The mystery of Lactase Persistence (LP) in Europeans

I sometimes take scientific articles to seriously, but it's probably good to reference the actual references within in the article. Thanks Angela. I can't find the reference supplied by the article that talks about 6500 year claim of LP in a Northern German ancient man. I don't know if Andrew Curry made it up or if he didn't cite his work correctly, or if it's buried in one of his listed sources. Does somebody know the actual study that the article is propagating?
 
I sometimes take scientific articles to seriously, but it's probably good to reference the actual references within in the article. Thanks Angela. I can't find the reference supplied by the article that talks about 6500 year claim of LP in a Northern German ancient man. I don't know if Andrew Curry made it up or if he didn't cite his work correctly, or if it's buried in one of his listed sources. Does somebody know the actual study that the article is propagating?



I tried to find a Burger et al paper where he states that a sample from 4500 B.C. in Central Europe carried the lactase persistent gene but nothing turned up.

In fact, the only paper of his that I could find that talked about ancient Central European DNA in this context said that it didn't show up in any of those samples tested. He does state that based on some computer modeling it might have been present at low levels around 4500 B.C., but that's not quite the same thing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1820653/

This isn't to say that such a paper doesn't exist...it's just that I couldn't find it.

This is Jean Manco's page on ancient autosomal results for this marker. The earliest it shows up seems to be 3300 B.C., which I suppose according to some analysts might be recent enough for an Indo-Euopean input. She's always meticulous about things like this, but I don't know how recently the page was updated.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/autosomaladna.shtml#lactase

Sorry I couldn't find anything more definitive.
 
Yes ! the race for meat closer to the Auroch but the mestizo who give European dairy cows. You can still see the difference today
and it is in Europe that are created Varietal dairy with lactose intake at the time of europeanNeolithic

That is not correct, at least for the British cattle, as I already pointed out. Some of the British dairy cattle are marked with green and some of of them are marked with red, and some of the British beef cattle are marked with green and some of them are marked with red. However, I'm not familiar enough with other European breeds of cattle to know whether red and green indicate cattle type in Germany or France or wherever.
 
@Angela

..................

@Aberdeen

"
I feel better when I have more dairy in my diet. And although my Y haplotype is I1, I can't help but wonder how many of my indirect paternal ancestors were R1b."

The highest rates of LP overlap with the highest rates of I1. It's not just a descended from R1b thing. It's a descended from [regions where milk was a particularly critical part of the diet in the neolithic] thing.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/6959/lactose.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lhXgXOSp_a0/UKljuK_d9AI/AAAAAAAAABM/gB_lmZj0Jqc/s1600/792px-Distribution_Haplogroup_I_Y-DNA.svg.png




That's true, to some extent. Although there's a lot of R1b in Sweden, there's more I1. And there's little R1b in Finland and a lot of I1. But the most common Y haplotype in Finland is N, and yet Finland has a very high rate of lactase persistence. I find that interesting, but I'm not sure what it means. I'd like to know the rate of lactase persistence among folk with high rates of Y haplotype N in Siberia.
 
@Aberdeen

"But the most common Y haplotype in Finland is N, and yet Finland has a very high rate of lactase persistence. I find that interesting, but I'm not sure what it means."

I think it means regions on the forward edge of the advance of agriculture where for some reason milk can partially compensate for crops not yet being adapted to the local climate select strongly for LP regardless of y DNA.

So wherever LP started from it could exist in many populations at a low to moderate level and then have a dramatic sweep in the right conditions.

.

"
That is not correct, at least for the British cattle"

Either way the distinct Atlantic distribution is interesting.
 
@Aberdeen

"But the most common Y haplotype in Finland is N, and yet Finland has a very high rate of lactase persistence. I find that interesting, but I'm not sure what it means."

I think it means regions on the forward edge of the advance of agriculture where for some reason milk can partially compensate for crops not yet being adapted to the local climate select strongly for LP regardless of y DNA.

So wherever LP started from it could exist in many populations at a low to moderate level and then have a dramatic sweep in the right conditions.

.

"
That is not correct, at least for the British cattle"

Either way the distinct Atlantic distribution is interesting.

So I guess you're assuming that once a mutation causing lactase persistence occurs, it remains, even if the amount of lactose consumption subsequently decreases. That seems likely, but I don't know how one would prove or disprove that idea.

As far as the map is concerned, I find data to be useful only if it's accurate.
 
So I guess you're assuming that once a mutation causing lactase persistence occurs, it remains, even if the amount of lactose consumption subsequently decreases. That seems likely, but I don't know how one would prove or disprove that idea.

As far as the map is concerned, I find data to be useful only if it's accurate.
Mathematically, I guess, frequency of mutation of single gene multiplied by population numbers, in function of time. Without environmental selection, the only law is the luck, the chance, randomness. One should be able to calculate time frame of complete disappearance ( or below 1% level) of LP allele.

It's like we can't prove who is going to die in car accidents, we can't print the names of unlucky ones in advance, but we can statistically calculate number of deaths for a country to one percentile precision.
 
Aberdeen : Mt DNA H1, H3, T1 are LP.
We can assume that many Scandinavians : H1, H3, T1 as Irish, Basque, English...
 
So I guess you're assuming that once a mutation causing lactase persistence occurs, it remains, even if the amount of lactose consumption subsequently decreases. That seems likely, but I don't know how one would prove or disprove that idea.

No, I'm just avoiding the argument about where LP arose as it's not relevant to the main point about the development of a cattle-centric culture with a milk-heavy diet on the forward edge of farming. LP might well have evolved and disappeared many times but we know it arose somewhere and lasted long enough for it to somehow spread to fixation in certain regions of Europe.
 
just a document (link) concerning Meso-Neolithic transition in Britain and ireland

arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf31/31thomas.pdf‎
 
Mongols are very interesting example of high dairy diet, and surprisingly only being around 30% lactose persistent. (if all the maps are correct).

This is from the trip of Lieutenant-Colonel Nikolai Mikhailovich Przhevalsky in 1870:
[h=2]Milk and Meat[/h]"The food of the Mongols also consists of milk prepared in various ways, either as butter, curds, whey or koumiss. The curds are made from the unskimmed milk, which is gently simmered over a slow fire, and then allowed to stand for some time, after which the thick cream is skimmed off and dried, and roasted millet often added to it. The whey is prepared from sour skimmed milk, and is made into small dry lumps of cheese. Lastly, the koumiss is prepared from mares' or sheep's milk; all through the summer it is considered the greatest luxury, and Mongols are in the habit of constantly riding to visit their friends and taste the koumiss till they generally become intoxicated. They are all inclined to indulge too freely, although drunkenness is not so rife with them as it is in more civilized countries.
"Tea and milk constitute the chief food of the Mongols all the year round, but they are equally fond of mutton. The highest praise they can bestow on any food is to say that it is ‘as good as mutton.' Sheep, like camels, are sacred; indeed all their domestic animals are emblems of some good qualities. The favorite part is the tail, which is pure fat.

When it comes to "white foods" (anything made from milk), almost everything is heated due to the brucellosis problem within the country. The only thing that they commonly drink raw is mare's milk just taken from the mare when it is still warm. I have had it and it is quite tasty. They all want to drink the milk from a white mare for health reasons. They will drink from any mare, but the most sought after is a white mare

Looks like they used to have diet only made of dairy and meat. Makes you think how they manage doing it without being lactose tolerant. Granted they consume most dairy as cheeses and butter, but in quantities they do one would think they should be lactose tolerant.
One explanation is that they must have adequate bacterial flora in their digestive organs to help them deal with all the lactose, or we are missing one more gene or allele taking part in lactose digestion.

If it is about bacterial flora, it would be a good news for people who are not LP but like eating dairy. Start with small quantities of natural products containing good bacteria. With time build up consumption and your good bacterial flora will grow together adequately.
 
Mongols are very interesting example of high dairy diet, and surprisingly only being around 30% lactose persistent. (if all the maps are correct).

This is from the trip of Lieutenant-Colonel Nikolai Mikhailovich Przhevalsky in 1870:


Looks like they used to have diet only made of dairy and meat. Makes you think how they manage doing it without being lactose tolerant. Granted they consume most dairy as cheeses and butter, but in quantities they do one would think they should be lactose tolerant.
One explanation is that they must have adequate bacterial flora in their digestive organs to help them deal with all the lactose, or we are missing one more gene or allele taking part in lactose digestion.

If it is about bacterial flora, it would be a good news for people who are not LP but like eating dairy. Start with small quantities of natural products containing good bacteria. With time build up consumption and your good bacterial flora will grow together adequately.

As you say, if they don't have an as yet undiscovered LP gene, something else is going on, since even if each individual food might be low in lactose, the total must be pretty high. I wonder what foods would be important for development of this intestinal flora?

On a somewhat related note, I read an article the other day about the fact that there seems to be an ever increasing number of people in the U.S. who can no longer digest dairy. The author was speculating that it might have to do with the fact that all the milk is ultra-pasteurized. I have no idea if that would have an effect, but if it does, what irony if the process that made it safer should make it indigestible for certain people.
 
As you say, if they don't have an as yet undiscovered LP gene, something else is going on, since even if each individual food might be low in lactose, the total must be pretty high. I wonder what foods would be important for development of this intestinal flora?

On a somewhat related note, I read an article the other day about the fact that there seems to be an ever increasing number of people in the U.S. who can no longer digest dairy. The author was speculating that it might have to do with the fact that all the milk is ultra-pasteurized. I have no idea if that would have an effect, but if it does, what irony if the process that made it safer should make it indigestible for certain people.
I'm thinking along same lines, plus who knows what damage the overuse of antibiotics do to our digestive system.
Some lines of useful digesting bacteria, adapted to way of lives of our ancestors and their guts, might be gone forever. (just a thought).
 
The British Royal Society has published a paper showing that some Finns were using milk products 4500 years ago, which seems like quite an early date. The abstract and a link to the full article (free) is here.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1791/20140819.abstract

And here's a copy of the abstract.

"The conventional ‘Neolithic package’ comprised animals and plants originally domesticated in the Near East. As farming spread on a generally northwest trajectory across Europe, early pastoralists would have been faced with the challenge of making farming viable in regions in which the organisms were poorly adapted to providing optimal yields or even surviving. Hence, it has long been debated whether Neolithic economies were ever established at the modern limits of agriculture. Here, we examine food residues in pottery, testing a hypothesis that Neolithic farming was practiced beyond the 60th parallel north. Our findings, based on diagnostic biomarker lipids and δ13C values of preserved fatty acids, reveal a transition at ca 2500 BC from the exploitation of aquatic organisms to processing of ruminant products, specifically milk, confirming farming was practiced at high latitudes. Combining this with genetic, environmental and archaeological information, we demonstrate the origins of dairying probably accompanied an incoming, genetically distinct, population successfully establishing this new subsistence ‘package’."

However, when you read the whole article, the picture seems to be more complex. I'm too tired to study it carefully tonight, but it seems to be worth a read.
 
I think the interesting thing about this study is that it seems to disprove the idea that dairy farming is a fairly recent phenomenon in Finland. The Comb Ware sherds from 3900-3300 B.C. contained residue that indicated a hunting-fishing-foraging economy, with marine lipids being the most common. However, the Corded Ware sherds from 2500 B.C. contained traces of animal remains and, in the case of the drinking vessels, milk fats. Only one Corded Ware vessel showed traces of marine material, and it apparently had the closest proximity to the sea of all the Corded Ware sherds examined.

The paper also states that:
"The Final ‘Neolithic’ Kiukainen culture, whose ceramic inventory shows similarities with Late Corded Ware and local hunter–fisher–forager ware (Pyheensilta Late Comb Ware), is believed to be a cultural amalgamation emerging locally during a period of climatic deterioration [20,32]. While the low number of residues recovered makes interpretation preliminary, this intriguingly appears mirrored in the pottery residues, because the fatty acid stable carbon isotope values fall along a mixing line between ruminant and non-ruminant/marine products."

And:

"Finally, residues from Early Metal Age pottery (ca 1200–500 BC) all derived from dairy fats. Increasing population size despite the continuing climatic deterioration of the Late Holocene is believed to have arisen from the intensification of agriculture by the later Metal Ages which overcame environmental constraints upon population size. Certainly, such a scenario of established stock-rearing would be supported by the prevalence of dairy fats in the pots."

So, when we try to determine why lactose tolerance is so common among Finns, it seems to me that one factor is that lactose has been consumed by Finns for a very long time, contrary to what some people have assumed. Using lactose regularly promotes lactose tolerance.

 
A well readable and highly interesting essay:
https://cuwhist.files.wordpress.com...ological-legacy-of-a-neolithic-love-story.pdf.

The peak distribution of lactase persistence matches an area also showing the highest diversity of cattle milk genes. Notably, this region corresponds to the land of the Neolithic farmers of the Funnel Beaker Culture from the third millennium BC suggesting a remarkable gene-culture co-evolution. (..)
From a purely nutritional side it is therefore not clear why such an extremely strong selective advantage is conferred by the lactase persistence phenotype. However, this mutation is characteristic for cultures that share the traits of animal domestication and adult milk consumption. Pastoralist populations in Africa also display the lactase persistence phenotype (90% in Tutsi, 50% in Fulani), they likewise show haplotype homozygosity extending for > 2 Mb around the lactase gene. The changes are again point mutations in the lactase enhancer region, but they are molecularly distinct from those found in European people (G/C-14010, T/G-13915, C/G-13907) (Tishkoff et al., 2007). We have here a remarkable case for convergent adaptive evolution. Is it possible that the lactase-associated haplotype is adaptive for something else in addition to fresh milk digestion? Might it confer protection against infection like another sugar-degrading enzyme, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, against malaria? (..)
The close contact between domesticated animals and the farmers created problems: humans were in too close contact with sick animals and trans-species infections became much more likely. The hunter met his prey only at distance and when he could touch the prey, the animal was already dead. All the mechanisms, which microbes induced in the infected host to assure their transmission like sneezing, coughing or diarrhoea are not any longer operative in the dead animal. The farmer probably also discovered quite early the value of animal dung for burning and as fertilizer on the field, which recycles animal pathogens into the human food chain. We can thus safely anticipate that the early farming society was plagued by new diseases (Diamond, 1997). Zoonosis was feeding new pathogens into the human population (Weiss, 2001).
Notably, important human pathogens, which happen to belong to the most transmissible agents like measles and smallpox, have their closest relatives in viruses from domesticated animals. Sequence analysis revealed that measles, which today circulates exclusively in the human population, is a close relative of rinderpest virus of cattle and the Peste des petits ruminants virus of sheep and goat (all belong to the morbillivirus group of paramyxoviruses) (Griffin, 2001; Lamb and Kolakofsky, 2001). If viruses had co-evolved with their hosts during evolution, we would expect the closest relatives of measles virus in paramyxoviruses of primates. In the morbillivirus group only a Tupaiavirus is known, but the systematic attribution of tupaias (tree shrews) to the primates is disputed (some zoologists classify them with the insectivores). (..)
The close relationship of smallpox (variola) virus (Moss, 2001) with the cowpox virus permitted one of the biggest success stories of medicine. Milkmaids who had acquired cowpox were resistant to smallpox. Based on this observation, Jenner developed modern vaccination by inoculating cowpox lesion material into humans. The very name vaccination recalls the cow (Latin vacca) and underlines again the close relationship between a human and a bovine virus. The precise origin of the vaccinia virus is not known. In fact smallpox seems to have emerged perhaps 5000 years ago presumably from wild animals like rodents (Esposito et al., 2006). Cattle are only an intermediate host. However, this does not change the argument. Rats and mice, attracted by the cereal stores of the early farmers, belong as a pest also to the undesired content list of the Neolithic package like fleas and lice. The closest existing relative of smallpox is camelpox, but this does not go against the argument either since camel bedouins also have developed lactase persistence characterizing them as members of the dairy cultures. After the eradication of smallpox, cases looking like smallpox have been traced to monkeypox, demonstrating ongoing trans-species infection and a possible reservoir independent of dairy animals.

Another paper that I have read (unfortunately not bookmarked) notes the paucity of Mesolithic HG remains in certain entrance areas of EEF (e.g. parts of Italy, Bohemia), and speculates on an "American" scenario, whereby some early "scouts" had transmitted yet unknown diseases onto the "natives". The paper also notes that certain areas, notably Iberia, withstood Neolithic immigration for a sustained period. Since bats are a common disease reservoir, as demonstrated by SARS or Ebola, the theory was put forward that cave-dwelling HG populations had already received immunity from occasional contact with bats, and thus could withstand (some of) the EEFs infectious pressure
In this sense, one could also speculate that HGs in the North European plain had built up resistance against certain diseases. Note that Bad Segeberg in Schleswig-Holstein has the highest European bat population today, though (migratory) birds, including geese, are also a relevant virus reservoir. So, NW Europeans might already have been immunised (probably including some genetic selection process) against certain potentially cattle-transmitted diseases - a trait new entrants from the Balkan lacked. Or, alternatively, bush and forest cleaning drove bats closer to farm-sites, where they encountered cattle (typically grazing in open forests), and spread their diseases via them to the farmers. Mesolithic HGs along the North and Baltic Sea are known to have cultivated hazelnut, so squirrels are an alternative potential disease vector. Smallpox, which are supposed to have originated from rodents, could particularly be of an issue here.
 
A well readable and highly interesting essay:
https://cuwhist.files.wordpress.com...ological-legacy-of-a-neolithic-love-story.pdf.



Another paper that I have read (unfortunately not bookmarked) notes the paucity of Mesolithic HG remains in certain entrance areas of EEF (e.g. parts of Italy, Bohemia), and speculates on an "American" scenario, whereby some early "scouts" had transmitted yet unknown diseases onto the "natives". The paper also notes that certain areas, notably Iberia, withstood Neolithic immigration for a sustained period. Since bats are a common disease reservoir, as demonstrated by SARS or Ebola, the theory was put forward that cave-dwelling HG populations had already received immunity from occasional contact with bats, and thus could withstand (some of) the EEFs infectious pressure
In this sense, one could also speculate that HGs in the North European plain had built up resistance against certain diseases. Note that Bad Segeberg in Schleswig-Holstein has the highest European bat population today, though (migratory) birds, including geese, are also a relevant virus reservoir. So, NW Europeans might already have been immunised (probably including some genetic selection process) against certain potentially cattle-transmitted diseases - a trait new entrants from the Balkan lacked. Or, alternatively, bush and forest cleaning drove bats closer to farm-sites, where they encountered cattle (typically grazing in open forests), and spread their diseases via them to the farmers. Mesolithic HGs along the North and Baltic Sea are known to have cultivated hazelnut, so squirrels are an alternative potential disease vector. Smallpox, which are supposed to have originated from rodents, could particularly be of an issue here.
I don't think "American" scenario makes much sense in Europe. Europe never was disconnected and insulated from the rest of the world, the way America or Australia is. As you know yourself, in Eurasia there was always a trading network between different groups of hunter gatherers or with farmers, therefore "free flow" of new diseases between them. Surely, it didn't work as fast as in modern world but what is a decade or two, just a small delay. At least European HG were not pummeled by barrage of new diseases, as Americans were when Europeans arrived.


There is a mystery though, if it comes to American/Europen first contact. The new diseases should have worked both ways, as Europeans were not immuned much to American strains either. But it didn't work both ways. Could it be a matter of bad luck for American Natives?
 
I don't think "American" scenario makes much sense in Europe. Europe never was disconnected and insulated from the rest of the world, the way America or Australia is. As you know yourself, in Eurasia there was always a trading network between different groups of hunter gatherers or with farmers, therefore "free flow" of new diseases between them. Surely, it didn't work as fast as in modern world but what is a decade or two, just a small delay. At least European HG were not pummeled by barrage of new diseases, as Americans were when Europeans arrived.

There is a mystery though, if it comes to American/Europen first contact. The new diseases should have worked both ways, as Europeans were not immuned much to American strains either. But it didn't work both ways. Could it be a matter of bad luck for American Natives?
It comes with farming, The first evidence of animal-related diseases is Tuberculosis identified in remains of 7,000 BC Greek early farmers. Farming populations gradually build up resistance, by means of an intensive selection process (so their population drops, goes up again, drops, etc.), and after some time they are immune but still carry the germs. The biggest killer of all, btw., is still today the flu (via poultry, pigs, but also cattle), but most Europeans now survive it. Native Americans didn't. And by 6,000 BC, HGs were still quite isolated, and met East Mediterranean early farmers that already had gone through 1-2 millenniums of genetically building up resistance.

Europe had "American" moments with the plague, which seems to be endemic around the Himalaya, with the Antonine Plague (probably a henceforth unknown strain of smallpox or measles), most likely also when Malaria was imported into the Mediterranean from Sub-Saharan Africa by migrants (the Anopheles mosquito was probably already around, but it only starts transmitting after it has bitten an infected person).
There is a nice study in German on diseases they identified in Slovakian and East German bronze-age grave fields: Lepra, Syphhillis, Borrelliose / Meningitis, 50% with chronical respiratory infections (possibly also due to the flu), and around 25% with symptoms of arsenic poisoning from working with arsenic bronze, or, especially the women, carrying arsenic bonze necklaces and earrings. Quite a lot of Vitamin B and C shortage as well (actually the first problem encountered by early farmers when they switch to a cereal-based diet, the second one is caries).

America had few domesticized animals, little possibility to build up resistance. There's one exception - the turkey, which was found to be the host of SARS. But the SARS virus is closely related to others that are found in pheasants, cats, mice, rats, and various seagulls, so many Europeans (especially from the coast) might already have had developed some basic resistance. However, compare this to records of the first Europeans travelling to south and south-east Asia ("fewer-hell" etc.).

Read my linked article - its all in there (well, mostly, you can in addition check out Wikipedia pages on various diseases, they typically include a section on history).
 
I found that paper again. The "Mesolithic HG disappeared already before massive settlement of EEF" is just the introduction. It's mainly about a special allele,
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/9368/1/9368.pdf
Though some diseases, such as tuberculosis, are observable from archaeological skeletal remains (Roberts & Buikstra 2003), most zoonoses are not so detectable, even by ancient DNA analysis (Barnes & Thomas 2006). There is, nevertheless, evidence of rapid selection for genetic resistance to one or more of these diseases during the last 7000 years or so (Wolfe et al. 2007).
We suggest that a prime genetic candidate for this resistance is CCR5-32, a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene. Normally, this gene encodes the lymphocyte transmembrane coreceptor to which HIV can bind (Dean et al. 1996; Liu et al. 1996), enabling the virus to infect CD4 lymphocytes. In people homozygous for the CCR5-32 allele, however, the truncated CCR5 does not reach the cell surface, thus preventing access to HIV.

The CCR5-32 allele is found in 10–15% of people of Northern European descent and is rare or absent in those of Asian or African descent (O’Brien et al. 2008). Within Europe there is a north to south gradient in its distribution with highest frequencies being found in Finnish and adjacent Russian populations, suggesting that the original mutation producing this allele took place in north-east Europe (Libert et al. 1998). Mesolithic DNA from southern Sweden dates the allele to around 7000 years ago, suggesting it originated in Mesolithic populations, and yet achieved a frequency of 17% in Swedish Neolithic populations (Liden et al. 2006).To increase in frequency so rapidly implies considerable selection pressure. The Early Neolithic was a time of unique new selection pressure; the gene-culture co-evolution of Neolithic subsistence farmers with persistent lactase production enabling lactose tolerance occurred through strong selection for the T-13910 allele that exists among most modern Europeans, but which was negligible amongst the earliest Neolithic Europeans (Burger et al. 2007; Itan et al. 2010).
Among the diseases CCR5-32 allele may originally have conferred resistance against, HIV-1 is an unlikely candidate because it is thought to have originated in early twentieth century Central Africa (Korber et al. 2000; Vidal et al. 2000). However, CCR5-32 may also protect against pox viruses that, like HIV, gain entry to leucocytes by using chemokine receptors (Lalani et al. 1999).Galvani and Slatkin (2003) suggested that children, being immunologically naiıve, were more likely to be killed by smallpox, which selected against those without the protective CCR5-32 allele, thus increasing its frequency in populations.

If diseases such as smallpox had been brought to Europe via Neolithic spread, it would be ironic if LBK populations gained CCR5-32 frequency through intermarriage with certain north European Mesolithic groups, who were already carriers of the CCR5-32 allele (Liden et al. 2006). This could explain the relative survival of some Mesolithic groups while others, lacking both CCR5-32 and the more general resistance of Neolithic groups, perished.

A nice and short overview on farming and health is here:
http://riversong.wordpress.com/health-impacts-of-a-grain-based-agriculture/
evolutionary-detour.jpg


And a good Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_history_of_viruses
 

This thread has been viewed 98851 times.

Back
Top