https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1966812/v1_covered.pdf?c=1662993174
Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in stone age central and eastern europe
The genomic landscape of Stone Age Europe was shaped by multiple migratory waves and population replacements, but different regions do not all show the same patterns. To refine our understanding of the population dynamics before and after the dawn of the Neolithic, we generated and analyzed genomic sequence data from human remains of 56 individuals from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic across Central and Eastern Europe. We found that Mesolithic European populations formed a geographically widespread isolation-by-distance zone ranging from Central Europe to Siberia, which was already established 10,000 years ago. We also found contrasting patterns of population continuity during the Neolithic transition: people around the lower Dnipro Valley region, Ukraine, showed continuity over 4,000 years, from the Mesolithic to the end of Neolithic, in contrast to almost all other parts of Europe where population turnover drove this cultural change, including vast areas of Central
Europe and around the Danube River.
some takes: WHG average 50% among Sidelkino like samples and 83% among Baltic Hunter Gather
A model-based two-source analysis 206 separated the admixture model (WHG-AfontovaGora3) from the single source models in 15 cases. The estimated admixture proportions of WHG-related ancestry ranged from 50.9 %
(40.9 % - 60.9 %, 95 % Jackknife CI) for Sidelkino to 83.7 % (73.9 % - 93.5 %) for ZVEJ25
Sredni Stog sample was modeled as 33% local ukraine neolithic and 66% Yamnaya in accordance with what we knew already
To test this possible gene-flow, we modeled ukr104 as a 277 mixture of a set of lower Dnipro Valley individuals (ukr087, ukr102, ukr111, ukr113, 278 ukr160) and Yamnaya35 using qpAdm33. Other ancient neighboring groups AN, CHG, EHG, 279 Neolithic Iranian WC1, Mal’ta, WHG and Sunghir were used as ‘right’ populations in 280 addition to an outgroup (chimp, Supplementary Dataset S10). The admixture model fitted
281 the data well (χ2 = 2.37, tail probability = 0.88, df = 6), while the single-source models 282 were rejected (tail probability < 0.05, Supplementary Dataset S10). The estimated 283 admixture proportions were 33.2 % (25.0 % - 41.4 %, 95 % Jackknife CI) of the local 284 Meso-Neolithic Dnipro Valley ancestry and 66.8 % (58.6 % - 75.0 %) of the Yamnaya 285 related ancestry.
Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in stone age central and eastern europe
The genomic landscape of Stone Age Europe was shaped by multiple migratory waves and population replacements, but different regions do not all show the same patterns. To refine our understanding of the population dynamics before and after the dawn of the Neolithic, we generated and analyzed genomic sequence data from human remains of 56 individuals from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic across Central and Eastern Europe. We found that Mesolithic European populations formed a geographically widespread isolation-by-distance zone ranging from Central Europe to Siberia, which was already established 10,000 years ago. We also found contrasting patterns of population continuity during the Neolithic transition: people around the lower Dnipro Valley region, Ukraine, showed continuity over 4,000 years, from the Mesolithic to the end of Neolithic, in contrast to almost all other parts of Europe where population turnover drove this cultural change, including vast areas of Central
Europe and around the Danube River.
some takes: WHG average 50% among Sidelkino like samples and 83% among Baltic Hunter Gather
A model-based two-source analysis 206 separated the admixture model (WHG-AfontovaGora3) from the single source models in 15 cases. The estimated admixture proportions of WHG-related ancestry ranged from 50.9 %
(40.9 % - 60.9 %, 95 % Jackknife CI) for Sidelkino to 83.7 % (73.9 % - 93.5 %) for ZVEJ25
Sredni Stog sample was modeled as 33% local ukraine neolithic and 66% Yamnaya in accordance with what we knew already
To test this possible gene-flow, we modeled ukr104 as a 277 mixture of a set of lower Dnipro Valley individuals (ukr087, ukr102, ukr111, ukr113, 278 ukr160) and Yamnaya35 using qpAdm33. Other ancient neighboring groups AN, CHG, EHG, 279 Neolithic Iranian WC1, Mal’ta, WHG and Sunghir were used as ‘right’ populations in 280 addition to an outgroup (chimp, Supplementary Dataset S10). The admixture model fitted
281 the data well (χ2 = 2.37, tail probability = 0.88, df = 6), while the single-source models 282 were rejected (tail probability < 0.05, Supplementary Dataset S10). The estimated 283 admixture proportions were 33.2 % (25.0 % - 41.4 %, 95 % Jackknife CI) of the local 284 Meso-Neolithic Dnipro Valley ancestry and 66.8 % (58.6 % - 75.0 %) of the Yamnaya 285 related ancestry.
