2020
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.24052
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do dental nonmetric traits actually work as proxies for neutral genomic data? Some answers from continental‐ and global‐level analyses

Abstract: ObjectivesCrown and root traits, like those in the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System (ASUDAS), are seemingly useful as genetic proxies. However, recent studies report mixed results concerning their heritability, and ability to assess variation to the level of genomic data. The aim is to test further if such traits can approximate genetic relatedness, among continental and global samples.Materials and MethodsFirst, for 12 African populations, Mantel correlations were calculated between mean me… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 94 publications
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, affinities from ASUDAS data were calculated using the mean measure of divergence (MMD) [54][55] to estimate genetic relatedness. In support, a Mantel correlation of 0.84 resulted between distance matrices from ASUDAS traits (MMD) and >350,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (i.e., Hudson Fst) in 12 matched North and sub-Saharan African samples [56].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thus, affinities from ASUDAS data were calculated using the mean measure of divergence (MMD) [54][55] to estimate genetic relatedness. In support, a Mantel correlation of 0.84 resulted between distance matrices from ASUDAS traits (MMD) and >350,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (i.e., Hudson Fst) in 12 matched North and sub-Saharan African samples [56].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…None of these distances differ significantly (Supplementary Table S7). Except Gebel Sahaba, inter-sample distances parallel geographic locations [also 23, [55][56], where Dimension 1 approximates west-to-east, and Dimension 2, north-south,.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have therefore taken a gestalt approach to the interpretation of the ancestry estimation results, isotope results, artefactual evidence and historical context, with the aim of identifying phenotypic geographic diversity, not culturally defined categories [ 105 , 106 , 137 ]. These interpretations are made in consideration of available data, but may be revised in future studies with the addition of other forms of evidence used in studies of population affinity, such as ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis, post-cranial metrics and dental morphology [ 138 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dental morphology has a strong genetic component which allows it to be used as a proxy for neutral genetic markers (Hubbard et al, 2015;Irish et al, 2020;Kimura et al, 2009;Rathmann et al, 2017;Rathmann & Reyes-Centeno, 2020). Dental nonmetric traits are assumed to lack significant sexual dimorphism, have minimal influence from divergent selection, and have high heritability (Irish et al, 2020;Scott & Irish, 2013;Scott & Turner II, 1997;Turner II et al, 1991).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dental morphology has a strong genetic component which allows it to be used as a proxy for neutral genetic markers (Hubbard et al, 2015;Irish et al, 2020;Kimura et al, 2009;Rathmann et al, 2017;Rathmann & Reyes-Centeno, 2020). Dental nonmetric traits are assumed to lack significant sexual dimorphism, have minimal influence from divergent selection, and have high heritability (Irish et al, 2020;Scott & Irish, 2013;Scott & Turner II, 1997;Turner II et al, 1991). The required methods to analyze and quantify dental morphology are also cost efficient, and since teeth are often found in the archaeological record and highly resilient to taphonomic processes (Hillson, 2005), they are a good alternative to reconstruct population biological affinities and human mobility on individual , local Turner II & Scott, 1977), regional (Irish et al, 2017;Rathmann et al, 2019;Sutter, 2009;Turner II, 1976), and global scales (Hanihara, 2008;Scott & Irish, 2017;Scott & Turner II, 1997;Sutter, 2005).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%