|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2015 14:48:36 GMT
India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, which should be possible to screen and map genetically. We warn that ‘models’ in population genetics should be treated with caution. Although they provide an important framework for testing historical hypotheses, they are oversimplifications. For example, the true ancestral populations of India were probably not homogeneous as we assume in our model, but instead were probably formed by clusters of related groups that mixed at different times. However, modelling them as homogeneous fits the data and seems to capture meaningful features of history. I generally agree with the gist of this. The main issue I would also highlight is that these results only clarify and solidify what was likely from previous analyses of worldwide genetic variation. That is, the populations of Northwest India are closer to those of the Middle East & Europe than those of Southeast India are. It was rather awesome that they confirm that the Onge, who are almost extinct, are a relatively unadmixed ancient population. The Onge branch seems to descend from an ancestral population which also gave rise what is termed in the paper “Ancestral South Indian” (ASI). They exhibit no admixture with “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI). This paper confirmed and clarified as well as that the proportion of West Eurasian related lineages increases both as a function of geography and caste. That is, there is a SE-NW and lower-to-upper caste gradient whereby West Eurasian related lineages become more prevalent. This has long been known, but this paper did it with more SNPs across the genome. Here is a table which shows the proportion of ANI is a range of populations: All you really need to know about the Z-score is that negative scores indicate high levels of admixture. Here is a table which tells you a bit more about the populations above: The following figure illustrates the general model which looms in the background of this paper: Note that the Andaman Islanders, the Onge, aren’t really the ancestors of Indians on the mainland. Rather, they’re a branch of the ancient population which presumably first settled South Asia, and close to the ASI. Who were the ASI? Since they aren’t really around, we can only generate conjectures and inferences. In this paper the ANI are actually represented in some ways by Europeans, even though presumably the assumption is that both these are daughter populations of another group. Though not pushed very hard, they do mention proto-Indo-Europeans as the candidate for the ANI. At this point, let’s look at the PCA chart (I’ve reedited and labelled as usual): This should not surprise, previous work shows that South Asians distribute along an axis away from Europeans. One of the points in the paper is that there is both geographic and caste stratification. I added some labels, but I thought drilling-down was probably useful. I don’t know all these groups off the top of my head, and I assume few of readers do either. So I zoomed in: I think some of the shortcomings with a sample size on the order of the low hundreds is rather clear. They couldn’t even use all their samples, or some of the samples were not relevant to the question on hand. The Siddis are an Indian-African mix which emerged during the period of Muslim domination when that group imported black slaves. The Tibeto-Burman groups of Northeast India are interesting, but outliers. The general trends are clear, North Indian groups have more ANI than South Indian groups, and upper caste groups have more ANI than lower caste groups, but that is only with “all things equal.” Note that upper caste South Indian groups clearly have more ANI than lower caste South Indians, but they have a lower proportion than some North Indian lower castes, and are in the range of one North Indian tribal group. Some of the outliers are also interesting; the lower caste individual similar to Austro-Asiatic tribals is from a group which resides in a region with many Austro-Asiatic peoples. Clearly there has been identity switching, so you have aberrations such as one North Indian tribal who clusters with Kashmiri Pandit Brahmins! The Austro-Asiatic group is also interesting, because they speak languages related to those of Southeast Asia. Here is a map of the Austro-Asiatic languages: We know with near 100% certainty that much of Burma & Thailand were dominated by Mon-Khmer languages before the arrival of the Shan, Bamar (Burmans) and Thai peoples (to mention a few). This is matter of historical record, the rise of modern Burma and Thailand was largely a story of the eclipse of Mon and Khmer societies who transmitted to them much of the Indic character which they have (e.g., the northern populations often arrived as Mahayana Buddhists, but the Mon and Khmer Theravada Buddhism was adopted as the dominant religions in the new states). The position of the Munda languages is more confused, as some posit that they arrived from the east, while others argue that the the Austro-Asiatic languages expanded east from India. This is not going to be resolved in this blog post, but let me note that the genetic data above, which show an “eastern” affinity of the Munda, can be combined to with cultural datum such as the arrival of rice farming from the east and historical records which document the migration of populations from Burma, to construct a plausible east-west narrative. In contrast it seems an almost default position by many that the Austro-Asiatics are the most ancient South Asians, marginalized by Dravidians, and later Indo-Europeans. I would not be surprised if it was actually first Dravidians, then Austro-Asiatics and finally Indo-Europeans. Dravidian are found in every corner of the subcontinent (Brahui in Pakistan, a few groups in Bengal, and scattered through the center) while the Austro-Asiatics exhibit a more restricted northeastern range. Next are two charts which shows Indians, Europeans, and Chinese. In the first the PCA was originally constructed with Europeans & Chinese, and the Indians were projected onto it using the variation found in the first two groups. In the second case, Indians and Chinese were used to construct the PCA, and Europeans projected. What you see is that Europeans are all equally related to Indians, but Indians exhibit a gradient of relationship to Europeans. That is, there is no European group which in particular resembles Indians via the connection with ANI; the distance between all European groups and ANI seems roughly equal. The Indians vary in their relationship to Europeans because they vary in their proportion of ANI. Moving back to the nature of population structure within India, as opposed to how Indians relate to non-Indians, one of the results which pops up is that South Asian groups seem to have very high Fst values relative to European ones when compared within regions or between neighbors. Remember that Fst is a rough measure of the genetic variation which occurs between groups. The famous maxim that “85% of variance is within races, and 15% between races,” is Fst based. The Fst in that is case 0.15. Corrected for region & caste, they find that South Asian groups seem to have Fst values on the order of 3-4 times higher than equivalent European groups. This isn’t too surprising, in History and Geography of Human Genes L. L. Cavalli-Sforza observes that Europeans are particularly homogeneous. Before the spate of 650 K SNP papers it was hard to find good stuff on the phylogeography of European populations because the techniques didn’t have the power to differentiate them. On the other hand, anthropologists have long thought that India was riddled with differentiation. After all, there’s the caste system. Indians are certainly physically diverse. Additionally, there is a line of thinking that India is the secondary Africa, insofar as most Eurasian and Australasian lineages go back to India. Like Africa, India may hold a great deal of diversity among its many populations because they’re old, the oldest in Eurasia and Australia (in concert with endogamy of course). The authors though have another model: We propose that the high FST among Indian groups could be explained if many groups were founded by a few individuals, followed by limited gene flow. This hypothesis predicts that within groups, pairs of individuals will tend to have substantial stretches of the genome in which they share at least one allele at each SNP. We find signals of excess allele sharing in many groups. They go on: Six Indo-European- and Dravidian speaking groups have evidence of founder events dating tomore than 30 generations ago…including the Vysya at more than 100 generations ago…Strong endogamy must have applied since then (average gene flow less than 1 in 30 per generation) to prevent the genetic signatures of founder events from being erased by gene flow. Some historians have argued that ‘caste’ in modern India is an ‘invention’ of colonialism in the sense that it became more rigid under colonial rule. However, our results indicate thatmany current distinctions among groups are ancient and that strong endogamy must have shaped marriage patterns in India for thousands of years This is one of the places where you get some sense of time scales. In the rest of the paper they avoid this. They note in one of the figures: “Although the model is precise about tree topology and ordering of splits, it provides no information about population size changes or the timings of events.” But the numbers above give time scales of foundings on the order of 1,000 years, with perhaps others at 3,000 years. Elsewhere they say: Two features of the inferred history are of special interest. First, the ANI and CEU form a clade, and further analysis shows that the Adygei, a Caucasian group, are an outgroup. Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, whereas the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke ‘Proto-Indo-European’, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture. Reich, David, et al. " Reconstructing Indian population history.: 489-494.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 7, 2015 13:39:42 GMT
Figure 1. Sampling areas; Map of India highlighting Gujarat (top); Regions of study pointed out in the map of Gujarat (bottom).Haplogroups distribution The frequency distribution of Y chromosome haplogroups among the study populations along with the phylogenetic relationship between them is presented in Figure 2. The side branches on the tree represent Y SNP for which the ancestral state was observed, while the direct branch represents Y markers for which the mutant allelic state was observed; leading to haplogroup designation in the particular sample. Analysis of 48 bi-allelic markers of the Y chromosome showed 13 paternal lineages that were distributed throughout haplogroups H, R, J, C, F, L, K and Q. Haplogroup H represented the most frequently occurring haplogroup (40.14%) followed by groups R (28.17%), J (10.21%) and C (8.45%) respectively. Sparse distribution was observed for the lineages F*, L1, Q3 and K* across all the populations. Figure 2. Distribution of Y-binary halpogroups and haplogroup diversity (h) among the study populations of Gujarat. The markers used in the study are shown on each branch. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090414.g002Haplogroup H. M69 mutation, which is a characteristic of haplogroup H was found on 114 of the total 284 Y chromosomes. Haplogroup H was further segregated into three lineages, H1 by the presence of M52-C allele, H2 by the presence of Apt-A allele and H* by absence of the two alleles. These haplogroups were further subdivided into a number of sub-clades. Lineage H1a* of H1 group was observed 71 times and represented the most frequently occurring lineage across all the populations. Its frequency varied from a minimum of 3.45% among Pavagadhi Chaudhari to a maximum of 62.5% in Vasava. Lineage H2 represented the second most frequently occurring lineage among the H haplogroup and third most common haplogroup among all the haplogroups. Its frequency varied from 3.45% among Pavagadhi Chaudhari to 40.74% among Mota Chaudhari. However, H2-Apt was found to be absent among Vasava and Gamit populations. While lineage H* was observed in only three individuals, one each from Konkana, Gamit and Mota Chaudhari. Haplogroup R. R1a1*a sub-clade of R haplogroup was found to be the next most frequently occurring lineage after H1a*. Its frequency was found ranging from 5.56% in Gamit to 62.07% in Pavagadhi Chaudhari. Its sister sub-clade R2-M124 was observed 27 times with a frequency varying from 5.56% among Gamit to 20.83% among the Konkana tribe. Barring Valvi Chaudhari, R2 was absent from all other Chaudhari groups. Haplogroup J. J2 with its two sub-clades J2b2* and J2a constituted a major portion of Haplogroup J in the current study. Except Konkana and Mota Chaudhari, either of the two J2 sub-clades was present in all other groups. J2b2* sub-clade was observed in 21 Y chromosomes. Its frequency was found to be 11% in Gamit, 19% in Valvi Chaudhari and 21% in Pavagadhi Chaudhari. The remaining four populations of Dhodia, Dubla, Vasava and Nana Chaudhari exhibited similar frequency values varying in a narrow range between 4% and 4.48%. Sub-clade J2a was observed only 8 times in the nine groups. It was present in four of the groups with a minimum frequency of 3.17% in Dhodia to a maximum frequency of 7.14% in Dubla. Haplogroup C. Out of the seven sub-clades of C haplogroup, only one sub-clade C5 with its two main derivatives C5a and C5* was observed 21 times in all the populations except Pavagadhi Chaudhari. C5a lineage was observed to be 62 times more frequent then its sister branch C5*. Its frequency varied from 3.17% in Dhodia to 12.5% in Valvi Chaudhari, while that of C5* was found to vary from 3.7% in Mota Chaudhari to 9.38% in Valvi Chaudhari. Haplogroup F*, K*, L1 and Q3. Parahaplogroup F* along with the other parahaplogroup K* and two haplogroups L and Q accounted for 13.03% of the total haplogroups. After initial screening of M89-T allele, 11 samples failed to resolve further and were therefore grouped under F*. Similarly, 8 individuals did not exhibit any mutation except G allele for M9 and were therefore grouped under K*. Other two sub-clades L1-M27 and Q3-M346 were present, but in low frequencies only. Population Structure and Gene Flow Figure 3 represents a plot of haplogroup diversity regressed against distance from gene frequency centroid (rii). The values of gene diversity (hi) and genetic distances from centroid (rii) used in the nine study population groups along with their standard errors are given in Table 2. Majority of the populations exhibited higher than predicted gene diversity combined with a low to moderate deviation from the theoretical line of regression and the distance from the gene frequency centroid. Three populations Gamit, Vasava and Pavagadhi Chaudhari displayed lower than predicted gene diversity. Pavagadhi Chaudhari showed the farthest distance from the gene frequency centroid. The results indicated that the tribal groups of Gujarat are neither explicitly isolated nor absolutely admixed. Figure 3. Regression of gene diversity (hi) on distance from centroid (rii). The solid line represents the theoretical regression line. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090414.g003Genetic proximities We compared the study populations with 24 additional world populations already published in separate studies (Figure 4). A stress value of 0.18 for the MDS plot indicated a good fit between the two dimensional graph and the original distance matrix. The comparison revealed four major clusters of South Asian, Central Asian, West Asian and European populations. All the populations under study with the exception of Pavagadhi Chaudhari were found to be clustered together. The occurrence of South Asian populations (the current study groups, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran) with Central Asian populations (Kazakhstan, Altai Region, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uyghurstan) on Axis I, conversely with West Asian populations (Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria) with respect to Axis II probably indicate similarities of haplogroups between them. Figure 4. MDS Plot showing genetic relationships particularly between the South Asian populations with the world populations. The South Asian populations including the study populations of India are shown in as solid circles (•), the European populations as open circles (o), Central Asian populations as triangle (Δ) and West Asian population as cross (x). The abbreviation used are Afganistan (Afg), Pakistan (Pak), Iran (Ira), Iraq (Irk), Jordan (Jor), Turkey (Tur), Lebanon (Leb), Syria (Syr), Kazakhstan (Kaz), Altai (Alt), Uzbekistan (Uzb), Kyrgyztan (Kyr), Uyghurstan (Uyg), Greece (Gre), France (Fra), Netherlands (Net), Germany (Ger), Czech and Slovakia (CzandSlo), Alabina (Ala), Macedonia (Mac), Poland (Pol), Hungary (Hun), Ukraine (Ukr), Georgia (Geo), Dhodia (Dh), Dubla (Du), Konkana (Kon), Vasava (Vas), Gamit (Gam), Valvi Chaudhari (VC), Nana Chaudhari (NC), Mota Chaudhari (MC), Pavagadhi Chaudhari (PC).
In-situ versus Ex-situ Origin of Y lineages The indigenous versus exogenous origin of Indian paternal lineages has been widely contested. Among the study populations, six sub-haplogroups namely, C5, H1a*, H2, J2, R1a1* and R2 constituted the major paternal lineages that together accounted for 85.92% of the Y chromosomes. While the indigenous origin of sub-clades C5, H1a*, H2 and R2 are accepted, the status of sub-clades J2 and R1a1* are contested as they are believed to have been introduced in India with the demic diffusion of Proto-Dravidian Neolithic agriculturists from West Asia and the influx of Indo-European pastorals from Central Asia. It is worth mentioning here that the high frequency and associated diversity of a haplogroup is correlated with the possible place of origin of a particular haplogroup [55]. In the present investigation haplogroup H, especially H1a, represented the most frequently observed Y chromosomal lineage followed by H2 sub-haplogroup. Its higher frequency among the Indian tribes particularly among the Dravidian speaking tribes of South India and its limited presence elsewhere on the Indian subcontinent had led some scholars to denote it as a tribe-specific haplogroup [36]. However, several subsequent studies have confirmed the presence and equal prevalence of haplogroup H and its associated H1a and H2 branches across linguistically and ethnically diverse populations and in different regions of India, except the North-Eastern region [23]–[24], [54]; thus ruling it out as a tribal-specific marker and supporting the uniform distribution of haplogroup H among Indian populations. An Indian homeland for haplogroup H can also not be refuted keeping in view its higher microsatellite diversity among Indian populations [24]. Haplogroup H has also been reported from Central Asian, West Asian and Gypsy populations in Europe. However, its low frequency and prevalent diversity pattern in Central Asia and West Asia could be due to recent back migration [32], [52]. On the other hand, the established Indian ancestry of gypsy populations is surely the reason for elevated levels of H haplogroup among them [56]. All the observations, therefore clearly point towards in-situ origin of haplogroup H among Indian populations. Haplogroup C is widely distributed in Eastern and Central Asia, Oceania and Australia [44]. As expected, all the Y chromosomes under C haplogroup belonged to the C5 sub-clade. It was observed in a frequency of 8.45% which is the highest ever reported frequency for C5 in India and whose spread is circumscribed along the coastal belt of India [24], [54]. High STR diversity in India and South-East Asia in the backdrop of haplogroup C has also been observed [34], [57]. Interestingly none of the C haplogroup derivatives frequent in South-East Asia have been reported from India. Therefore, the possibility of introduction of C5 haplogroup from South-East Asia as a result of back migration to India appears doubtful and its indigenous origin appears to be more probable [13]. Haplogroup J is predominantly found among the populations of West Asia, North Africa, Europe, Central Asia, Pakistan, and India [44] and widely linked with the spread of agriculture from the Fertile Crescent that extends from Israel to Western Iraq. In the Indian subcontinent two sub-clades of J - J2a and J2b have been reported. Consistent with the previous studies, a higher proportion of J2 in West India as compared to North and South regions of India has been recorded in the present study [24], [54]. Two models pertaining to the homeland for Indian J2 sub-clades have been contested, West Asia and Central Asia. Cordaux et al. [35] had proposed the Central Asian homeland for Indian J2 sub-clade mainly because of higher frequency of J2 in Central Asia. It is worth mentioning here that J1 sub-clade which appears in appreciable frequency in Central Asia is largely absent from the Indian as well as most of the West Asian populations [44]. Haplogroup R is represented by two sub-clades R1a1* and R2 among the study populations. After haplogroup H1a, haplogroup R1a1* represented the most frequently occurring haplogroup. Haplogroup R is widely distributed in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, West Asia and the Indian subcontinent [58]–[59]. The higher frequency of haplogroup R1a, up to 63% in Central Asia and its relatively lower occurrence in other regions has been linked with Central Asian origin of R1a clade [36]. However, later studies [24], [54] showing higher prevalence of R1a sub-clade along with high microsatellite diversity among the tribal populations of India lend support to probable South Asian origin of R1a sub-clade as suggested by Kivisild et al. [34]. This is further substantiated by almost the complete absence of other derivatives of haplogroup R1 among the Indian populations, which is expected in case of the inflow from Central Asia [23]–[24], [41]. In the present investigation sub-clade R2 occurred with a frequency of 9.51%, which is similar to its frequency reported from other Indian populations [24], [34], [36], [54]. The frequency of R2 decreases as one goes further west from India and its frequency is almost negligible in Europe. Moreover, its frequent occurrence among Dravidian speaking groups as compared to Indo-European or Austro-Asiatic speaking groups of India can be attributed to its indigenous Indian origin. The MDS plot (Figure 4) also reflects the closeness of South Asian populations with West Asian and Central Asian populations possibly due to overlapping of haplogroups. In comparison to the world populations the overall mean haplogroup diversity among the study populations was relatively higher than in the European or East Asian populations [32], [48] whereas it was found to be lower than that of Central Asian and West Asian populations [49], [51]. As mentioned earlier the high frequency and diversity of a haplogroup is indicator of the possible place of origin of a particular haplogroup [55]. Consequently, the observed haplogroups in the present investigation could be apportioned into three Y lineages based on their possible origin. These lineages include Central Asian, West Asian and indigenous Indian Y lineages. Khurana P, Aggarwal A, Mitra S, Italia YM, Saraswathy KN, et al. (2014) Y Chromosome Haplogroup Distribution in Indo-European Speaking Tribes of Gujarat, Western India. PLoS ONE 9(3): e90414. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090414
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 12, 2015 15:35:17 GMT
Latin America provides an advantageous setting in which to examine the impact of genetic variation on physical appearance. The region has a history of extensive admixture between three continental populations: Africans, Europeans and Native Americans [5], [6]. Latin America also provides an informative context in which to explore the perception of variation in physical appearance. The region has a unique history relating to the social and cultural politics of ethnicity, race and nation [7]–[9]. A considerable number of genetic studies have examined admixture in Latin America [10]–[14]. However, these analyses have mostly been based on relatively small samples and focused mainly on describing patterns of variation in admixture proportions between individuals and countries/regions. Few studies have examined the impact of genetic ancestry on physical appearance or the relationship of these to individual notions of ethnicity and ancestry [15], [16]. In this paper we present the first phase of a research program focused on the genetics of physical appearance in Latin Americans. We base this program on a sample of over 7,000 individuals ascertained in five countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, México and Perú. Information was obtained for a range of socio-demographic variables, physical attributes and self-perception of ancestry. Here we report analyses based on individual mean genome admixture proportions. Coordinate-based spatial analyses illustrate the significant variation in ancestry existing across Latin America, in agreement with demographic history and census information. Significant effects of ancestry were detected for most of the phenotypes examined, and the direction of these effects agrees with the phenotypic differentiation of Africans, Europeans and Native Americans. Finally, we observe that certain phenotypes have a strong impact on self-perception and that these phenotypes bias self-perceived relative to genetically estimated ancestry. Table 1. Sample size, proportion of women, age, estimated admixture proportions and phenotypic features of the study sample.Geographic variation of ancestry Consistent with previous studies, we observe extensive variation in ancestry between countries (Table 1) as well as between individuals within countries (Text S1) and between socioeconomic strata (Text S2) [12], [13], [20]–[22]. In order to obtain a spatial representation of variation in ancestry we obtained interpolated maps based on the geographic coordinates for the birthplaces of research volunteers. The geographic distribution of these birthplaces (Figure 1 and Figure S4) overlaps with regional population density from national census data (Figure S5). Consistent with this pattern, the number of volunteers for each birthplace correlates with census size for these localities: Brazil (r = 0.32, p-value <10−5), Chile (r = 0.51, p-value <10−4), Colombia (r = 0.54, p-value <10−13), Mexico (r = 0.44, p-value <10−8), Perú (r = 0.41, p-value <10−4). Few volunteer birthplaces were thus located in sparsely populated regions (e.g. Amazonia) and geographic interpolation of ancestry in those regions should be regarded with special caution. Figure 1. Geographic distribution of Native American (blue), African (green) and European (red) ancestry based on individual estimates for samples from (A) Brazil, (B) Chile, (C) Colombia, (D) México and (E) Perú. To facilitate comparison, color intensity transitions occur at 10% ancestry intervals for all maps. The birthplace of individuals are indicated by purple dots on the African ancestry map. Sampling density is shown in Figure S4. Maps were obtained using Kriging interpolation as detailed in the text.The Brazilian sample (Figure 1A) shows widespread European ancestry with the highest levels being observed in the south. African ancestry is also widespread (except for the south) and reaches its highest values in the East of the country. Native American ancestry is highest in the north-west (Amazonia). The Chilean sample (Figure 1B) shows the least regional variation, with low levels of African ancestry throughout the country. European and Native American ancestry are relatively uniform, although somewhat higher European ancestry is seen around the main urban areas of the north and centre, Native ancestry predominating elsewhere, particularly in the south. The Colombian sample (Figure 1C) shows highest African ancestry in the coastal regions (particularly on the Pacific) and highest European ancestry in central areas. Native ancestry appears highest in the south-west and in the east of the country (Amazonia) but interpolations in these areas are based on few data points. In the Mexican sample (Figure 1D) Native American ancestry is highest in the centre/south of the country with the north showing the highest proportion of European Ancestry. African ancestry is generally low across Mexico except for a few coastal regions. The Peruvian sample (Figure 1E) shows substantial Native American ancestry throughout the country, particularly in the south, European ancestry appears highest around northern/central areas. African ancestry in Peru is generally low, except for parts of the northern coast. Genetic ancestry, phenotypic diversity and self-perception Four ethno/racial categories (“Black”, “White”, “Native” and “Mixed”) are commonly used across Latin America in national censuses and other population surveys. We contrasted genetic ancestry and skin pigmentation (as measured by the melanin index) across these four self-estimated categories for the countries sampled (Figure 2 and Table S4). Within each country there is a gradient of decreasing European ancestry (and increasing pigmentation) for the “White”, “Mixed” and “Native/Black” categories. Across countries, skin pigmentation is relatively uniform within ethnicity categories, except for “Black”. For “White”, “Native” and “Mixed” the mean melanin index across countries varies within ~2 units, while the range for “Black” is ~25 units. By contrast, genetic ancestry varies greatly between countries for all ethnicity categories. For example, European ancestry varies across countries by about 40% for “White”, “Mixed” and “Native” and about 20% for “Black” (Figure 2; estimates for African and Native American ancestry are shown in Table S4). Figure 2. Bar plots contrasting skin pigmentation (Melanin Index) to proportion of European genetic ancestry across four self-identified ethno/racial categories in samples from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, México and Perú. Sample sizes and all estimates of pigmentation and ancestry, are presented in Table S4. In Perú no individual self-identified as “Black”.Contrasting self-perceived (ranked into five bands at 20% increments) and genetically estimated continental ancestry we observe a moderate, but highly significant, correlation: America: r = 0.48, P<2.2×10−6, Europe: r = 0.48, P<2.2×10−6, Africa: r = 0.32, P<2.2×10−6. However, there is a trend for higher self-perceived Native American and African ancestry to exceed the genetic estimates (Figure 3). Similarly, there is a trend for lower self-perceived Native American and European ancestry to underestimate the genetic ancestry (Figure 3). To explore these trends further we performed a multiple linear regression of the difference between self-perceived and genetically estimated ancestry (i.e. the bias, see Methods), using genetic ancestry and covariates as predictors (Table 3). As expected, we observe that genetic ancestry has a highly significant effect (<2×10−16 for all ancestries) and the negative sign of the regression coefficients reflects the orientation of bias seen in Figure 3. At increasing European genetic ancestry, there is greater underestimation in self-perception (a more negative bias). By contrast, with increasing African genetic ancestry there is less overestimation (less positive bias). For Native American ancestry, there is an overestimation (positive bias) at low levels, and an underestimation at high levels of ancestry (negative bias). Discussion Since the late 15th century, the population of what is now called “Latin America” has undergone major demographic changes within the context of a highly diversified physical and social environment [6], [23]. These changes include the occurrence of waves of immigration from various parts of Africa and Europe, the resulting decline of the Native populations most exposed to the immigrants and a variable admixture between these groups. There have also been a number of noticeable population movements in the region. For example, in recent generations there has been an extensive migration to the cities, Latin America now being the most urbanized region of the world (about 80% of its population is currently considered urban) [24]. Three of the countries we sampled (Brazil, Mexico and Colombia) are the most populous in the region and the combined population of the five countries examined here account for ~70% of Latin Americans. Although ours is a convenience sample, the individuals studied show considerable variation in birthplace and for a range of biological and social variables, illustrating the extensive heterogeneity of Latin Americans. The interpolated ancestry maps obtained (Figure 1) are consistent with other genetic studies [20], [21], [25], [26] and with census information on the distribution of the main ethnicity groups within each country (available at geoftp.ibge.gov.br; www.censo2010.org.mx, . Altogether, these data underline the extensive genetic structure existing within and between Latin American countries. It is possible to relate this genetic heterogeneity to well documented historical factors [6], [23], [27]. Broadly, Native American ancestry is highest in areas that were densely populated in pre-Columbian times (particularly Meso-America and the Andean highlands) as well as in regions that received relatively little non-native immigration and which currently have relatively low population densities (e.g. Amazonia). During the colonial period Africans were brought to Latin America as forced labour mainly to coastal tropical areas, particularly in the Caribbean and Brazil [28]. That country was the main recipient of African slaves in the region (representing about 40% of all African slaves brought to the Americas [29]). Early (mostly male) Iberian immigrants settled across the continent, admixing extensively with Native Americans and Africans [5]. These were followed by further currents of European immigration, including individuals from various parts of Europe (often arriving as a result of governmental initiatives) and resulting in the dense settlement of specific geographic regions (such as the south of Brazil). The larger variance in individual ancestry observed for larger urban centres is consistent with the increasing urbanization of Latin America seen recent generations, the cities absorbing immigrants with diverse genetic backgrounds. Other than demographic history, it is possible that assortative mating has also contributed to shaping population structure across Latin America. The Iberian “Conquest” (i.e. the first century of settlement) was characterized by extensive admixture between Natives and immigrants (driven by the highly predominant immigration of males) [5]. However, during the subsequent colonial period society became increasingly stratified, including the instauration during the 18th century of a caste system regulating marriages [6], [27]. These restrictions were mostly abolished with the establishment of republican governments in the 19th century [6]. However, a number of studies have documented continuing assortative mating in Latin America, in relation to genetic ancestry, physical appearance and a range of social factors [30]–[34]. The pattern of variation we observe between physical appearance and genetic ancestry is consistent with information on the variation in frequency of the traits examined in Native Americans, Europeans and Africans. Constitutive skin pigmentation (i.e. in areas not exposed to light), hair and eye color and hair type are traits with little environmental sensitivity and show large differences between continental populations [35]. As expected, increased European ancestry shows a highly significant association with lighter skin, hair and eye pigmentation. A number of allelic variants impacting on these traits have been identified in Europeans and certain of these show large allele frequency differences between Europeans and non-Europeans [1], [2], [36]. We also found a highly significant effect of ancestry on hair type, individuals with higher Native American ancestry showing greater frequency of straight hair, a phenotype that is essentially fixed in Native Americans. Recent studies in East Asians implicate a p.Val370Ala substitution in the EDAR gene in hair morphology [37]–[39]. One of the ancestry informative markers typed here (rs260690) is located in the first intron of EDAR, is in high linkage disequilibrium with the p.Val370Ala variant in the HapMap dataset and is strongly associated with hair type in our sample, after accounting for ancestry (Text S4), suggesting that variants at EDAR could be impacting on hair morphology in Latin Americans. Greater European ancestry also correlates significantly with higher rates of male balding and (marginally) with hair greying (our sample is perhaps underpowered to detect these effects due to its relatively young age; Table 1). Although no thorough comparative data is available, classical population studies indicate that hair greying and androgenetic alopecia are rarer, less severe and of later onset in Native Americans than in other continental populations [40] and our data points to the existence of loci influencing the continental distribution of these traits. Studies in Europeans have recently identified loci associated with androgenetic alopecia [41], [42], but no similar analyses have been performed for hair greying. Recent genome-wide association analyses in Europeans have implicated loci for variation in height and related anthropometric traits [43], [44]. However, these traits are also strongly influenced by environmental factors, including nutrition [45]. In the sample studied here we find that Native American ancestry correlates significantly with lower height and we also detect a significant effect of socioeconomic position (Text S3), lower socioeconomic position correlating with decreased height. The significant effect of age on height, with younger individuals tending to be taller than older ones suggests that the two socioeconomic indicators examined here (education and wealth) capture only part of the environmental variation impacting on height. The rate of increase in height for individuals born more recently (~0.1 cm/year) estimated here is similar to that obtained from extensive longitudinal surveys in Latin America (~1 cm per decade in the last century), an observation that has been interpreted as resulting from the historical improvement in living standards across the region [45], [46]. It is thus possible that the ancestry effect on height that we detect could be influenced by environmental factors that correlate with ancestry that are not captured by the socioeconomic variables examined here. The ancestry effects that we detect for facial features (eye fold, face shape and size), but not for head circumference, agree with the notion of a greater developmental and evolutionary constraint on neuro-cranium than on facial variation. This is also in line with proposals that human facial features include a range of environmental adaptations [47]–[49]. Aspects of face shape variation captured by principal components analysis that are influenced by genetic ancestry include mainly, width and height of the face, facial flatness, position of the glabella and fronto-temporal points, extent of eye fold and the relative size and position of lips and nose (a fuller description of face shape variation associated with each PC is presented in Text S5 and Figure S3). Two genome-wide association scans in Europeans have identified a few loci associated with aspects of face shape [50], [51] but these results are pending confirmation by further studies. No genetic variants have yet been implicated in intercontinental differentiation for facial features. Our joint analysis of genetic, phenotypic and self-perception variation emphasizes the strong impact of physical appearance on self-perception. Comparison of skin pigmentation across self-perceived ethno/racial categories shows remarkable consistency between countries, underlining the weight given to this trait in self-perception [52]. The large variation in genetic ancestry between countries for each ethnicity category illustrates the relatively low predictive power of physical appearance for genetic ancestry. Although we detected highly significant effects of ancestry on many of the phenotypes examined, the observed correlations are relatively low (Table 2). The poor reliability of physical appearance as an indicator of genetic ancestry likely relates to the impact of environmental variation on some of these traits, and to their specific genetic architecture. Particularly, a few genetic variants could have relatively large phenotypic effects (as documented for pigmentation [2], [36]). The impact of physical appearance on self-perception of ancestry likely relates to admixture in Latin America largely occurring many generations ago and the frequent unavailability of reliable genealogical information. The contrast between self-perceived and genetically estimated admixture proportions confirms the impact of physical appearance on self-perception and shows how certain traits, particularly but not exclusively related to pigmentation, can bias self-perception of ancestry. This biased perception of physical attributes is likely to be influenced by social and individual factors shaping the interpretation of phenotypic variation. The effect of such factors is illustrated by the observation of differences in bias across countries and the positive correlation between wealth and European ancestry (Table 2). An effect of wealth on self-perception of ancestry has also been the subject of study in the sociological literature on Latin America [52]. In conclusion, our study sample illustrates the extensive geographic variation in genetic ancestry seen across Latin America, reflecting the heterogeneous demographic history of the region. The highly significant impact of genetic ancestry on physical appearance is consistent with some of the phenotypic variation seen in Latin Americans stemming from genetic loci with differentiated allele frequencies between Africans, Europeans and Native Americans [53]. Further analysis of the study sample collected here should enable the identification of such loci. The significant correlation between self-perceived and genetically estimated ancestry is consistent with the observed effects of genetic ancestry on physical appearance. However, self-perception is biased, possibly due to non-biological factors affecting the perception of phenotypic variation and to the genetic architecture of physical appearance traits. Our findings exemplify the informativity of Latin America for studies encompassing genetic, phenotypic and sociodemographic information and the interest of a multidisciplinary approach to human diversity studies. Ruiz-Linares A, Adhikari K, Acuña-Alonzo V, Quinto-Sanchez M, Jaramillo C, et al. (2014) Admixture in Latin America: Geographic Structure, Phenotypic Diversity and Self-Perception of Ancestry Based on 7,342 Individuals. PLoS Genet 10(9): e1004572. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004572
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2015 14:03:56 GMT
Because Caucasians and Asians are related and share common lineage, and some populations are closer than others. Finns and Saamis and a few other Uralic-speaking populations have rather recent genetic links to Eurasian/Central Asian populations. For example, Y-DNA (Haplogroup N) testing shows strong affinity between Finns and north Asian populations: A map of the Uralic languages actually mirrors the HG N distribution map and is useful to highlight this fluidity of "racial" categorization: For example, look at where the Finns are...now, notice they are next to the Saami, who are close to the Nenets. These people speak languages that are related. So, you can actually see the phenotypic shift from "Asian" to "Caucasian" when you look at pictures of these groups side by side. Nenets Saami Of course, then you also have the blonde-hair, blue-eyed Finns with the classic "Nordic" phenotype that wouldn't necessarily be associated with an Asian connection. But this is why "looks" are only skin deep. The blue-eye gene only arose somwhere around 10,000 years ago. And light skin was also a relatively recent genetic adaptation. Likewise, ancient populations could not be readily identifiable as "Asian" or "European." Finns All non-African human populations descend from a group of African migrants that found their way into southwest Asia and Eurasia. At that point, groups continued to split off and migrated to other locations and were isolated, and formed distinct lineages (that is reflected in DNA). Some of the ancestors of the populations we now would call northern or eastern European and Asian (and one could also include Native Americans here) actually stayed together a bit longer in Central Asia...before continuing on their paths of migrations and forming new lineages and "racial" groups. Sometimes a modern Finn will have a slightly "Asian" look, because they happened to inherit these particular genetic traits. So, they might have a more rounded face with higher/larger cheekbones, less-pronounced nose crest and even epicanthic folds. The latter trait - or, epicanthic folds - is not restricted to "Asian" populations only. It is found in Caucasians at lower rates, some Native Americans, and African populations as well.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2015 12:36:17 GMT
Etruria was dominant in the Italian peninsula after 650 b.c., when Etruscans began to expand toward both the north (the Po River Valley) and the south. Etruscan kings conquered and ruled Rome for 100 years, until 509 b.c., when the last Etruscan king, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, was removed from power and the Roman Republic was established. From that moment, the expansion period of the Etruscans ended and was followed by a slow process of conquest and assimilation by the Romans, which culminated at the time of the “Social War” (90–88 b.c.), with the attribution of Roman citizenship to all Etruscans. Rapidly, the Etruscan culture and language disappeared,2 and 3 possibly also because, in the following decades, Etrurian lands were often distributed to Roman veterans and were partially repopulated by poor Roman citizens. However, despite a potentially extensive dilution of the ancestral Etruscan gene pool with that from surrounding Italic populations, there is no evidence that such a gene pool had been completely replaced.4 In addition, part of the process of initial assimilation might have been mainly male mediated, since incoming Roman veterans often married women from local communities. Thus, some populations of modern Tuscany should have retained at least a fraction of such an ancestral gene pool—particularly the exclusively maternally inherited mtDNA pool—possibly at a variable extent, given the differential degree of geographical and genetic isolation of the different Tuscan communities during the past 25 centuries. To evaluate the nature and extent of mtDNA variation in modern Tuscans, the mtDNA from 322 subjects from three areas of Tuscany was analyzed: 86 from Murlo, a rather isolated town of Etruscan origin in the Siena province; 114 from Volterra, a former major Etruscan city in the province of Pisa; and 122 from the Casentino Valley in the province of Arezzo, which was part of historical Etruria. mtDNA profiles in the three populations were determined by sequencing ∼750 bp from the control region for each subject (from nucleotide position [np] 16024 to np 210, thus including the entire hypervariable segment [HVS]–I [nps 16024–16383] and part of the HVS-II [nps 57–372]). This was followed by a hierarchical survey of haplogroup and subhaplogroup diagnostic markers in the coding region,5 which allowed the classification of mtDNAs into 39 haplogroups (table 1). Most haplogroups that are typical of modern European populations are present,6, 7 and 8 and a few East Asian (D4g1)9 and sub-Saharan African (L3d and L1b)10 mtDNAs were also detected. This latter finding is not unexpected, since low frequencies of African and even East Asian mtDNAs are not uncommon in populations of southern Europe. However, what was not anticipated was the relatively high frequency, especially in the Murlo sample, of haplogroup HV lineages that are non-H and non-HV0, as well as haplogroups R0a (formerly known as “(pre-HV)1”)11 and U7 and U3, which are typical of Near Eastern populations. Figure 1. Four-dimensional region-based PCA of mtDNA haplogroup profiles in Europe and the Near East. Haplogroups and subhaplogroups included in the PCA are as follows: H (excluding H5), H5, HV0 (including HV0*, HV0a, and V), HV (including HV1 but excluding H and HV0), R0a, U1, U2, U3, U4, U5a, U5b, U6, U7, U8, K, U* (represented mainly by U9), J, T1, T2, X, N1 (represented mainly by I), N2 (represented mainly by W), M, and sub-Saharan L. The size of the circles represents the remaining axes (4–24) and is inversely proportional to the error associated with the projection of each population on the first three PCs.13 The numbers of subjects and haplogroup frequencies for each population are provided in table 2.As for the population samples from Tuscany, both the first and second PC place Volterra and the Casentino Valley in the central Mediterranean area, together with most of the other Italian samples. In contrast, Murlo is placed relatively close to the Near Eastern populations. This peculiar location of Murlo is also maintained overall by including additional PCs (fig. 1). Interestingly, the third PC indicates that the modern population of Lemnos is an outlier in the genetic landscape, with particular features distinguishing it from both modern European and Near Eastern populations. It is worth mentioning (1) that Lemnos is the island in the northern Aegean Sea that was indicated by Hellanicus of Lesbos (5th century b.c.) as a possible homeland of a group of Pelasgians who arrived in Italy and gave rise to the Tyrrhenians and (2) that a stele—dated ∼600 b.c.—found on Lemnos contains inscriptions in a language similar to Etruscan.15 However, like many small islands, Lemnos must have undergone much more drift than did villages like Murlo that are located in a densely populated region, as well as many more warring events. The contribution of each haplogroup to the first and second PC, in the analysis shown in figure 1, is illustrated in figure 2. Haplogroups H (in western Europe, comprising mainly H1 and H3), HV0 (formerly known as “pre-V”), and U5b are concentrated at the European pole, which confirms the major role played by the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area in the recolonization of Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum.16 At the other pole—the one where Murlo is located, with the populations from the Near East—the remainder (HV* plus HV1) of haplogroup HV and haplogroups R0a, U7, and U3 are the major contributors, and the absolute frequencies of three of these (HV without H and HV0, R0a, and U7) differ significantly (P<.01) when Tuscans, Europeans (not including Tuscans), and non-Europeans are compared (table 3). Moreover, in contrast to in Europeans (not including Tuscans), the frequencies of these three haplogroups in Tuscans and non-Europeans are both higher than expected (table 4). The spatial distribution of haplogroups HV without H and HV0, R0a, U7, and U3 in an overall frequency map that encompasses western Eurasia and North Africa is illustrated in figure 3. This figure reveals that, for all of these haplogroups, there is a frequency peak in the Near East, thus explaining the major contributing role of these four haplogroups in the PCA. However, in all cases, Tuscany was found to harbor a secondary frequency peak, which often neatly distinguishes this Italian region not only from the rest of Europe but also from the surrounding regions of the Italian peninsula. Haplotype diversity (fig. 4) indicates that these peaks—in contrast to those observed, for instance, in northeastern Spain for U3 or in Ireland and Wales for HV (fig. 3)—cannot be attributed to genetic drift and/or founder events. Figure 2. Plot of the contribution of each haplogroup to the first and second PC (projections of the axes of the original variables) in the analysis of figure 1.Figure 3. Geographical locations of populations surveyed for R0a, HV (without H and HV0), U7, and U3 mtDNAs and their spatial frequency distributions. Frequency maps of haplogroups were obtained using Surfer version 6.04 (Golden Software), with the Kriging procedure, and estimates at each grid node were inferred by considering the entire data set. Etruria and the island of Lemnos (top) are indicated in yellow and red, respectively. Frequency values for populations 1–58 are from table 2, whereas those for populations 59–69 are as follows: 59 from the present study and the work of Plaza et al. 17; 60 and 64 from the work of Quintana-Murci et al. 18; 61 from the present study and the work of Richards et al. 7; 62, 65–67, and 69 from the present study; 63 from the present study and the work of Plaza et al. 17; and 68 from the work of Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 19After evaluating interpopulation relationships at the haplogroup level, we moved to a different level of resolution—that of haplotypes. We compared the 209 control-region haplotypes found in the three Tuscan groups, whose phylogenetic relationships are illustrated in the trees of figures Figure 4 and Figure 5, with a data set of 15,328 control-region sequences that are representative of a wide range of western Eurasian populations (table 2). This survey revealed 11 haplotypes/motifs (∼5%) (in color in the tree of fig. 5) that belong to different haplogroups (H, R0a, U1b, U7, J1d, and T1a) that are shared between Tuscans and Near Eastern populations but are absent in a total of 10,589 mtDNAs from Europe, including 2,311 mtDNAs from Italy. All others, except two related R0a haplotypes and one HV haplotype that were seen only in Tuscans (fig. 5), were shared either with at least one European population or with both European and Near Eastern populations. One of the H motifs (16145–16227), shared exclusively between Tuscans (two from Volterra and one from the Casentino Valley) and Near Easterners (one Turk, one Jordanian, and one Syrian), appears to define a novel subhaplogroup, named “H19.” The corresponding six HVS-I sequences sharing this motif are identical. This suggests that, if the motif 16145–16227 arose in the Near East, its arrival in Tuscany is recent. Similarly, ages of the other 10 shared haplotypes cannot be reasonably estimated. However, all occupy terminal positions in the tree of figure 5, indicating a rather recent occurrence among Tuscans. Figure 4. Tree of the 209 mtDNA haplotypes observed among the 322 Tuscans (GenBank accession numbers EF026248–EF026569), subdivided according to their origin. This tree was constructed manually by comparison with the available mtDNA data sets and the basal Eurasian mtDNA classification trees.8, 9, 10, 11 and 16 Haplotypes (from np 16024 to np 210) are 53 from Murlo, 59 from Volterra, 78 from the Casentino Valley, and 19 that are shared by at least two of the Tuscan groups. Haplogroups and subhaplogroups are indicated in red. The numbers on the connecting branches refer to the revised reference sequence (rCRS)20 and indicate either mutations from the sequence range or haplogroup diagnostic sites (red) outside that range. Mutations are transitions unless the base change is explicitly indicated. Insertions are suffixed with a plus sign (+) and the inserted nucleotide, and deletions have a “d” suffix. Heteroplasmic positions are indicated by an “h” after the nucleotide position.It is worth noting that such an extent of exclusive haplotype sharing between Tuscans and Near Eastern populations is more than threefold higher than that observed in a total of 314 HVS-I haplotypes from the Marche region—a neighboring region of central Italy located just across the Apennines—which, however, was never inhabited or conquered by the Etruscans. The extensive haplotype sharing between Tuscans and other western Eurasian populations—including a detectable amount with only Levantine populations—strongly contrasts with the results obtained by comparing the haplotypes found in Tuscans with the 23 haplotypes detected in the skeletal remains of 28 Etruscans.21 The latter comparison reveals only three matches (CRS, 16261, and 16311). When the Etruscan haplotypes are instead compared with 2,311 Italian mtDNAs, seven matches are observed (CRS, 16126, 16129, 16223, 16261, 16311, and 16189–16356), apparently reaching a plateau, since they remain the same when the counterpart is represented by 15,328 western Eurasian mtDNAs. Thus, ∼70% of the recorded Etruscan haplotypes do not fit anywhere in the mtDNA landscape of western Eurasia—a result that is difficult to explain. Given the fact that the matched haplotypes are the simplest in terms of number of mutations (generally one nucleotide difference from the reference sequence), a likely explanation is that postmortem DNA modifications and/or technical problems22 and 23 affected the Etruscan mtDNA sequences.24 and 25 Such a scenario not only makes it unlikely that models and simulations based on such data26 will provide new clues on the origin of Etruscans, but it also raises the possibility that ancient mtDNA data, unless associated with clear-cut phylogeographic signals,27 may be more misleading than clarifying in studies concerning the prehistory of regional populations. Figure 5. Haplotypes found in Tuscany and shared exclusively with Near Eastern populations. Shared haplotypes are shown in different colors. Near East areas where the matching haplotypes were detected are illustrated on the map (inset) by colored circles. A group of six related R0a mtDNAs with the basic motif 16126-16230-16362, as well as two HV mtDNAs with the motif 16172-16311-16352, were found only in Tuscans (black). For additional information, see the legend of figure 4.Analysis of the maternally inherited mtDNA, which, in the case of Etruria, is probably the most appropriate tool for evaluation of genetic continuity between Etruscans and modern Tuscans, places Murlo close to Near Eastern populations because of an unusually high frequency (17.5%) of Near Eastern haplogroups (HV, R0a, U7, and U3). Moreover, this allocation cannot be explained by genetic drift, since each of these haplogroups is represented by several different haplotypes. Finally, 5.3% of the haplotypes observed in Tuscany—all occupying terminal positions in the phylogeny—are found elsewhere only in Levantine populations. This distribution suggests a recent and direct link between Tuscany and the Near East—a link not mediated by either geographically intermediate European populations or surrounding Italian populations. Overall, these mtDNA data and others from different organisms28 support the scenario of a post-Neolithic genetic input from the Near East to the present-day popwulation of Tuscany, a scenario that is in agreement with an Anatolian origin of Etruscans.2 Traces of this relatively recent arrival from the Near East are still detectable in Tuscany, despite extensive dilution by admixture with both native and surrounding Italic populations and later immigration. Achilli, Alessandro, et al. " Mitochondrial DNA variation of modern Tuscans supports the near eastern origin of Etruscans." The American Journal of Human Genetics 80.4 (2007): 759-768.
|
|