Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,822
- Reaction score
- 12,338
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
See:
A. Raveane et al: (Capelli, Simone, all the old stalwarts, and Hellenthal, never a good sign imo)
"Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient2 and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe"
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/12/13/494898.full.pdf
They're only using the already published ancient samples, nothing new, so this is not the paper we've been awaiting. Lots of conjecture as well.
"In doing101 so, we assembled and analyzed a comprehensive genome-wide SNP dataset composed by 1,616102 individuals from all the 20 Italian administrative regions and more than 140 worldwide reference103 populations, for a total of 5,192 modern-day samples (fig. S1, table S1), to which we added104 genomic data available for ancient individuals (data file S1)."
The following we knew:
"Clusters within Italy were significantly more different from each other132 than within any other country here included (median Italy: 0.004, data file S3; range medians for133 listed countries 0.0001-0.002) and showed differences comparable with estimates across European134 clusters (median European clusters: 0.004, Fig. 1D, see Materials and Methods, Supplementary135 materials). The analysis of the migration surfaces (EEMS) (17) highlighted several barriers to gene136 flow within and around Italy but also suggested the existence of migration corridors in the southern137 part of the Adriatic and Ionian Sea, and between Sardinia, Corsica and continental Italy."
The methodology is different. This is what they came up with...
"In the Ultimate analysis, all the Italian clusters were characterised by relatively high amounts of Anatolian Neolithic (AN), ranging between 56% (SItaly1) and 72% (NItaly4),152 distributed along a North-South cline (Spearman ρ = 0.52, p-value < 0.05; Fig. 2A-C, fig. S8A),153 with Sardinians showing values above 80%. A closer affinity of Northern Italian than Southern Italian clusters to AN was also supported by D-statistics (fig. S10). The remaining ancestry was155 mainly assigned to WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer), CHG and EHG. In particular, the first two156 components were more present in populations from the South (higher estimates in SItaly1 ~13%157 and SItaly3 ~ 24% for WHG and CHG respectively), while the latter was more common in Northern158 clusters (NItaly6 = 15%)....Iran Neolithic (IN) ancestry was161 detected in Europe only in Southern Italy."
Some of the above seems pretty counter-intuitive.
"When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively...When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively."
"When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively."
"Nevertheless, all the197 analysed clusters, could be modelled as a combination of ABA, SBA and European Middle198 Neolithic/Chalcolithic, their contributions mirroring the pattern observed in the CP/NNLS analysis199 (fig. S15, table S3, table S4). North African contributions, ranging between 3.8% (SCItaly1) to200 14.5% (SItaly1) became evident when combinations of five sources were tested."
I expected a maximum of 10%. We'll see what Svaabo and Reich have to say when their paper comes out.
"Iceman and Remedello, the oldest Italian samples here included (3,400-2,800 BCE, Before Current207 Era), were composed by high proportions of AN (74 and 85%, respectively). The Bell Beaker208 samples of Northern Italy (2,200-1,930 BCE) were modelled as ABA and AN + SBA and WHG,209 although ABA was characterised by large standard errors but the detection of Steppe ancestry, at210 14%, was more robust. On the other hand Bell Beaker samples from Sicily (2,500-1,900 BCE) were211 modelled almost exclusively as ABA, with less than 5% SBA."
I'm not quite sure what the following means:
"Clusters from Caucasus and North-West Europe were identified all across Italy as best231 proxies for the admixing sources, while Middle Eastern and African clusters were identified as best232 proxies only in Southern Italian clusters and Sardinia (Fig. 3B, C). We noted that when we extended233 the search for the best-proxies to include also Italian clusters, these were as good as or better proxies234 than clusters from the Caucasus and the Middle East."
As to CHG..."This signature is still uncharacterised in terms of precise dates and origin; however305 such ancestry was possibly already present during the Bronze Age in Southern Italy (table S5) and306 was further supplemented by historical events (Fig. 3)"
"The very low presence of CHG signatures in Sardinia and in older Italian samples (Remedello and308 Iceman) but the occurrence in modern-day Southern Italians might be explained by different309 scenarios, not mutually exclusive: 1) population structure among early foraging groups across Italy,310 reflecting different affinities to CHG; 2) the presence in Italy of different Neolithic contributions,311 characterised by different proportion of CHG-related ancestry; 3) the combination of a post312 Neolithic, prehistoric CHG-enriched contribution with a previous AN-related Neolithic layer; 4) A313 substantial historical contribution from Southern East Europe across the whole of Southern Italy."
"An arrival315 of the CHG-related component in Southern Italy from the Southern part of the Balkan Peninsula is316 compatible with the identification of genetic corridors linking the two regions (Figure 1E, (11)) and317 the presence of Southern European ancient signatures in Italy (Figure 2). The temporal appearance318 of CHG signatures in Anatolia and Southern East Europe in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age suggests319 its relevance for post-Neolithic contributions (37). Additional analyses of aDNA samples from320 around this time in Italy are expected to clarify what scenario might be best supported."
A. Raveane et al: (Capelli, Simone, all the old stalwarts, and Hellenthal, never a good sign imo)
"Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient2 and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe"
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/12/13/494898.full.pdf
They're only using the already published ancient samples, nothing new, so this is not the paper we've been awaiting. Lots of conjecture as well.
"In doing101 so, we assembled and analyzed a comprehensive genome-wide SNP dataset composed by 1,616102 individuals from all the 20 Italian administrative regions and more than 140 worldwide reference103 populations, for a total of 5,192 modern-day samples (fig. S1, table S1), to which we added104 genomic data available for ancient individuals (data file S1)."
The following we knew:
"Clusters within Italy were significantly more different from each other132 than within any other country here included (median Italy: 0.004, data file S3; range medians for133 listed countries 0.0001-0.002) and showed differences comparable with estimates across European134 clusters (median European clusters: 0.004, Fig. 1D, see Materials and Methods, Supplementary135 materials). The analysis of the migration surfaces (EEMS) (17) highlighted several barriers to gene136 flow within and around Italy but also suggested the existence of migration corridors in the southern137 part of the Adriatic and Ionian Sea, and between Sardinia, Corsica and continental Italy."
The methodology is different. This is what they came up with...
"In the Ultimate analysis, all the Italian clusters were characterised by relatively high amounts of Anatolian Neolithic (AN), ranging between 56% (SItaly1) and 72% (NItaly4),152 distributed along a North-South cline (Spearman ρ = 0.52, p-value < 0.05; Fig. 2A-C, fig. S8A),153 with Sardinians showing values above 80%. A closer affinity of Northern Italian than Southern Italian clusters to AN was also supported by D-statistics (fig. S10). The remaining ancestry was155 mainly assigned to WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer), CHG and EHG. In particular, the first two156 components were more present in populations from the South (higher estimates in SItaly1 ~13%157 and SItaly3 ~ 24% for WHG and CHG respectively), while the latter was more common in Northern158 clusters (NItaly6 = 15%)....Iran Neolithic (IN) ancestry was161 detected in Europe only in Southern Italy."
Some of the above seems pretty counter-intuitive.
"When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively...When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively."
"When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively."
"Nevertheless, all the197 analysed clusters, could be modelled as a combination of ABA, SBA and European Middle198 Neolithic/Chalcolithic, their contributions mirroring the pattern observed in the CP/NNLS analysis199 (fig. S15, table S3, table S4). North African contributions, ranging between 3.8% (SCItaly1) to200 14.5% (SItaly1) became evident when combinations of five sources were tested."
I expected a maximum of 10%. We'll see what Svaabo and Reich have to say when their paper comes out.
"Iceman and Remedello, the oldest Italian samples here included (3,400-2,800 BCE, Before Current207 Era), were composed by high proportions of AN (74 and 85%, respectively). The Bell Beaker208 samples of Northern Italy (2,200-1,930 BCE) were modelled as ABA and AN + SBA and WHG,209 although ABA was characterised by large standard errors but the detection of Steppe ancestry, at210 14%, was more robust. On the other hand Bell Beaker samples from Sicily (2,500-1,900 BCE) were211 modelled almost exclusively as ABA, with less than 5% SBA."
I'm not quite sure what the following means:
"Clusters from Caucasus and North-West Europe were identified all across Italy as best231 proxies for the admixing sources, while Middle Eastern and African clusters were identified as best232 proxies only in Southern Italian clusters and Sardinia (Fig. 3B, C). We noted that when we extended233 the search for the best-proxies to include also Italian clusters, these were as good as or better proxies234 than clusters from the Caucasus and the Middle East."
As to CHG..."This signature is still uncharacterised in terms of precise dates and origin; however305 such ancestry was possibly already present during the Bronze Age in Southern Italy (table S5) and306 was further supplemented by historical events (Fig. 3)"
"The very low presence of CHG signatures in Sardinia and in older Italian samples (Remedello and308 Iceman) but the occurrence in modern-day Southern Italians might be explained by different309 scenarios, not mutually exclusive: 1) population structure among early foraging groups across Italy,310 reflecting different affinities to CHG; 2) the presence in Italy of different Neolithic contributions,311 characterised by different proportion of CHG-related ancestry; 3) the combination of a post312 Neolithic, prehistoric CHG-enriched contribution with a previous AN-related Neolithic layer; 4) A313 substantial historical contribution from Southern East Europe across the whole of Southern Italy."
"An arrival315 of the CHG-related component in Southern Italy from the Southern part of the Balkan Peninsula is316 compatible with the identification of genetic corridors linking the two regions (Figure 1E, (11)) and317 the presence of Southern European ancient signatures in Italy (Figure 2). The temporal appearance318 of CHG signatures in Anatolia and Southern East Europe in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age suggests319 its relevance for post-Neolithic contributions (37). Additional analyses of aDNA samples from320 around this time in Italy are expected to clarify what scenario might be best supported."
