Shriner et al. (2014) Genome-wide genotype and sequence-based reconstruction of the 1

[Alan]

On this map we see perfectly what Angela and I described. That it is the WHG admixture which gives the Europeans a parallel evolution to West Asians. In West Asians replace 30% of their total genome with WHG. And the West Asian line will almost overlap with the European line. North Caucasians will fall into North/Northeastern cluster and Levantines over the Spanish/Sardinian cluster. Which perfectly visualizes that Sardinians are ancient Levantines + additional WHG.

 

[Hauteville]

If that's the case then AJs are also closer to Europe than the middle east.

Italy and Balkans are Europe so yes

 

[Greying Wanderer]

@Angela

if you compare EEF ancestry to modern Near Easterners, just take out the WHG carried by the EEF people (We don't know what percentage to ascribe to it actually, although we could maybe use an estimate of 20%? That might be too high, but whatever.)

I thought EEF was defined as where the WHG component within EEF was below 50% so the WHG part of EEF could range from 0% to 49%.

(I may be misremembering though.)

edit
(Although I think having two components where one (WHG) is both one of the components itself and also a component within the other component seems unnecessarily confusing. Wouldn't it be better to say 70% WHG / 30% Basal or 40% WHG and 60% Basal instead of percentages of WHG and EEF.)

 

[Alan]

@Angela



I thought EEF was defined as where the WHG component within EEF was below 50% so the WHG part of EEF could range from 0% to 49%.

(I may be misremembering though.)

edit
(Although I think having two components where one (WHG) is both one of the components itself and also a component within the other component seems unnecessarily confusing. Wouldn't it be better to say 70% WHG / 30% Basal or 40% WHG and 60% Basal instead of percentages of WHG and EEF.)

In the Lazaridis paper it's 49% at max and 2% at minimum. But both 49% and 2% are the dead end and the most unlikely scenario. So 25% would be the median. But the paper also says the more African in Bedouins and WHG in Sardinians we presume, the smaller the percentage is. And since we know both is the case it is even much more likely that WHG admixture in EEF is below 25%.

Keep in mind Early Near Eastern Farmer != Basal Eurasian. Not all H&G admixture in EEF is WHG. You can bet that ENF was already H&G admixed in the Near East. ENF on itself was already a Basal Eurasian+H&G mixed component. Just the additional 20% Western H&G which they catched up, most probably in the Balkans. Is what differentiates EEF from ENF.

 

[Angela]

In the Lazaridis paper it's 49% at max and 2% at minimum. But both 49% and 2% are the dead end and the most unlikely scenario. So 25% would be the median. But the paper also says the more African in Bedouins and WHG in Sardinians we presume, the smaller the percentage is. And since we know both is the case it is even much more likely that WHG admixture in EEF is below 25%.

Keep in mind Early Near Eastern Farmer != Basal Eurasian. Not all H&G admixture in EEF is WHG. You can bet that ENF was already H&G admixed in the Near East. ENF on itself was already a Basal Eurasian+H&G mixed component. Just the additional 20% Western H&G which they catched up, most probably in the Balkans. Is what differentiates EEF from ENF.

It's a distinction without a difference, Alan, but I think you have a typo there. I believe it's 2 to 45%.

Just so that it's written down somewhere since people seem to forget it, here is the quote from the Supplement, Section 13:

"The amount of Near Eastern admixture estimated for Stuttgart can be seen in Table S13.2 and ranges between 55-100. There are reasons to doubt both the lower estimates (near 55%), since ALDER provides only a lower bound on African ancestry, but also the higher estimates (near 100%) since there is direct evidence that Stuttgart has European huntergatherer ancestry."

I think they mention the 2% somewhere else, but I couldn't quickly find it. So, 2-45%, with an average of 23%?Like you, I think it's lower, however, for the reasons you gave.


Of course, Lazaridis et al is at pains to point out that we won't know anything with precision until we get an ancient farmer sample from the Near East, and so these numbers may change as we hopefully get more ancient Dna.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

"The amount of Near Eastern admixture estimated for Stuttgart can be seen in Table S13.2 and ranges between 55-100. There are reasons to doubt both the lower estimates (near 55%), since ALDER provides only a lower bound on African ancestry, but also the higher estimates (near 100%) since there is direct evidence that Stuttgart has European huntergatherer ancestry."

I'm not disputing Stuttgart but the overall sequence:

East Asia
Farmer expansion -> displacement of HG dna -> The End, roll credits

Western version
Farmer expansion -> initial displacement of HG dna -> IE + cousins of HG -> various other stuff etc

with the overall effect being the farmer expansion was stalled partway through.

(i say stalled rather than stopped as i think the farmer dna may have bounced back over time but the "over time" bit is where the big differences with east asia lie imo.)

 

[Angela]

I'm not disputing Stuttgart but the overall sequence:

East Asia
Farmer expansion -> displacement of HG dna -> The End, roll credits

Western version
Farmer expansion -> initial displacement of HG dna -> IE + cousins of HG -> various other stuff etc

with the overall effect being the farmer expansion was stalled partway through.

(i say stalled rather than stopped as i think the farmer dna may have bounced back over time but the "over time" bit is where the big differences with east asia lie imo.)

You may have forgotten, but I found the quote from Lazaridis in response to this statement from you:

I thought EEF was defined as where the WHG component within EEF was below 50% so the WHG part of EEF could range from 0% to 49%.

 

[joeyc]

This paper only uses 19.000 SNPs. Low SNPs Admixture analysis are known to overextimate admixture. I think that it's not very correct.

For example Puerto Ricans score 30% of undefined admixture.

 

[Sigfrido]

This paper only uses 19.000 SNPs. Low SNPs Admixture analysis are known to overextimate admixture. I think that it's not very correct.For example Puerto Ricans score 30% of undefined admixture.

Indeed one of the crappiest and dumbest paper published so far. Most Europeans get a lot of undefined admixture.The authors were a bunch of baboons.