April 30, 2011

O2b and other Y-DNA from Korea and surroundings

In another discussion, Terry brought up this recent paper on O2b and Korean patrilineages (with important references to the rest of East Asia) that I believe is worth mentioning:


Much of the paper is tainted by insistence on lineage age speculations (TMRCA) which help nothing, are unscientific and induce confusion. However I do find interesting that they seem to find (figure 3) that SE Asian instances of O2b (O2b* and O2b1) are derived and not ancestral in relation to NE Asian ones. Hence the occasional O2b found in SE Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.) looks like having originated in Korea or nearby. 

On the other hand the haplotype neighbor-joining structures for O3 and C still look like rooted in the South. In relation to NE Asian C (C1 and C3) I find most curious that a single Korean haplotype would seem to hold together C1 and C3, maybe indicating a joint origin within C for these two NE Asian haplogroups.

Overall I get the impression of a South to North colonization in East Asia, which pretty much set the fundamentals of modern population genetics in the whole region. This process was surely followed at a later time by some North to South backflow, which does not need to be "Neolithic" (beginning in South China at least as early as in the North) nor "Han" (in many cases the relevant haplogroups are definitively not found among North Han but Koreans, Japanese, etc.), it may well be, at least partly, related to the extension of blade industries since c. 20 Ka ago, phenomenon that might have got a southwards pointing vector. 

In any case, an important reference for data miners. 

8 comments:

  1. There must be something wrong with their testing on O3-002611. How come they didn't get any O3-002611 among the samples. And in the chart, O3a3-P201 should include M159, M7, P164/M134/M117.

    http://ranhaer.com/thread-15118-1-1.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now that you mention, it is indeed strange.

    I'd say they did not actually test for it and it's under O3a*. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  3. They list O3-002611 in their chart, haplotree and table 2, but 0% of O3-002611 were there among any the samples. Maybe 002611 were included in O3a*, but it's still strange. Dr. Shi Yan (also one of our forum members) has written to the Korean team for the O3-002611 question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is the response from the Korean author:

    "As your comments, the O3a4-002611 seems to be included in O3a* lineage so that the O3a4-002611 marker will be removed in our data."

    http://ranhaer.com/viewthread.php?tid=15118&page=1#pid224525

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just as I thought. It seems an edition error rather than anything else. Thanks for the info anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I do find interesting that they seem to find (figure 3) that SE Asian instances of O2b (O2b* and O2b1) are derived and not ancestral in relation to NE Asian ones. Hence the occasional O2b found in SE Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.) looks like having originated in Korea or nearby".

    Good to see you've come round on that one.

    "Overall I get the impression of a South to North colonization in East Asia"

    On what grounds?

    "On the other hand the haplotype neighbor-joining structures for O3 and C still look like rooted in the South".

    But hang on:

    "I'd say they did not actually test for it and it's under O3a*".

    So their data on O3 is far from definitive.

    "I find most curious that a single Korean haplotype would seem to hold together C1 and C3, maybe indicating a joint origin within C for these two NE Asian haplogroups".

    That is interesting. Another interesting item is the proportion of 'other' through much of the region. How much is C and how much F or K?

    "This process was surely followed at a later time by some North to South backflow, which does not need to be 'Neolithic' (beginning in South China at least as early as in the North) nor 'Han' (in many cases the relevant haplogroups are definitively not found among North Han but Koreans, Japanese, etc.), it may well be, at least partly, related to the extension of blade industries since c. 20 Ka ago, phenomenon that might have got a southwards pointing vector".

    I hope I've never given the impression that I think the southward movement is totally 'Han'. I'm certainly prepared to accept it's earlier, although I'd hesistate to claim that it's Paleolithic. I don't think the blade industries presence in the south is as old as 20 Ka ago. It seems it's largely post Hoabinhian.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "How much is C and how much F or K?"

    Silly me. It's in the paper.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Good to see you've come round on that one".

    Another 'lucky guess' on my part?

    ReplyDelete

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Preliminary comment moderation is... ON (sorry, too many trolls).