Y-DNA R1a spread from Iran

While this conclusion was something more or less reachable with previous data (see HERE for example), a new study adds some fine detail for us to reconstruct the paleohistory of this major Eurasian lineage.

Peter A. Underhill et al., The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a. EJHG 2014. Pay per view → LINK [doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.50]

Important: supplemental materials are freely available.

Abstract

R1a-M420 is one of the most widely spread Y-chromosome haplogroups; however, its substructure within Europe and Asia has remained poorly characterized. Using a panel of 16 244 male subjects from 126 populations sampled across Eurasia, we identified 2923 R1a-M420 Y-chromosomes and analyzed them to a highly granular phylogeographic resolution. Whole Y-chromosome sequence analysis of eight R1a and five R1b individuals suggests a divergence time of ~25 000 (95% CI: 21 300–29 000) years ago and a coalescence time within R1a-M417 of ~5800 (95% CI: 4800–6800) years. The spatial frequency distributions of R1a sub-haplogroups conclusively indicate two major groups, one found primarily in Europe and the other confined to Central and South Asia. Beyond the major European versus Asian dichotomy, we describe several younger sub-haplogroups. Based on spatial distributions and diversity patterns within the R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey, we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran.

This case, as well as many others, including that of its close relatives R1b and Q, illustrate why frequency is not the same as origin, which can only be inferred (if at all) by studying the hierarchical diversity of the lineage. These three lineages for example, must have spread from West Asia but they are relatively less important in numbers in that region today, overshadowed by other lineages, notably J. Instead their derived branches had major impacts in other regions (Europe, South and Central Asia, Siberia and America).

Frequencies of the main lineages

There are two main sub-lineages of R1a, which according to the current ISOGG tree version (maybe to be refitted after this study?) are known as R1a1a1b2 (Z93) and R1a1a1b1a (Z282). The first one is essentially Asian (with greatest frequencies in South and Central Asia, where it includes >98% of all R1a individuals) wile the latter is almost exclusively European (notably Eastern European but with a distinct branch in Scandinavia, encompassing together >96% of R1a individuals in Europe).

These maps give us a quite decent glimpse of the main scatter patterns of R1a but alone they can't inform us of its origins. For that we have to look at the detailed tree and the relationship of its samples with geography. 

Origins and distribution of R1a

As mentioned above, the authors conclude that R1a and R1a1 must come from Iran, where the greatest basal diversity is:

To infer the geographic origin of hg R1a-M420, we identified populations harboring at least one of the two most basal haplogroups and possessing high haplogroup diversity. Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus. Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a.

Between these top tier nodes (R1a and R1a1) and the two most common sublineages described above, this study only found one paragroup represented: R1a1a1* (M417). This should be an important step in the analysis but the researchers prefer to remain silent on it. Why? I guess that the reason is that it is complicated to analyze and reach to sound conclusions. 

I spent some time today looking at the haplotypes of this paragroup mentioned in the study and I could not reach a conclusion either: the majority of the sequences are from Europe and all them (excepting a highly derived Norwegian line and including a low derived Iranian one) seem to derive from a North German haplotype. I call this group "branch A". 

However there is at least one West Asian sequence (from Turkey) which seems independent ("branch B"), while an Indian and the already mentioned Norwegian sequence could derive from either one. So my impression is that there is an specifically North European "branch A" but also some other stuff with West Asian centrality ("branch B") within this key paragroup. 

Guess that I could say a lot more about not being able to say much more on this key intermediate step but, synthetically there are two options among which I can't decide:

• Branch A went back to West Asia from where it spread again to Eastern Europe and Central South Asia.
• Branch B is actually at the origin of the two derived and highly spread subhaplogroups.

Whatever the case I understand that there are good reasons to think that these spread first from West Asia, at the very least Z93 and very likely also  Z282. 

R1a1a1b2 (Z93)

There is nothing European in this lineage: only some lesser terminal branches at the Southern Urals, roughly where the Kurgan phenomenon began some 6000 years ago. 

This detail is indeed remarkable because, if, as often argued, R1a or some of its subclades spread from there, we should expect at least some basal diversity being retained. Instead all we see are some highly derived branches. So the main conclusion must be that the expansion of R1a does not seem related to the Kurgan phenomenon, except maybe in some secondary instances. 

As mentioned before, this lineage is Central and South Asian and comprises the vast majority of R1a in those two regions. 

The detailed haplotype network can be seen in Supp. Info fig. 2.

In essence we can say that:

• Z93* has three apparent distinct branches stemming from West Asia (incl. Caucasus) and another one from South Asia/Altai (1). 
• Z95* has two apparent distinct branches:
• A small one with presence in West Asia and Southern Europe
• Another one (pre-M780?) stemming from South or West Asia
• M780 has clear origins in South Asia (incl. most Roma lineages)
• Z2125 also appears to originate in South Asia, even if it has a greater spread outside it, notably to Central Asia
• M580 and M582 appear related and surely originated in West Asia

Weighting them:

• Z95:
• West Asia: 2
• South Asia: 2
• West/South Asia: 1

Therefore the origin of Z95 should be though as West-South Asian but undecided between either region. Say Afghanistan for example. 

• Z93:
• West Asia: 3
• West/South Asia: 1 (Z95)
• South Asia/Altai: 1 

In this case I would say that West Asia is almost certainly the origin, although tending to Central/South Asia. For example: Iran again. 

So, regardless of whether the previous stage (M417) represents a stay in West Asia or a back-migration from Europe into West Asia, West Asia is clearly at the origin of Z93. It does not represent any Kurgan migration but an Asian phenomenon with origins towards the West (around Iran).

R1a1a1b1a (Z282)

On first sight this European sublineage seemed quite simpler: it is obvious that the bulk of it spread from Eastern Europe. However, when we look at the haplotype network, we cannot confirm this pattern for the Norwegian or Scandinavian haplogroup Z284, which is only linked to the rest via some South European and West Asian samples. 

So my conclusion must be that Z282 experienced a main expansion from Eastern Europe but only into Eastern and Central Europe and that the Scandinavian variant almost certainly represents another flow within this haplogroup, with the knot being in West Asia. 

Anyhow the main East and Central European expansion seems true. For some reason it is not centered in any obvious prehistorical locality, as could be the Volga or maybe Ukraine, but instead its center is further North around Smolensk. 

Overall reconstruction of the spread of R1a

With all the previous analysis I made this map, which also shows in discrete gray color the general pattern of expansion of haplogroup R:

We have an expansion of R into South Asia and Western Eurasia (incl. Central Asia) and even into parts of Africa (R1b-V88) from apparent South Asian (R, R1 and R2) and West Asian (R1a, R1b) origins. Related lineages Q and P* could also be integrated into this pattern of expansion but I did not want to overload the map with too many details. 

There is some uncertainty regarding the North European branches of R1a but otherwise the pattern seems quite clear. 

On these North European branches, I must say that they remind me of other odd lineages with similar geography: R1b-U106, I1-M253 and I2a2-M223. With the likely exception of R1b-U106 neither appears to have experienced any significant re-expansion since their arrival to that corner of the World, however they do seem to survive pretty well in it. 

Time frame?

Finally we seem to be entering the age of full Y chromosome sequencing and a more serious molecular clock based on it. As I have explained on other occasions (for example), the human Y chromosome is large enough to experience mutations almost every single generation, what should provide a decent molecular clock, unlike the very rough approximations used in the past. 

However the issue of correct calibration remains open. As you surely know the academy is slow to incorporate the most recent evidence, especially from fields distinct to their specialty. Hence I do not expect them to calibrate based on the obvious fact that age(CF) or at least age(F)=100,000 years. They are probably still stuck in old concepts of a "recent" out-of-Africa migration c. 60 or at most 80 Ka ago, as well as the usual Pan-Homo spilt under-estimates

I must reckon in any case that I had not enough time to study this matter in depth yet, so the previous observation is rather my idea of what to expect.

In any case in this study the authors resorted to full Y chromosome to calculate their age estimates and I applaud them for doing so. As apparent in fig. 5, all R1 derived sequences have approximately the same number of accumulated SNPs, what in principle allows for a perfected molecular clock, assuming it is well calibrated. 

Their estimate is as follows:

A consensus has not yet been reached on the rate at which Y-chromosome SNPs accumulate within this 9.99Mb sequence. Recent estimates include one SNP per: ~100 years,⁵⁸ 122 years,⁴ 151 years⁵ (deep sequencing reanalysis rate), and 162 years.⁵⁹ Using a rate of one SNP per 122 years, and based on an average branch length of 206 SNPs from the common ancestor of the 13 sequences, we estimate the bifurcation of R1 into R1a and R1b to have occurred ~25,100 ago (95% CI: 21,300–29,000). Using the 8 R1a lineages, with an average length of 48 SNPs accumulated since the common ancestor, we estimate the splintering of R1a-M417 to have occurred rather recently, B5800 years ago (95% CI: 4800–6800). The slowest mutation rate estimate would inflate these time estimates by one third, and the fastest would deflate them by 17%.

The references correspond to (4) Poznick 2013, (5) Francalacci 2013, (58) Xue 2009 and (59) Méndez 2013. This last is the Anzick study, of which at the very least we can say that they had a real calibration point in the ancient Amerindian DNA. It is also the one which provides the longest mutation rate. 

Considering that Xue 2009 is "old" (for this avant-guard aspect of this pretty young science), I find their choice of the Poznick rate quite a bit conservative. The Francalacci rate is the intermediate one of the three "recent" papers referenced and it is also quite close to the calibrated Méndez rate. 

Personally I would choose the later without a second thought. As long as CF ends up being younger than 100 Ka, it is positively too conservative anyhow.

Using the Méndez (Anzick-calibrated) rate of 162 years per SNP, I get the following corrected estimates:

• R1a/R1b split (R1 node): 33,000 years ago (CI: 26.0-42.5 Ka)
• R1a-M417 node: 7,700 years ago (CI: 6.4-9.0 Ka)

These seem fair enough to me, judging on the fact that the core R1a expansion seems to originate in West Asia (at the very least for the South/Central Asian branch), what fits much better with a Neolithic frame than with the Kurgan one.

It also fits better with my previous estimates after due re-calibration of Terry D. Robb's full sequence Y-DNA tree, although my estimates are even older, especially after a second recalibration to adjust to the recent discovery of widespread H. sapiens evidence in South and East Asia c. 100 Ka ago. 

In my understanding the R1 node is actually c. 48 Ka old (R1b: c. 34 Ka.), what, apportioning, yields a date of c. 11.2 Ka for the R1a-M-417 node. 



Update (Mar 31):best possible molecular clock estimates for R1:

Follows fig. 5 of Underhill et al. 2014, annotated by me in red and purple colors:

• Red: age estimates calibrated for age(CF)=~100Ka, which is what modern archaeological evidence overwhelmingly supports for the second phase of the migration Out of Africa (or rather out of Arabia into India and East Asia). Dots drawn to help identify the estimated nodes.
• Purple: general references of European (plus) prehistorical cultures or periods for the key ages estimated.

If I'm correct, then the expansion of R1b in Europe still corresponds in rough terms to the Magdalenian period or, more generally, the late Upper Paleolithic. This does not mean that it remained that way forever (it may well have been reshuffled later on: in the Epipaleolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic) but it seems to be the time-frame of its main expansion when the main lineages got established, whatever happened to them later on.

I know well that so far ancient DNA for this lineage remains to be found and that the dominant haplogroup among known Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers was (for all we know) I2a. However this is what the refined full Y chromosome sequence molecular clock, properly calibrated according to the archaeological evidence for the settling of Asia by H. sapiens, has to say. If you wish to dismiss this and use another estimate instead, that's always up to you. I just hope that you know what you're doing.

Anyhow, if I am correct, then the expansion of R1a is neither Chalcolithic nor Neolithic but clearly Epipaleolithic. Does it make any sense? I can't say for sure because this period is not so well understood. Whatever the case, is it possible to integrate the key pre-Neolithic Zarzian culture of the Zagros (map) in this scheme of things? What about all the other question marks that fill the gaps of our mediocre knowledge of the Mesolithic of West Asia? Or is it the Balcanic Epigravettian to be blamed instead? Or both?

I really can't say with any certainty at this stage. But I am intrigued indeed.


Update (Mar 31): frequency pie charts of Underhill's data available at Kurdish DNA.


Update (Aug 2015): I must update the frequencies of the various upstream paragroups, in agreement with table S4, because I may have missed some details initially. However the overall tendency is the same.

• R1a* (M420): Italy (1), Turkey East (1), Turkey Cappadocia (2), UAE (1), Oman (1), Iran (set 2) (2), Iran NE (1), Iran South (5), Iran North (5), Azeris-Iran (5).
• R1a1* (SRY10831.2): Iran (set 2) (1), Iran NE (1), Iran South (2), Iran North (1), Kabardin (1). In addition it has more recently been found in two Epipaleolithic Eastern Europeans (EHG), from Karelia (Haak 2015) and Smolenskaya Oblast (Chekunova 2014).
• Ra1a1a1* (M417): Ireland (1), Netherlands (3), Norway (1), South Sweden (1), Germany (1), Estonia (1), Hungary (1), Turkey East (Kurds) (1), Iran (set 3) (1), India South (1). 

Lactase persistence genetics in Africa

This month we get to know a bit more about the ability of humans to digest milk sugars (lactose) in adulthood, with particular emphasis on Africa:

Alessia Ranciaro et al., Genetic Origins of Lactase Persistence and the Spread of Pastoralism in Africa. AJHG 2014. Pay per view (free access after 6-month embargo) → LINK [doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.02.009]

Abstract

In humans, the ability to digest lactose, the sugar in milk, declines after weaning because of decreasing levels of the enzyme lactase-phlorizin hydrolase, encoded by LCT. However, some individuals maintain high enzyme amounts and are able to digest lactose into adulthood (i.e., they have the lactase-persistence [LP] trait). It is thought that selection has played a major role in maintaining this genetically determined phenotypic trait in different human populations that practice pastoralism. To identify variants associated with the LP trait and to study its evolutionary history in Africa, we sequenced MCM6 introns 9 and 13 and ∼2 kb of the LCT promoter region in 819 individuals from 63 African populations and in 154 non-Africans from nine populations. We also genotyped four microsatellites in an ∼198 kb region in a subset of 252 individuals to reconstruct the origin and spread of LP-associated variants in Africa. Additionally, we examined the association between LP and genetic variability at candidate regulatory regions in 513 individuals from eastern Africa. Our analyses confirmed the association between the LP trait and three common variants in intron 13 (C-14010, G-13907, and G-13915). Furthermore, we identified two additional LP-associated SNPs in intron 13 and the promoter region (G-12962 and T-956, respectively). Using neutrality tests based on the allele frequency spectrum and long-range linkage disequilibrium, we detected strong signatures of recent positive selection in eastern African populations and the Fulani from central Africa. In addition, haplotype analysis supported an eastern African origin of the C-14010 LP-associated mutation in southern Africa.

The study detects in essence four alleles that explain lactase persistence in Africa: one (Fulani and other Central Africans) is the same as in Europe, another (Afroasiatics and some Nilotics from NE Africa) is related to Arabia but at least two other variants are African-specific:

Figure 3. Contour Maps of Africa Show the Allele Frequency Distribution for the Four Primary SNPs Associated with the LP Trait in the Current Study

 

from Fig. 4 (haplotype network)

Interestingly, three of the alleles are related in the haplotype network (to the right), suggesting a common remote origin, maybe in the shared Neolithic origins of West Asia. The fact that they mostly affect peoples of Afroasiatic language (and to lesser extent some other groups of the Sahel) rather suggests a common origin in either West Asia or the Nile (which most likely had some sort of impact in the Western Neolithic, judging from the distribution of the lineage E1b1b1 in the present as in the past and the minor African affinity of early European farmers).

Instead the C-14010 allele, present in East Africa around Lake Victoria, and to some extent also in SW Africa, seems very much unrelated.

Alleles and their variants 

The European T-13910 allele as three main haplotype variants in Africa: 

• The Mozabite one is related to West Asia
• The main Fulani and Bulala one is related to Europe
• A third variant includes only Fulani and Arabic Baggara (strictly African therefore)

Judging on the haplotype tree to the right, the Mozabite/West Asian variant probably derives from Europe but the case for the Central African ones is much less clear.

The authors estimate the allele to have an age between 12,000 and 5,000 years, i.e. approximately early Neolithic. This would allow it to have arrived to Africa and Europe separately before booming. 

The G-13915 allele is attributed by the authors to Arabian origins c. 4000 years ago, based on previous studies and its presence only in Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan speakers. However I can't but notice that the haplotype structure above is centered in East Africa, with Arabian and Middle Eastern sequences being found only at the branches, what makes me cast a prudential question mark on that claim.

The G-13907 variant is clearly NE African in origin and distribution, with the greatest frequency being among the Beja (Afroasiatic pastoralists of coastal Sudan). This one is restricted to Afroasiatic speakers only, mostly of the Cushitic branch. The authors did not produce an age estimate for this branch.

The C-14010 allele could be as old as 23,000 years or as recent as only 1200 using the 95% C.I. Again it is essentially present among Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic (Southern Cushitic) populations, rather than among Bantu speakers, suggesting again association with pastoralism. 

Notably this allele has reached Southern Africa but it seems more directly related to the Khoe-Khoe pastoralist history and maybe other populations of possible East African origins (Himba, Herero) than to anything Bantu. 

Lactase persistence in hunter-gatherers and other roles of the enzyme

To the surprise of the authors the Hadza hunter-gatherers have high frequencies (47%) of the lactase persistence phenotype (not associated to any of the previously mentioned alleles), something they try to explain on the grounds that the same enzymes that allow lactose digestion, also works as the enzyme phlorizin-hydrolase, which uses the substance phlorizin, found in many Rosaceae (the main group of fruit-producing plants). Besides its anti-diabetic properties, phlorizin has also been used to fight against malaria, what may well be another pathway of positive selection, alternative to usefulness of lactose digestion.

This is a particularly interesting note because it could potentially feed also alternative explanations for the strong selection of lactase persistence alleles in other populations, particularly Europeans. Just tentatively, it might have helped to fend off diabetes (type II) in high carbohydrate diets typical of the Neolithic onwards. The fact that people of West Eurasian and African ancestry are somewhat less prone to this type of diabetes than people of other Asian and Native American ancestry may support this function of lactase persistence.

However in the case of the Hadza a role against malaria (same enzyme) seems more likely. 

Still plenty of room for further research

There are still way too many pockets of lactase persistence phenotype which remain unexplained and more rarely (Afghan Tajiks particularly) also pockets of lactose intolerance lacking explanation, as I discussed in 2010. Map of worldwide actual LP phenotype from Yuval Itan 2010:

In the case of Africa the Western Sahel pocket is most intriguing. Also the alleged 88% LP phenotype in the Sudanese (not apparent in the map but data from the same study - maybe they meant Western Sudanese from the Sudan region, i.e. the Sahel and not the Republic of Sudan?), which is only explained in half. Even Germans and Italians have much greater ability to digest milk than what their known alleles can explain so far. 

Iberian Chalcolithic: Perdigões ditch enclosure seen in its temporal context

The Perdigões Research Program blog mentions a new study where the structure is dissected through time, revealing it as a meeting area (with whatever ritual implications) for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic peoples of that area of the Alentejo near the Guadiana river.

A.C. Valera, A.M. Silva & J.E. Martínez Romero, THE TEMPORALITY OF PERDIGÕES ENCLOSURES: ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL PRACTICES. SPAL Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología, nº23, 2014. Freely accessible → LINK [doi:10.12795/spal.2014i23.01]

Abstract: Thirty five radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic ditched enclosure of Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz, Portugal) are presented. After a discussion of some of the problems of dating negative structures, a chronological sequence is presented for the ditch structures and for the social practices related to funerary behaviours and the manipulation of human remains. A clear Neolithic phase is identified, well separated chronologically from the Chalcolithic one. The possibility of the gradual and eventually interrupted development of the site, is discussed. Funerary contexts and the manipulation of human remains are present from the earliest phase of the site, but the practices became significantly diverse during the 3rd millennium by the end of which the site seems to decay and significant activity seems to stop. 

Fig. 5 (red highlights are mine)

To the right we can see fig. 5 of the paper ("Representation of the actual understanding of the chronological development of Perdigões"), just that I have highlighted with red paint the elements known to be active in each period, because I felt that black vs grey was not visible enough. 

Regarding the cromlech (stone ring, represented as a circle to the right), lead author Antonio Valera commented at the Perdigões Research Program blog that they are not yet 100% certain of its age, although he does believe it is from the earliest context. That's what I marked it with a dotted line instead of a continuous one.

This cromlech was one of the items that interested me the most because in other contexts, as happens with Pyrenean ones, they are historically known in some cases to have been reference sites for community meetings (the local constituent power), but here they are from the Iron Age. 

It is notable that, in the historical cases from the Pyrenees, the meetings did not take place inside the cromlechs themselves (usually too small and occasionally burial sites) but near them. Similarly in this case of Perdigões the meeting (and possibly ritual) area defined by the ditches is located by the cromlech, west of it specifically. 

Later on two tholoi (beehive tombs, typical of Chalcolithic South Iberia) were built near the cromlech, being eventually enclosed by the last and largest ditch.

The chronological pattern also suggests the idea of growth: if the structure was being made bigger and bigger, it seems logical to think that it was because the community using it was also growing, what should not be any surprise. 

The site was abandoned at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. At that time SW Iberia was experiencing significant changes with the abandonment of urban centers and other traditions like these Megalithic ones, and being replaced by a sequence of (seemingly intrusive) Bronze Age "horizons" dominated by burials in cist with a triangular bronze knife as most characteristic grave good and occasional "grabsystem" tombs, probably of princely character. These Bronze Age "horizons" expanded from the Algarve to the North and Northeast up to approximately the Tagus river at their apogee, being maybe ancestral to the mysterious Tartessian language, which spanned approximately the same area in the Iron Age.