|The Tao (Yami) people are central to this research|
There's a new open access paper on the genetics of some isolated Malayo-Polynesian speaking peoples of the islands between Philippines and Taiwan:
Jun-Hun Loo et al., Genetic affinities between the Yami tribe people of Orchid Island and the Philippine Islanders of the Batanes archipelago. BMC Genetics, 2011. Open access.
It is probably important for what it adds to the knowledge not just of these isolated peoples but specially of their neighbors and relatives through all SE Asia.
There is a lot of information and emphasis on Y-DNA and much less so on mtDNA, probably indicating some bias on the side of the researchers.
Critically molecular clock hunches are shown to be wrong again:
Finally, artifacts dating 4,000 YBP, found on Orchid Island and indicating association with the Out of Taiwan hypothesis might be related to a pioneering stage of settlement, as most dating estimates inferred from DNA variation in our data set ranged between 100-3,000 YBP.
As if DNA age guesstimates are any better than archaeological hard evidence. Please, geneticists of the World, step down of the molecular clock silly pedestal as it's as feeble as the belief in creationism. Reaching conclusions based only or mostly on molecular clock conjectures only makes fools of yourselves.
Something as simple as undervaluing the Pan-Homo divergence by 25% (a systematic widespread error) will cause the errors you are displaying here, as the 4000 years BP are in fact a calibration point, not something you can even discuss based only on erudite (but typically wrong, unscientific and never demonstrated) algorithms.
The authors emphasize some Y-DNA connections between the Batanes or Philippines and the Tao (Yami) people of Orchid island but they choose to ignore the many other instances in which the Tao are more directly connected to Indonesians, Thai or the Taiwan Plain Tribe.
In any case a data mine for all interested: table S3 in particular has NJ trees for a number of major Austronesian/SE Asian Y-DNA haplogroups.
They also tested O1a1-P203, O1a2-M110, O3a3-P201 and O3a4-002611, which were also tested in the Karafet study in 2010. For those who haven't read the Y-DNA data of this paper:ReplyDelete
Note: Not all the haplogroups are shown in the data below. The rest of % of Fujian Han and Taiwan Han Y-DNA haplogroups should include many O3a3c-M134* and O3a3c1-M117.
O1a1-P203 = 22.6%
O2a-M95* = 5.7%
O3a3-P201* = 3.8%
O3a4-002611*(xP103) = 26.4%
O1a-M119* = 1.1%
O1a1-P203 = 12.8%
O1a2-M110 = 1.1%
O2a-M95* = 6.4%
O2a1a-PK4 = 2.1%
O3a3-P201* = 4.3%
O3a4-002611*(xP103) = 16.0%
O1a-M119* = 7.7%
O1a1-P203 = 90.4
O1a2-M110 = 1.9%
O1a1-P203 = 87.5%
O1a2-M110 = 4.2%
O1a2-M110 = 60.7%
O2a1a-PK4 = 37.5%
O1a-M119* = 4.9%
O1a1-P203 = 90.2%
O1a2-M110 = 4.9%
O1a1-P203 = 41.0%
O1a2-M110 = 17.9%
O3a3-P201* = 35.9%
O1a-M119* = 24.0%
O1a1-P203 = 40.0%
O1a2-M110 = 28.0%
O3a3-P201* = 4.0%
O1a-M119* = 13.0%
O1a1-P203 = 47.8%
O1a2-M110 = 21.7%
O3a3-P201* = 17.4%
O1a-M119* = 6.9%
O1a1-P203* = 69.0%
O1a2-M110 = 24.1%
O1a-M119* = 33.3%
O1a1-P203 = 50.0%
O2a-M95* = 10.0%
O2a1a-PK4 = 3.3%
O3a4-002611*(xP103) = 3.3%
O1a-M119* = 41.6%
O1a1-P203 = 4.2%
O1a2-M110 = 16.7%
O3a3-P201* = 12.5%
O3a4-002611*(xP103) = 25.0%
O1a-M119* = 12.3%
O1a1-P203 = 15.6%
O1a2-M110 = 10.6%
O2a1a-PK4 = 4.1%
O3a3-P201* = 19.7%
O3a4-002611*(xP103) = 0.8%
Yes, it's a data mine. But after looking at graphs and figures for a while I only got a headache, honestly.ReplyDelete
Any idea on *meaning* besides raw data?
Why getting a headache, Maju?ReplyDelete
For me, the bomb of the data is the frequencies of O3a4-002611*(xP103), 26.4% among Fujian Han, 16.0% among Taiwan Han, and 25.0% among Ivatan, but it's weird that only 3.3% in Yami and 0.8% in Filipino(xIvatan), 0.0% in other Taiwan mainland tribes.
I do recall that O3a4-002611 was seen in Taiwan plain tribes in another Marie Lin/Jean Trejaut's paper. People tend to suppose that O3a4-002611 are late commers, unlike O1 among Taiwan native tribes. So what cause 25.0% among Ivatan? Is it because of drift? In our forum, we compare the Ivatan O3a4-002611 Y-STRs to other data, and we found some matches among samples from China southeast seashores.
"Why getting a headache, Maju?"ReplyDelete
Because I could not see any specific pattern, do you?
"For me, the bomb of the data is the frequencies of O3a4-002611*(xP103), 26.4% among Fujian Han"
Is that the same as the Minnan? Minnan would seem to be pre-Han even if they speak a Chinese dialect nowadays.
Anyhow the Ivadan O3a4 is clearly derived from Taiwan Plains Tribe and concentrated in a small haplotrypes' cluster, so it's a very clear case of founder effect.
"People tend to suppose that O3a4-002611 are late commers, unlike O1 among Taiwan native tribes".ReplyDelete
I'm sure that is so. O3 probably emerged into island SE Asia around the time that Austronesian-speaking people met them on the mainland. They finished up being the main O haplogroup that managed to mve east into the wider Pacific.
"So what cause 25.0% among Ivatan? Is it because of drift?"
Probably related to that movement into the wider Pacific. Although 'it's weird that only 3.3% in Yami and 0.8% in Filipino(xIvatan), 0.0% in other Taiwan mainland tribes'.
"Anyhow the Ivadan O3a4 is clearly derived from Taiwan Plains Tribe and concentrated in a small haplotrypes' cluster, so it's a very clear case of founder effect".ReplyDelete
From outside Taiwan. From the data Natsuya provided it's obvious that O1a is the Taiwanese haplogroup that began the Austronesian spread. It is extremely wel represented in Taiwanese Aboriginals.
Look at the supplemental table 3 please. There it is clear that the small Ivatan O3a4* cluster is part of a much wider Taiwan Plain Tribe network, with some presence in the mainland (Minnan) and projecting to both mainland and Indonesia in more disconnected branches (clusters). The Fujian Chinese (Han) are in these unrelated clusters, connected to Minnan, Indonesians, Filipinos and Taiwan Plain Tribe but not with Ivatan.ReplyDelete
Ivatan O1a* seems to have a Filipino origin instead. But it's a quite complex network of networks, so that's why I said I got a headache...
Yeaaa, Maju, the networks are complex, it's better for us to look directly at the Y-STR raw data.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately, the Y-STRs provided in the paper are not complete.
So I wrote to the authors, Jean Trejaut and Marie Lin from Taiwan.
Jean wrote back to me today. He said that they can't share the complete Y-STRs for now, because they are preparing the other two upcoming papers about Y-DNA of Taiwan aboriginals (including Plain Tribes). He said, give them a few months to publish the papers. Maybe we'll see them in months. I do hope so.
BTW, this is our Chinese Anthropology/DNA forum below discussing the paper, you guys can surf it if you know a little Mandarin.
There is also English board in the forum, welcome to post anything:
"Yeaaa, Maju, the networks are complex, it's better for us to look directly at the Y-STR raw data".ReplyDelete
It's always easier to work with images than raw data, at least for me. In any case, the networks should reflect the raw data, so no idea why the raw data could be more informative in any way.
"There is also English board in the forum, welcome to post anything"...
There's an English board where everything is in Chinese characters! :(
Anyhow, my question: why so enthusiastic about this paper and so silent about the other recent paper on Austronesians, the one on Dayaks, which provides much more clear info in my humble opinion.
In most cases, I do prefer images than raw data. But when it comes to Y-STRs, sometimes the images could be misleading. Because different people often make different networks according to the same Y-STRs. It's better to see the images and raw data together...ReplyDelete
Yes... That's a Chinese forum, but many members there understand English. So feel free to post anything! :D
Thanks, Maju. I do know the Iban paper. Too bad the typing of Y-DNA in the paper is poor... They don't test the Y-SNPs under O1a-M119, O2a-M95 and O3-M122, so we're not able to know new subclades like O1a1-P203, O2a1a-PK4, O3a3-P201, O3a4-002611 among the samples. That's why I like more about the study done by Karafet and Marie Lin.
Without typing the new subclades, it's like without testing U106, P312 and L21 under R1b-M269, right?
We're also talking about the Iban paper here:
"That's why I like more about the study done by Karafet and Marie Lin".ReplyDelete
I see: you are more interested in the fine detail. Fair enough but admittedly I needs first (or complementarily) a sense of perspective, so both papers are interesting and complementary.
Also I'm not so much interested only on Y-DNA and, in this sense, the other paper is more complete: mtDNA and autosomal data are explored as well, offering a more complete picture than just via Y-DNA.
"Look at the supplemental table 3 please. There it is clear that the small Ivatan O3a4* cluster is part of a much wider Taiwan Plain Tribe network"ReplyDelete
But O3a itself must have come from outside Taiwan. I've no complaint about Ivatan O3a4 having come from Taiwan. It's where it came from before then that I was commenting on.
"But it's a quite complex network of networks, so that's why I said I got a headache..."
And yet many people persist in imaging that the Austronesian migration was something like that of Abraham and his hanger-on. A migration of a genetically isolated group that had no interaction with its neighbours.
"He said, give them a few months to publish the papers. Maybe we'll see them in months. I do hope so".
Sounds intersting alright.
"But O3a itself must have come from outside Taiwan".ReplyDelete
You are going to much into the deep Paleolithic.
Ivatans and Tao people of batanes (Philippines) and Orchid Island (taiwan) do not share the head hunting practices among Austronesians in Taiwan and just south of the Batanes Islands in Northern part of Luzon Philippines. They are a unique group, even among Taiwanese and Filipino indigenous groups.ReplyDelete