Three major lineages of Asian Y chromosomes: implications for the peopling of east and southeast Asia

Abstract

DNA variation on the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome was examined in 610 male samples from 14 global populations in north, east, and southeast Asia, and other regions of the world. Eight haplotypes were observed by analyses of seven biallelic polymorphic markers ( DYS257(108), DYS287, SRY(4064), SRY(10831), RPS4Y(711), M9, and M15) and were unevenly distributed among the populations. Maximum parsimony tree for the eight haplotypes showed that these haplotypes could be classified into four distinct lineages characterized by three key mutations: an insertion of the Y Alu polymorphic (YAP) element at DYS287, a C-to-G transversion at M9, and a C-to-T transition at RPS4Y(711). Of the four lineages, three major lineages (defined by the allele of YAP(+), M9-G, and RPS4Y-T, respectively) accounted for 98.6% of the Asian populations studied, indicating that these three paternal lineages have contributed to the formation of modern Asian populations. Moreover, phylogenetic analysis revealed three monophyletic Asian clusters, which consisted of north Asian, Japanese, and Han Chinese/southeast Asian populations, respectively. Coalescence analysis in the haplotype tree showed that the estimated ages for three key mutations ranged from 53,000 to 95,000 years, suggesting that the three lineages were separated from one another during early stages of human evolutionary history. The distribution patterns of the Y-haplotypes and mutational ages for the key markers suggest that three major groups with different paternal ancestries separately migrated to prehistoric east and southeast Asia.

Genetic insights into the origins of Tibeto-Burman populations in the Himalayas

“…Northeast Asia is the major contributor to both Tibet (63.4%) and Tamang (59.7%) whereas Newar (44.7%) and Bhutan (41.1%) received equivalent percentages, followed by Kathmandu (22.3%). These results corroborate studies indicating a shared common ancestry between Tibet and the Northeast Asian collections of Japan and Korea by a variety of marker systems, including classical, 61,62 autosomal, 63 Y-chromosome 1,12,64,65 and mtDNA. 12,64,66,67 On the genetic origins of the Tibeto-Burman populations of the Himalayas T Gayden et al…”

Phylogeographic origin of Hokkaido house mice (Mus musculus) as indicated by genetic markers with maternal, paternal and biparental inheritance

“…A dual-origin hypothesis for Japanese M. musculus suggests a possible parallel history with that of human populations in East Asia, including Japan (Tajima et al, 2002;Tanaka et al, 2004). As demonstrated by Tajima et al (2002), a total of six Y-chromosome haplotype groups are represented among Asian peoples.…”

“…As demonstrated by Tajima et al (2002), a total of six Y-chromosome haplotype groups are represented among Asian peoples. Three groups are dominant, representing north Asian (ht7 of Tajima et al, 2002), Han Chinese/southeast Asian (ht4) and exclusively Japanese (ht1) populations, respectively.…”

“…As demonstrated by Tajima et al (2002), a total of six Y-chromosome haplotype groups are represented among Asian peoples. Three groups are dominant, representing north Asian (ht7 of Tajima et al, 2002), Han Chinese/southeast Asian (ht4) and exclusively Japanese (ht1) populations, respectively. Estimates of coalescence times for the haplotype groups range from 53 000 to 95 000 years, during the early period of dispersal of modern humans (ie Homo sapiens) (Tajima et al, 2002).…”

Evolution and migration history of the Chinese population inferred from Chinese Y-chromosome evidence

“…Studies of the geographical and ethnical structure of phylogeny lead to the well-known ''out-of-Africa'' hypothesis of modern human evolution and the subsequent peopling of the entire world. New binary markers allow for the construction of more robust genetic phylogenies than before (Underhill et al 1996;Hammer et al 1998;Karafet et al 1999;Su et al 1999Su et al , 2000Thomson et al 2000;Underhill et al 2000;Hammer et al 2001;Karafet et al 2001;Underhill et al 2001;Wells et al 2001;Lell et al 2002;Qamar et al 2002;Tajima et al 2002;Zerjal et al 2002).…”