Mitochondrial DNA variability in Russians and Ukrainians: Implication to the origin of the Eastern Slavs

Abstract

In order to investigate the origin of the Eastern Slavs, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation was examined in Russians and Ukrainians by hypervariable segment I (HVS I) sequencing and restriction analysis of the haplogroup‐specific sites. No significant differences were found for Russians and Ukrainians when compared to other Europeans – in fact, they fall within the range of gene diversity seen throughout Europe and exhibit the unimodal pattern of pairwise sequence differences. Moreover, HVS I sequences in the Russians and Ukrainians are similar or identical to those found in eastern and western European populations. Despite the small genetic distances between Europeans, phylogenetic analysis reveals a considerable heterogeneity of Eastern Slavonic populations – they do not cluster together onto a phylogenetic tree. Analysis of distribution of rare HVS I types shared between populations of Eastern Slavs and other West Eurasians has shown that Russians share rare haplotypes mainly with Germans and Finno–Ugric populations. Of these, subhaplogroup H1 sequence types, which are defined by different combinations of nucleotides 16192T, 16294T, 16304C, 16311C and 16320T, are found predominantly in common between Russians and German‐speaking populations. The data obtained allow us to conclude that the Slavonic migrations in early Middle Ages from their putative homeland in central Europe to the east of Europe were accompanied mostly by the same mtDNA types characteristic for the pre‐Slavonic populations of eastern Europe.

Different genetic components in the Norwegian population revealed by the analysis of mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms

“…In addition, as the complete sequence data has shown that the 189 325 type is in fact a U5b molecule where a back mutation occurred at 270, 48 haplotype 45 (which is indeed 189 325) is shown to be derived via a back mutation at 270. 45 Haplogroup J, possibly brought to Europe by Neolithic farmers coming from the Near East is found at a frequency of 10% in our sample. It has also been reported elsewhere at 7% in Norway.…”

Admixture, migrations, and dispersals in Central Asia: evidence from maternal DNA lineages

“…In order to compare the present results with other populations, HVRI data from several European, Middle Eastern, Indian, Central Asian, and East Asian populations were taken from the literature: Kazaks, 3 Kyrgyz, 3 Uighurs, 3 , Altaics, 21 Mongolians, 22,23 Daur, 23 Oroqen, 23 Turks, 24 -26 Han Chinese, 17,27 Han Taiwanese, 28 Ainu, 28 Koreans, 23,28,29 Japanese, 28,30 Europeans, 31 Middle Easterns, 31 Caucasus populations, 32,33 Thai, 34 Indians, 35 Russians, 36,37 Ukrainians, 37 and Siberians. 23,38,39 The networks relating HVRI sequences within some of the haplogroups described were constructed by using a reduced-median algorithm 40 as implemented in the Network 3.0 program.…”

A Reassessment of Genetic Diversity in Icelanders: Strong Evidence from Multiple Loci for Relative Homogeneity Caused by Genetic Drift

“…A set of 7245 HVS1 sequences was analysed between sites 16090-16365 (276 base-pairs). In addition to sequences analysed in Helgason et al (2000aHelgason et al ( , 2001, the following are added: 50 Germans (Baasner et al 1998), 106 Sicilians (Cali et al 2001), 118 Spanish (Crespillo et al 2001), 154 Swiss (DimoSimonin et al 2000, 300 Yugoslavian (see Table 2), 20 Finns and 10 Polish (Jorde et al 2000), 50 Russians, (Malyarchuk & Derenko, 2001), 436 Poles and 201 Russians (Malyarchuk et al 2002), 129 Slovakians (E. Metspalu, T. Kivisild, K. Kaldma, M. Reidla & R. Villems, GenBank accession numbers AJ240164-AJ240292), 74 Norwegians (Passarino et al 2002), 241 Portuguese (Pereira et al 2000), 300 Canary Islanders (Rando et al 1999), 83 Italians (Tagliabracci et al 2001) and 186 Cretans (R. Villems, GenBank accession numbers AJ274757-AJ274942). Sequences that did not completely span the regions defined above were omitted from analysis, and population samples analysed in Helgason et al (2000a) with sample sizes below 70 were excluded.…”