Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations

Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations

Abstract
Background: The phylogeography of the Y chromosome in Asia previously suggested that modern humans of African origin initially settled in mainland southern East Asia, and about 25,000– 30,000 years ago, migrated northward, spreading throughout East Asia. However, the fragmented distribution of one East Asian specific Y chromosome lineage (D-M174), which is found at high frequencies only in Tibet, Japan and the Andaman Islands, is inconsistent with this scenario.

Results: In this study, we collected more than 5,000 male samples from 73 East Asian populations and reconstructed the phylogeography of the D-M174 lineage. Our results suggest that D-M174 represents an extremely ancient lineage of modern humans in East Asia, and a deep divergence was observed between northern and southern populations.

Conclusion: We proposed that D-M174 has a southern origin and its northward expansion occurred about 60,000 years ago, predating the northward migration of other major East Asian lineages. The Neolithic expansion of Han culture and the last glacial maximum are likely the key factors leading to the current relic distribution of D-M174 in East Asia. The Tibetan and Japanese populations are the admixture of two ancient populations represented by two major East Asian specific Y chromosome lineages, the O and D haplogroups.

Another bit of light reading in my search forinfo on the DE Y chromosome. One DE sample is spotted in Tibet in this paper-the other sites being in West Africa. It puts D down as 60k  old, which (for once) seems a near realistic age for one of the older Y chromosome groups.  So much for Y chromosome Adam being 60k old.

12 responses to “Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations

  1. There is another paper where they found some DE* dont know which one though. Read it a while ago. I THINK they may have even found some E* Since they were not looking for E, I am not sure how high resolution that E was.

    • DE so far in Tbet, Nigeia and one other W African country I think. They found E in India. Lord knows how this al works out. there have been a couple of near wipe out events in India and N Africa so a lot of structure was lost.

  2. oh my god ! caucasians from africa since 60.000 in japan and tibet !!
    I noticed that Ainu have caucasian features look like Mediteranean ! ! !
    thx mathilda for this informations

    • Ainu aren’t caucasoid- genetically they are typically East Asian. Go back about 40k and all the Eurasians look like a mix of mongoloid, australoid and caucasoid. Ainu are remnants.

      Typically caucasoid skull shapes don’t start appearing until about 30k ago

  3. We proposed that D-M174 has a southern origin and its northward expansion occurred about 60,000 years ago, predating the northward migration of other major East Asian lineages.

    I am almost in full agreement with this. My only point of divergence is that I estimate D expansion to have happened more like 77,000 years ago (a very rough estimate in any case, as this haplogroup is not too well studied) and that 60-55,000 would be instead the dates for the expansion of the other main East Asian clades: C and NO. But guess that 60 kya is ok for the mainstream conservative “recentist” academic paradigm, based in picking up some fossil data and excluding or ignoring other.

    So much for Y chromosome Adam being 60k old.

    IMO some 110,000 years old (at least).

    On the D structure (very interesting to see at haplotype level, fig 3), it seems apparent that the origin was at SE Asia (Daic peoples especially – and by the apportions I’d say Thailand). Yet (with the exception of Japanese-only D2, the branch leading to Andamanese D* and a subset of D1 that looks strongly Daic-Hmong-Mien) all the rest is markedly Tibetan, and that is especially true for D3. This is kind of odd though the paper argues that Tibet was at least explored by humans as early as 40-30,000 years ago (any further info on this?)

    • IMO some 110,000 years old (at least).

      We agree on something. I was having a look at Y chr C and figured out that one of it’s downstream mutations c4 needs to be at least 55k to 60k old- C itself has to be way older (from entry to OZ). They do so majorly underestimate the Y chr dates.

      (any further info on this?)

      Sorry, the Near east and north Africa is my area.

  4. I have some major uncertainties on haplogroup C, as it is poorly studied in general and hence I have to rely in very few known SNPs. The uncertainty of my estimates for this and other poorly known clades (H, D itself) is therefore big and I will gladly fine -tune it on new SNP discoveries when they arrive.

    But for the moment I get a rough estimate of some 60 kya for the C node (i.e. the branching into C1-C6 subclades) while C (like its brother F) would be as old as c. 102 kya., immediately after the (first) OOA epysode (estimated by the age of the C,F node and roughly coincident with the archaeological datations for Aterian and early Levantine AMHs).

    Hence C (in particular) appears to show a very long coalescence period of some 40 ky, almost double that that of F.

    Anyhow, what I wanted to say is that, in my SNP-based estimates, Australian aboriginal Y-DNA clades appear to have expanded only “recently” (the S node is like 40kya and the C2 node like 30 kya). The lineages may have been in continental Oceania (or nearby) since long before (c. 60 kya) but they appear to have coalesced for a long period before expansion. This pattern is nevertheless not evident in local mtDNA instead, that seems estabilished since the early Eurasian expansive pulses.

    As said, there is some large margin of error because of lack of research of these Y-DNA clades, but this assymetric situation is not apparent in Papua/Melanesia instead (Y-DNA M gets a date of expansion older than 60kya). So I wonder if there was a male-driven secondary expansion within Australia at a late moment.

    Sorry, the Near east and north Africa is my area.

    And we love you for that.🙂

  5. “We proposed that D-M174 has a southern origin”.

    Why? They admit “a deep divergence was observed between northern and southern populations” and so one would expect this ‘deep divergence’ to be ancient and so significant. I believe all we can say is that it expanded at some time from the hill country of Western China.

    “c4 needs to be at least 55k to 60k old- C itself has to be way older (from entry to OZ)”.

    Exactly. And if all the branches of C diversified around the same time this puts Central Asian C3 as being similarly ancient.

    “Australian aboriginal Y-DNA clades appear to have expanded only ‘recently’”.

    But that doesn’t mean that expansion didn’t take place just within Australia. It’s just that a more recent expansion within Australia has replaced many earlier haplogroups. It’s generally accepted Australian Aborigine population numbers have fluctuated greatly, as have most other human populations.

    “C2 node like 30 kya”.

    C2 is not found in Australia. It’s mainly Eastern and Central Indonesian and Pacific islands. Again, it seems to have diversified from a widespread C early on.

  6. Great site this mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com and I am really pleased to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor🙂

  7. formidable site this mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com nice to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor🙂

  8. terrific site this mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com rated to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor🙂

  9. You also need to consider the coastal line changes before and after last ice age(LCM) – 20K -10K years ago. During the LGM, the coastal line was dramtically different than today’s. The yellow sea was a land and Japan was connected to the main land. D haplogroup was a coast deweller and beach comber around that regions but due to sea level changes (Whether sea level changes happened dramatically or not). Many got wiped out from the coastal region due to many factors – Tusnamis, lack of foods sources, earthquakes,severe weather conditions and so on and some survied and others escaped/moved. That’s why we see the D haplogroup population sporatic and sparsely – evolved/mutated differently and have a different founder’s effect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s