c. 90 Ka ago: much more general OoA presence in Arabia<br />- c. 80 Ka ago: African-derived MSA-like industries in South Asia, soon also stone blades (defining West Eurasian UP later on)<br />- c. 55 Ka ago: Homo sapiens with Aurignacoid (UP) industries in Palestine, c. 48 Ka Aurignacoid industries in Central Europe, some time around those dates (c. 40 Ka or so) in Altai and the Pyrenees and Libya (Dabban industries)”<br /><br />Most of those pre-70K populations could have very well died out, the most recent and up-to-date molecular clock based on mtDNA mutations has ruled out the possibility that the ancestors of all humans alive today exited Africa before the toba eruption. I know you have a problem with these time estimates, which your final or root reasoning boils down to pushing back the human chimp divergence time by millions of years, but this position of yours is contrary to the Academic orthodoxy, and I neither have the desire nor the knowledge to challenge it, but suffice it to say that I accept the Academic orthodoxy on this matter.<br /><br />“@ Etyopis<br />don't make big assumptions on who were the proto-Eurasians... “<br /><br />By the way, did you see the <a href="http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2012/03/supervised-global-admixture-run.html" rel="nofollow">supervised Global K10 run</a>? North Africans had ~40% Ethiopian like, ~50% Basque like and ~10% Dogon like affinities. Peninsula Arabs and even delta Egyptians had less <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aI35V1PK7WI/T2yQiBPIR4I/AAAAAAAAAVI/BMh9DwmA6Vc/s1600/Ethio2.png" rel="nofollow">Ethiopian like</a> affinities than far NorthWest Africans, why is that? Although the Arabian peninsula is closer to Ethiopia than Northwest Africa, and the Nile is a highway that connects Ethiopia to Egypt.Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-49286356654447583942012-03-26T06:43:08.761-04:002012-03-26T06:43:08.761-04:00I agree with Maju.I agree with Maju.jes-rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13572668095214926909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-56967786442965830892012-03-25T20:53:25.234-04:002012-03-25T20:53:25.234-04:00"the genetic profile of the North Africans su..."the genetic profile of the North Africans supports the Eurasian origin of the DE ."<br /><br />Y-DNA DE? No way! The origin of DE is only determined by itself and, in this equation North Africans are very much secondary: Tibetans and Japanese are in fact more intriguing. North African (and West Eurasian) DE (E1b1b1 variants in fact, nothing else) comes from the area of the Upper Nile or other parts of Tropical Africa, where most of the diversity is (DE* for example is found in West Africa - I always assume that the two DE* individuals reported once in Tibet are pre-D rather than truly hanging from the common origin of both D and E, but the matter is not well researched). <br /><br />You are wishful thinking like Dienekes: daydreaming because of unspoken racial prejudices (I understand). You two cannot embrace naturally our (minor) "recent" African ancestry so you'd like to make it all "Eurasian" somehow. That's not scientific but ideological and of a quite bad ideology in fact. <br /><br />"genetic data need to be supported by the Archaeological data...it is a simple rule".<br /><br />True in the sense that genetic data should not contradict overwhelming archaeological data but be conflated one with the other in order to provide the truest possible solution to the puzzle of human origins. Not true in the sense you claim:<br /><br />"South Africa is lacking the Archaeological evidence ( no AMH remains)"<br /><br />There's strong archaeological evidence of presence of H. sapiens in Southern Africa since >100 Ka ago. No skulls? May be but lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The archaeological data does not contradict the genetic data in any case it just fails to produce even stronger support. <br /><br />Mind you that the genetic data in North Africa does not support apparent continuity from Djebel Irhoud. I have found what seems to be a small remnant or three of Aterian age (at the most) but not from earlier times. Maybe there is something but so thin that it's almost impossible to detect.<br /><br />In any case these remnants would link to Tropical Africa as direct ancestor: NW Africa is not some other planet: its patterns are related to the rest of the World and very much so in fact. It is rather a place where many migrations have ended and where probably not a single major migration began. Prove me wrong in this if you can: minor flows have sprang from NW Africa in Northwards and Eastwards and even Southwards direction - but did not reach too far nor was overwhelmingly dominant ever. That's what the genetics say: Jebel Irhoud is not more our direct ancestor than some random Neanderthal. <br /><br />"we may see more surprises in coming years , be ready"...<br /><br />We'll see what is to see in due time.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7606098424948502460.post-21931566945532208792012-03-25T17:56:34.210-04:002012-03-25T17:56:34.210-04:00the genetic profile of the North Africans supports...the genetic profile of the North Africans supports the Eurasian origin of the DE ..and that is good enough evidence for me..<br />"The Treemix algorithm is only now being widely tested and is producing some results that clearly look spurious on light of all other known genetic data. Why?"<br />genetic data need to be supported by the Archaeological data...it is a simple rule.<br />while NorthWest Africa has both , South Africa is lacking the Archaeological evidence ( no AMH remains)..and no excuse here, both are wine producing regions today because of their mild climate (unlike tropical Africa )..<br />we may see more surprises in coming years , be ready...dalouhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149776826053956708noreply@blogger.com