Reconstruction of Y-chromosome phylogeny reveals two neolithic expansions of Tibeto-Burman populations

Wang, Ling-Xiang; Lü, Yan; Zhang, Chao; Wei, Lan‐Hai; Yan, Shi; Huang, Yun-Zhi; Wang, Chuan‐Chao; Mallick, Swapan; Wen, Shaoqing; Li, Jin; Xu, Shuhua; Li, Hui

doi:10.1007/s00438-018-1461-2

Cited by 52 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shared ancestry revealed by our PCA, pairwise Fst genetic distance and outgroup-f3 values, ADMIXTURE, and f4-statistics among modern and ancient highlanders and northern East Asian lowlanders showed their close relationship among them, which is consistent with genetic similarities revealed by forensic low-density genetic markers and uniparental haplotype/haplogroup data Chen, Wu, et al 2019; Thus, our results in this meta-genomic analysis supported the main lineage of TP people was originated from the lower and middle Yellow River with the Neolithic expansion of millet farmer. Our Neolithic to present-day autosomal genome-based findings confirmed the origin, diversification, and expansion of the modern Sino-Tibetan population revealed by mitochondrial and Y-chromosome variations (Wang, Lu, et al 2018;Li, Tian, et al 2019b).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Compared with lowland Yangshao/Longshan or coastal Houli populations, the highland populations harbored a certain (8%~14%) proportion of Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherer ancestry related to Onge or Hoabinhian populations. Thus, our meta-analysis provided new evidence for the co-existence of both Paleolithic ancestries and Neolithic ancestries in the gene pool of East Asian Highlanders and a paleolithic colonization and Neolithic expansion of TP people, which was previously clarified via modern whole-sequence and mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal data (Qi, et al 2013;Wang, Lu, et al 2018;Li, Tian, et al 2019b). Additionally, we also found obvious population substructures among modern Tibetans:…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peopling of Tibet Plateau and multiple waves of admixture of Tibetans inferred from both modern and ancient genome-wide data

Wang

Zou

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractArcheologically attested human occupation on the Tibet Plateau (TP) can be traced back to 160 thousand years ago (kya, Xiahe) via archaic people and 30~40 kya via anatomically modern human in Nwya Devu. However, the past human movements and peopling of the TP keep in its infancy in the modern/ancient DNA studies. Here, we performed the first modern/ancient genomic meta-analysis among 3,017 Paleolithic to present-day eastern Eurasian genomes (2,444 modern individuals from 183 populations (including 98 Ü-Tsang/Ando/Kham Tibetans) and 573 ancients (including 161 Chinese ancients first meta-analyzed here)). Closer genetic connection between ancient-modern highland Tibetans and lowland island/coastal Neolithic northern East Asians was identified, reflecting the main ancestry of high-altitude Tibeto-Burman speakers originated from the ancestors of Houli/Yangshao/Longshan ancients in the middle and lower Yellow River basin, consistent with the common North-China origin of Sino-Tibetan language and dispersal pattern of millet farmers. Although the shared common northern East Asian lineage between Tibetans and lowland East Asians, we still identified genetic differentiation between Highlanders and lowland northern East Asians, the former harboring more deeply diverged Hoabinhian/Onge ancestry and the latter possessing more modern Neolithic southern East Asian and Siberian ancestry, which suggested the co-existence of Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestries in modern and Neolithic East Asian Highlanders. Tibetans from Ü-Tsang/Ando/Kham Tibetan regions showed strong population stratifications consistent with their cultural backgrounds and geographic terrains (showed as barriers for human movements): stronger Chokhopani affinity in Ü-Tsang Tibetans, more western Eurasian ancestry in Ando and greater Neolithic southern East Asian ancestry in Kham Tibetan. Modern combined ancient genomes documented multiple waves of human migrations in TP past: the first layer of local Hunter-Gatherer mixed with Qijia Farmer arose the Chokhopani-associated Proto-Tibetan-Burman, admixture with the additional genetic materials from the western Eurasian steppe, Yellow River and Yangtze River respectively gave rise to modern Ando, Ü-Tsang and Kham Tibetans.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

Peopling of Tibet Plateau and multiple waves of admixture of Tibetans inferred from both modern and ancient genome-wide data

Wang

Zou

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This represents an average date and so only provides a lower bound on when these two populations began to mix; the start of their period of admixture could plausibly be as old as the ∼3,600-year-old date for the spread of agriculture onto the Tibetan plateau. These findings are therefore consistent with archaeological evidence that expansions of farmers from the Upper and Middle Yellow River Basin influenced populations of the Tibetan Plateau from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age as they spread across the China Central plain 37,38 , and with Y chromosome evidence that the shared common haplogroup Oα-F5 between Han and Tibetans coalesced to a common ancestry less than 5,800 years ago 39 .…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

The Genomic Formation of Human Populations in East Asia

Wang

Yeh

Popov

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people. We report genome-wide data from 191 individuals from Mongolia, northern China, Taiwan, the Amur River Basin and Japan dating to 6000 BCE – 1000 CE, many from contexts never previously analyzed with ancient DNA. We also report 383 present-day individuals from 46 groups mostly from the Tibetan Plateau and southern China. We document how 6000-3600 BCE people of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin were from populations that expanded over Northeast Asia, likely dispersing the ancestors of Mongolic and Tungusic languages. In a time transect of 89 Mongolians, we reveal how Yamnaya steppe pastoralist spread from the west by 3300-2900 BCE in association with the Afanasievo culture, although we also document a boy buried in an Afanasievo barrow with ancestry entirely from local Mongolian hunter-gatherers, representing a unique case of someone of entirely non-Yamnaya ancestry interred in this way. The second spread of Yamnaya-derived ancestry came via groups that harbored about a third of their ancestry from European farmers, which nearly completely displaced unmixed Yamnaya-related lineages in Mongolia in the second millennium BCE, but did not replace Afanasievo lineages in western China where Afanasievo ancestry persisted, plausibly acting as the source of the early-splitting Tocharian branch of Indo-European languages. Analyzing 20 Yellow River Basin farmers dating to ∼3000 BCE, we document a population that was a plausible vector for the spread of Sino-Tibetan languages both to the Tibetan Plateau and to the central plain where they mixed with southern agriculturalists to form the ancestors of Han Chinese. We show that the individuals in a time transect of 52 ancient Taiwan individuals spanning at least 1400 BCE to 600 CE were consistent with being nearly direct descendants of Yangtze Valley first farmers who likely spread Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic languages across Southeast and South Asia and mixing with the people they encountered, contributing to a four-fold reduction of genetic differentiation during the emergence of complex societies. We finally report data from Jomon hunter-gatherers from Japan who harbored one of the earliest splitting branches of East Eurasian variation, and show an affinity among Jomon, Amur River Basin, ancient Taiwan, and Austronesian-speakers, as expected for ancestry if they all had contributions from a Late Pleistocene coastal route migration to East Asia.

show abstract

“…CDX samples carrying the C haplotype were significantly closer to the D type Tibetan than to M117 Tibetans, consistent with C and D belonging to the ABCDE clade [ 7]. The results indicated that the autosomes of ancient M117 Tibetans were more related to those associated with O2a2b1a1a6, suggesting that ancient Tibetans likely carried the O2a2b1a1a6 haplotype, just like the present day Tibetans [ 31].…”

Section: Relationships Between Adnas and Present Day Samples Carryingsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Tibetan samples Chokhopani-C1 from Nepal [ 31,32]. If both DSQ and ZX groups may be candidate group for the origin of F5, it would be important to ask which group is more related to Southwest people carrying M117 or O2a2b1a1a6.…”

Section: Relationships Between Adnas and Present Day Samples Carryingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ancient DNAs and the Neolithic Chinese super-grandfather Y haplotypes

Zhang

Lei

Chen

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Previous studies identified 3 Neolithic Han Chinese super-grandfather Y haplotypes, F5 (O2a2b1a1a), F46 (O2a2b1a2a1), and F11 (O2a1b1a1a1a), but their relationships with the archaeological and written records remain unexplored. Results: We here report genome wide DNA data for 11 ancient human samples (0.02x-1.28x) from China ranging from 6500 to 2500 years before present (YBP), which also includes ~11 Mb Y NRY data for one sample. The 11 ancient samples belonged to 4 different genetic groups, designated as Dashanqian (DSQ) of Xiajiadian Culture in the Northeast, Duzhong (DZ) of late Yangshao Culture in the Central Plains, Zhengzhou Xishan (ZX) of Miaodigou Culture in the Central Plains, and Others. Present day F5 samples were closer in autosomal distances to the ZX and DSQ groups while O1, O2, and C samples were closer to the DZ group. We also sequenced the Y chromosome of one of these ancient samples K12 from DSQ and found both K12 and a previously reported ~4000 year old sample MG48 from Northwest China to have the F2137 (O2a2b1a1a1a2a) haplotype, belonging to the most prolific branch F438 immediately under F5. We further found close relationships between ZX and DSQ and between ZX and ancient M117 Tibetans or present day Southwest Dai Chinese carrying the F5 subtype O2a2b1a1a6. Conclusions: The results imply radiations of F5 subtypes from the putative place of F5 origin in Henan. These results are remarkably consistent with archaeological and written records.

show abstract

Reconstruction of Y-chromosome phylogeny reveals two neolithic expansions of Tibeto-Burman populations

Cited by 52 publications

References 17 publications

Peopling of Tibet Plateau and multiple waves of admixture of Tibetans inferred from both modern and ancient genome-wide data

Peopling of Tibet Plateau and multiple waves of admixture of Tibetans inferred from both modern and ancient genome-wide data

The Genomic Formation of Human Populations in East Asia

Ancient DNAs and the Neolithic Chinese super-grandfather Y haplotypes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About