• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago

For most infectious diseases women have an advantage over men. This was long known and was particularly important for newborns and young children. Females have better chances of surviving infectious diseases and bad living conditions overall for a variety of reasons from hormonal status, behavioural and personality variation, to double X-chromosome.
But I don't think R1b in Basques is that much because of a big founder effect at all, even if their subclades show proof for such as well. They are the direct heirs of Iberian Bell Beakers. Its no coincidence that those which had more later admixture and cultural influences also have lower R1b levels. Iberians preserved the Iron Age BB-related ancestry the best, R1b is just one element which proves it.
 
Riverman said:
For most infectious diseases women have an advantage over men. This was long known and was particularly important for newborns and young children. Females have better chances of surviving infectious diseases and bad living conditions overall for a variety of reasons from hormonal status, behavioural and personality variation, to double X-chromosome.
But I don't think R1b in Basques is that much because of a big founder effect at all, even if their subclades show proof for such as well. They are the direct heirs of Iberian Bell Beakers. Its no coincidence that those which had more later admixture and cultural influences also have lower R1b levels. Iberians preserved the Iron Age BB-related ancestry the best, R1b is just one element which proves it.
Click to expand...
I was more focused in the founder effect/genetic drift as a possible explanation for the unusual high RH- frequency among Basques, but ok, my mention to R1b implied a possible correlation. Not sure how these features are distributed in Basque Country, i.e., if there're relevant "regional" differences. Despite this unusual high frequency of RH-, and perhaps blood type O (?), they also have an unusual high frequency of LP, way higher than non-Basque Iberians'.Well, Gipuzkoa province has a very high frequency of R1b (~85%). There could be a correlation if it also had the highest LP %, RH- % etc., which I'm not sure of.
Anyway, this supposed genetic drif in Basques has been theorized for a long time. This is from 2005, for example:
"In addition, the Basques demonstrate peculiarities regarding the distribution of various inherited diseases (i.e., unusual frequencies or founding effects). Taken together, these data support the idea of an ancient and still relatively unmixed population subjected to genetic drift. "
https://www.researchgate.net/public...f_Population_Genetics_and_Mendelian_Disorders

Or this:
"Heterozygosity vs. rii analysis using data from classical genetic markers in the same 14 European populations demonstrates that the Basques fall below the theoretical regression line, suggesting that they have experienced significant genetic drift but little gene flow (Figure 43), thus perhaps accounting for their genetic distinction."
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/6632/Young_ku_0099D_10393_DATA_1.pdf
 
Regio X said:
Firetown, btw, Riverman said you were deep into the subject, so I have a question. A is also a phynotype, associated either to genotype AA or AO. If O (always OO, naturally) has some advantage over A in certain aspects, could it be possible that AO genotype has some advantage over AA?
I know both my parents are AO because their phenotypes are A at the same time I have a brother who is O. Checking this sheet and my own 23andMe results, I guess I'm AO as well. (If anyone decide to check it too, notice that the Orientation of these SNPs at SNPedia is "minus".)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there is very little information or studies, but based on many related studies, I have come to conclude that those who are AO and BO are significantly healthier than those who are AA and BB. There can be two reasons:

a) Heterozygote advantage

This has been shown in many fields, among others Rh positive heterzygotes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728066/
A strong advantage over rh negative and rh positive homozygotes
But all of this depends on the diseases. If you look at infections of viral origin for example, being rh negative appears to be of great advantage, especially being O negative.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141362
RhD negative subjects have increased the risk of developing of certain heart diseases, respiratory diseases and some immunity and autoimmunity related diseases, for example rheumatoid arthritis. The general pattern suggests that RhD negative subjects could have problems with autoimmunity, could be more resistant to infections of viral origin and could be less resistant to infections of bacterial origin.

What this doesn't seem to consider is the fact that we live unhealthy lives. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to react stronger to toxins. Not if we listen to our bodies rather than ignoring warning signs. A mix of a robust (temporarily) protective nature combined with the more sensitive canary in the coalmine one, people tend to adjust better to whatever is dealt. Wherever the gene deletion occurred and done well first is likely where conditions were ideal for those who had our blood types first.

b) While alleles carry functions (in Rh proteins for example transport of gasses, CO2, O2, also toxins), their presence can also be a magnet for health risks. For example, in malaria, type O conveys protection because RIFIN, a protein secreted by parasites, bonds weakly with type O blood cells while strongly linking to type A. In the case of COVID-19, it appears that blood clotting risks are lifted for blood type O as the risk of clotting significantly decreases. Having AO or BO lightens the load if you will. Overall, those with blood type AB tend to do worst on most levels. Even mental health wise:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343596/
The mandatory absence of O (unlike they are cisAB/O which is very rare) contributes.

Sensitivity is actually an advantage. Being more robust can lead to absorbing toxins and be unaware of what will turn out fatal at one point. A can have a protective function in terms of tolerance in your case, but the nature of O keeps you on your toes if you will.

Btw., I do not believe O was "first", but also that just like with Rh negative blood, O is the result of a gene deletion which was beneficial. It can carry disadvantages and contribute sensitive reactions towards all sorts of intruders/toxins, but when kept "clean", will do better.
[h=1]Genotype distributions in Europe[/h][FONT=&quot]
OO: 42 percent[/FONT]​
​
[FONT=&quot]
AO: 38 percent[/FONT]​
​
[FONT=&quot]
AA: 8.4 percent[/FONT]​
​
[FONT=&quot]
BO: 8 percent[/FONT]​
​
[FONT=&quot]
BB:0.36 percent[/FONT]​
​
[FONT=&quot]
AB: 7 percent
[/FONT]​
​
[FONT=&quot]
You are definitely AO. As am I. Are you AO+ or -?[/FONT]
 
firetown said:
Unfortunately, there is very little information or studies, but based on many related studies, I have come to conclude that those who are AO and BO are significantly healthier than those who are AA and BB. There can be two reasons:

a) Heterozygote advantage

This has been shown in many fields, among others Rh positive heterzygotes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728066/
A strong advantage over rh negative and rh positive homozygotes
But all of this depends on the diseases. If you look at infections of viral origin for example, being rh negative appears to be of great advantage, especially being O negative.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141362
RhD negative subjects have increased the risk of developing of certain heart diseases, respiratory diseases and some immunity and autoimmunity related diseases, for example rheumatoid arthritis. The general pattern suggests that RhD negative subjects could have problems with autoimmunity, could be more resistant to infections of viral origin and could be less resistant to infections of bacterial origin.

What this doesn't seem to consider is the fact that we live unhealthy lives. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to react stronger to toxins. Not if we listen to our bodies rather than ignoring warning signs. A mix of a robust (temporarily) protective nature combined with the more sensitive canary in the coalmine one, people tend to adjust better to whatever is dealt. Wherever the gene deletion occurred and done well first is likely where conditions were ideal for those who had our blood types first.

b) While alleles carry functions (in Rh proteins for example transport of gasses, CO2, O2, also toxins), their presence can also be a magnet for health risks. For example, in malaria, type O conveys protection because RIFIN, a protein secreted by parasites, bonds weakly with type O blood cells while strongly linking to type A. In the case of COVID-19, it appears that blood clotting risks are lifted for blood type O as the risk of clotting significantly decreases. Having AO or BO lightens the load if you will. Overall, those with blood type AB tend to do worst on most levels. Even mental health wise:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343596/
The mandatory absence of O (unlike they are cisAB/O which is very rare) contributes.

Sensitivity is actually an advantage. Being more robust can lead to absorbing toxins and be unaware of what will turn out fatal at one point. A can have a protective function in terms of tolerance in your case, but the nature of O keeps you on your toes if you will.

Btw., I do not believe O was "first", but also that just like with Rh negative blood, O is the result of a gene deletion which was beneficial. It can carry disadvantages and contribute sensitive reactions towards all sorts of intruders/toxins, but when kept "clean", will do better.
Genotype distributions in Europe

OO: 42 percent​
AO: 38 percent​
AA: 8.4 percent​
BO: 8 percent​
BB:0.36 percent​
AB: 7 percent
​

You are definitely AO. As am I. Are you AO+ or -?
Click to expand...
These are very interesting infos. Thank you.

As for when the deletion ocurred, a curiosity is that these variations may be observed in primates.

"Chimpanzees have been found thus far to have primarily type A blood, with type O less commonly. Gorillas appear to be exclusively type B. Orangutans express all three blood types."
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/blood-group-antigen-types-and-prevalence
Monkey Rhesus would be exclusively B, as Gorillas.

I guess the prevalence of one over the others may be sometimes related to environment/selection (as possibly RH- in Steppe?), founder effects etc.

As for blood type in my family, in theory my parents, as AO, would have 25% of chances of having an AA child, but I'm AO after all, according to 23andMe Raw Data. My parents and my siblings are all RH+, as myself, my wife (O+) and my son (A+). However, my O+ brother has an O- daughter, which means that he's heterozygous. The odds are that just one of my parents is RH heterozygous, since they had 5 children, and all RH+.
 
Last edited:
Regio X said:
These are very interesting infos. Thank you.

As for when the deletion ocurred, a curiosity is that these variations may be observed in primates.

"Chimpanzees have been found thus far to have primarily type A blood, with type O less commonly. Gorillas appear to be exclusively type B. Orangutans express all three blood types."
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/blood-group-antigen-types-and-prevalence
Monkey Rhesus would be exclusively B, as Gorillas.

I guess the prevalence of one over the others may be sometimes related to environment/selection (as possibly RH- in Steppe?).

As for blood type in my family, in theory my parents, as AO, would have 25% of chances of having an AA child, but I'm AO after all, according to 23andMe Raw Data. My parents and my siblings are all RH+, as myself, my wife (O+) and my son (A+). However, my O+ brother has an O- daughter, which means that he's heterozygous. The odds are that just one of my parents is RH heterozygous, since they had 5 children, and all RH+.
Click to expand...

Right. Let's assume that Rh negative blood came about around the same time as blue eyes did, 7k ybp present maybe around the Black Sea region. The land later claimed by the Yamnaya. I am very much drawn to such logic due to certain rare occurrences such as central heterochromia being more common in people with rh negative blood, same like red/reddish/auburn hair. It is as if there is more of a tendency to show recessive traits as well. This is tough to explain, but there are studies that will not get accepted showing such facts, however, the editors of scientific journals will not accept them without explanation why (which is the reason why in discussion parts of studies the scientists often go haywire with theories hoping to please editors enough to get their studies in).

This is probably wrong, but again: oxygen transport may be problematic for us rh negatives and ridding our bodies of toxins as well. Night-sweats when sick are common and most of all, an ammonia smell. Toxic/acidic sweat is as well.

This is not fantasy or fabrication. I have been working on this for years and the evidence is overwhelming. Left-handedness also for example is extremely high among rh negatives.

In order for the mutation to have survived and done well, the environment must have been ideal. Sea level, by the sea or ocean, plenty of oxygen supply. High anemia frequencies also point to lack of diet once enjoyed in ideal environment (plenty of seafood?).

Unfortunately today's environment is not ideal for the most part. Maybe in Basque region where rh negatives are frequent. Temperature, close to the sea. Pyrenees elevation may not be, but overall the rest seems to make up for it.

So even though I was a part of that study about health differences, I now always point out that under ideal conditions, rh negatives may do better health-wise. It's just that the gene deletion took place and done well under conditions no longer present.
 
In short:
The common terminologies used are to the effect of "Rh negatives are less healthy" and I strongly disagree with that. I turn this around to us being healthy, but living in an environment, eating food etc. that isn't healthy. We react stronger and natural to an unnatural environment.
Canaries in the coalmine:
The initial impact is stronger and more severe, but in the end, whatever affects us more visibly, effects everyone else eventually.
 
firetown said:
Right. Let's assume that Rh negative blood came about around the same time as blue eyes did, 7k ybp present maybe around the Black Sea region. The land later claimed by the Yamnaya. I am very much drawn to such logic due to certain rare occurrences such as central heterochromia being more common in people with rh negative blood, same like red/reddish/auburn hair. It is as if there is more of a tendency to show recessive traits as well. This is tough to explain, but there are studies that will not get accepted showing such facts, however, the editors of scientific journals will not accept them without explanation why (which is the reason why in discussion parts of studies the scientists often go haywire with theories hoping to please editors enough to get their studies in).

This is probably wrong, but again: oxygen transport may be problematic for us rh negatives and ridding our bodies of toxins as well. Night-sweats when sick are common and most of all, an ammonia smell. Toxic/acidic sweat is as well.

This is not fantasy or fabrication. I have been working on this for years and the evidence is overwhelming. Left-handedness also for example is extremely high among rh negatives.

In order for the mutation to have survived and done well, the environment must have been ideal. Sea level, by the sea or ocean, plenty of oxygen supply. High anemia frequencies also point to lack of diet once enjoyed in ideal environment (plenty of seafood?).

Unfortunately today's environment is not ideal for the most part. Maybe in Basque region where rh negatives are frequent. Temperature, close to the sea. Pyrenees elevation may not be, but overall the rest seems to make up for it.

So even though I was a part of that study about health differences, I now always point out that under ideal conditions, rh negatives may do better health-wise. It's just that the gene deletion took place and done well under conditions no longer present.
Click to expand...
It seems RH- is way older than our species.
 
Duarte said:
Yes. Conclusion: I am heterozygous in the RH factor and I am heterozygous in the ABO classification system. This means that I am more healthy? I don’t Know :thinking:
Click to expand...

Rh blood group system wise for the most part.
ABO wise it depends. As I have posted above, when it comes to COVID-19, malaria and a few others, being phenotype A may carry some disadvantages.

By the way:

In European populations Rh positive heterozygotes seem most frequent over rh negative and rh positive homozygotes.

Our study compared the health status of RhD negative subjects (16% in general population of Czech and Slovak Republics) with RhD positive subjects, i.e., with the health status of mixed population of RhD positive homozygotes (36% of the general populations within the Czech and Slovak Republics) and heterozygotes (48% the general populations in the Czech and Slovak Republics).
Click to expand...

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141362
 
edit: deleted: wrong thread, lol
 
My father is -A, I am AB +, I know that one of my brothers is O

When I had to have blood transfusions I preferred and asked that it be AB or B, I noticed a difference when it was only A, I was not satisfied enough, something was missing. It may seem incredible, but it is.
 
Duarte said:
Dear Regio X,
Maybe my dad is a point off the curve, then. Intelligent, politicized, cultured, a great classical music lover, he gave me classes in public accounting and balance sheet analysis, when I knew nothing about it, providing me with a wide range of books and preparing exercises to train me. I owe a big part of my personal and professional success to him. He retired and remained a great devourer of books and newspapers. Sometimes I had a hard time keeping up with his quick thinking. At 80 he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. At 84 he was admitted, when his brain could no longer control even his breathing. He died after 3 months in an ICU. I am flattered when the paternal and maternal family members say that I am the son who most resembles him physically: “The father's features and the mother's skin tone”. He was blood type O, factor RH +. According to the doctor, he resisted because he was a strong man with a healthy heart, who insisted on continuing to beat. My biggest fear: Having Alzheimer and dying the same way he died :sad-2:
Cheers :smile:
Click to expand...
I'm really sorry for your father, Duarte.

The irony is that I have plenty blood type A in family and no association to Alzheimer.
Anyway, the study shows a tendency, as you know. It's a sampling of O people vs. sampling of A, B and AB. So blood type is probably a factor, but there must be others involved, such for example mutations in APOE gene, lifestyle/habits etc.
Perhaps you don't inherited this propensity from your father. Either way, you're still young, and medicine is evolving rapidly. ;)

Cheers
 
My father -A raised me so that he knew what it was to not have a father, I learned it and understood that nobody and nothing could destroy me, not even myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top