Razib Khan One-stop-shopping for all of my content

May 25, 2017

At an inflection point of archaeology and genetics

Filed under: Genetics,History — Razib Khan @ 1:54 pm

People always ask me what to read in relation to the field of historical population genetics. In the 2000s there were a series of books which focused on the mtDNA and Y results from modern phylogeographic analysis. Journey of Man, Seven Daughters of Eve, The Real Eve, and Mapping Human History. But there hasn’t been much equivalent in the 2010s.

Why? I think part of the issue is that the rate of change has been so fast that scholars and journalists haven’t been able to keep up. And, the change is happening right now, so it would likely mean that any book written over a year would be moderately out of date by publication.

I noticed today that Jean Manco has an updated and revised version of her book, Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings. This was needed, because the original book was written before some major recent findings, though after some preliminary ones. As Manco has observed herself it was feasible to replace speculations with facts.

Since it seems likely that George R. R. Martin’s next book will be published before David Reich’s, I think that’s all you got. Any suggestions would be welcome.

As for the flip side for history that might be useful to understanding the genetics results, J. M. Roberts The History of the World is the best cliff notes I can think of. It’s obviously a high level survey, but frankly that would improve the interpretation I see in some papers. The fact that much of the history has no contemporary relevance is pretty unimportant, since you want to focus on the older stuff, which is where ancient DNA really shows its metal.

At some point ancient DNA will start to exhibit diminishing returns. Then the long hard slog of interpretation and synthesis will have to begin in earnest.

May 24, 2017

Applying intelligence to genes for intelligence

Filed under: Behavior Genetics,Genetics,Intelligence — Razib Khan @ 12:10 am

Carl Zimmer has an excellent write up on the new new Nature study of the variants associated with IQ, In ‘Enormous Success,’ Scientists Tie 52 Genes to Human Intelligence.

The issue with intelligence is that it’s a highly polygenic trait for which measurement is not always trivial. You need really large sample sizes. It’s about ten times less tractable than height as a quantitative trait. There are still many arguments about its genetic nature (though a majority position that it’s not rare variants of large effect seems to be emerging).

But all in good time.

Science is divided into many different fiefdoms, and people don’t always talk to each other. For example I know a fair number of population genomicists, and I know behavior geneticists who utilize quantitative genomic methods. The two are distinct and disparate groups. But the logic of cheap sequencing and big data is impacting both fields.

Unfortunately when you talk to population genomicists many are not familiar much with psychology, let alone psychometrics. When it comes to the behavior geneticists many come out of psychology backgrounds, so they are not conversant in aspects of genetic theory which harbor no utility for their tasks at hand. This leads to all sorts of problems, especially when journalists go to get comments from researchers who are really opining out of domain.

Some writers, such as Carl Zimmer, are very punctilious about the details. Getting things right. But we have to be cautious, because many journalists prefer a truth-themed story to the truth retold in a story format. And, some journalists are basically propagandists.

Over the next five years you will see many “gene and IQ” studies come out, with progressively greater and greater power. Read the write-ups in The New York TimesScience, and Nature. But to my many readers with technical skills this is what you should really do:

  1. pull down the data.
  2. re-analyze it.

My plain words are this: do not trust, and always verify.

I’m a big fan of people educating themselves on topics which they have opinions on (see: population genetics). If intelligence is of some interest to you, you should read some things. Arthur Jensen’s classic The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability can be quite spendy (though used copies less so). But Stuart Ritchie’s Intelligence: All That Matters and Richard Haier’s The Neuroscience of Intelligence are both good, and cheaper and shorter. They hit all the basics which educated people should know if they want to talk about the topic of intelligence in an analytical way.

May 18, 2017

To be a scientific intellectual today

Filed under: Career,Genetics — Razib Khan @ 2:41 pm

George Busy has put up note about changes in his career path, Meditation on the Caltrain. I took offense to this section:

On top of this, there was the burgeoning realisation that no one actually reads the academic papers that I write. This is no moot point: writing papers is the main purview of a research scientist, and the central way we both communicate our results and measure success. However, compared to the proportion of the world’s population who can read, the number of people that had sat down to ingest my latest, dense, and fascinating (to me at least) treaty on the population genetics of Africa, three years in the making, was minuscule. The words of a colleague rang in my head: “99.9% of scientific papers just don’t get read”.

His most recent paper, Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa, was great. I meant to blog it, but got busy with other things. To be frank the fact that someone like George Busy is having trouble in the academic market is sobering. He has produced good and prominent work, and has been attached to groups which have some prominence. Of course grant approvals and job prospects have a stochastic element. But his experience shows that talent and good work is just a necessary, not sufficient, condition.

It looks like Busby will land in Silicon Valley with one of the two companies that do a lot of work on ancestry. Good for him. I think it does behoove those of us with intellectual pretensions to wonder what we’re doing out in the world. And, it also behooves academics to wonder what they’re doing with their job security. Sometimes it is important to tell the truth and explore topics even if people don’t care, or don’t want to listen. Otherwise, why fund anything that’s not practical with the public fisc?

The misrepresentation of genetic science in the Vox piece on race and IQ

Filed under: Genetics — Razib Khan @ 11:30 am

I don’t have time or inclination to do a detailed analysis of this piece in Vox, Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ. Most people really don’t care about the details, so what’s the point?

But in a long piece one section jumped out to me in particular because it is false:

Murray talks about advances in population genetics as if they have validated modern racial groups. In reality, the racial groups used in the US — white, black, Hispanic, Asian — are such a poor proxy for underlying genetic ancestry that no self-respecting statistical geneticist would undertake a study based only on self-identified racial category as a proxy for genetic ancestry measured from DNA.

Obviously the Census categories are pretty bad and not optimal (e.g., the “Asian American” category pools South with East & Southeast Asians, and that has caused issues in biomedical research in the past). But the claim is false. In the first half of the 2000s the eminent statistical geneticist Neil Risch specifically addressed this issue. From 2002 in Genome Biology Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease:

A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic research. Some claim ‘no biological basis for race’ while others advocate a ‘race-neutral’ approach, using genetic clustering rather than self-identified ethnicity for human genetic categorization. We provide an epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and genetic research that strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity.

A major discussion has arisen recently regarding optimal strategies for categorizing humans, especially in the United States, for the purpose of biomedical research, both etiologic and pharmaceutical. Clearly it is important to know whether particular individuals within the population are more susceptible to particular diseases or most likely to benefit from certain therapeutic interventions. The focus of the dialogue has been the relative merit of the concept of ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’, especially from the genetic perspective. For example, a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1] claimed that “race is biologically meaningless” and warned that “instruction in medical genetics should emphasize the fallacy of race as a scientific concept and the dangers inherent in practicing race-based medicine.” In support of this perspective, a recent article in Nature Genetics [2] purported to find that “commonly used ethnic labels are both insufficient and inaccurate representations of inferred genetic clusters.” Furthermore, a supporting editorial in the same issue [3] concluded that “population clusters identified by genotype analysis seem to be more informative than those identified by skin color or self-declaration of ‘race’.” These conclusions seem consistent with the claim that “there is no biological basis for ‘race'” [3] and that “the myth of major genetic differences across ‘races’ is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence” [4]. Of course, the use of the term “major” leaves the door open for possible differences but a priori limits any potential significance of such differences.

In our view, much of this discussion does not derive from an objective scientific perspective. This is understandable, given both historic and current inequities based on perceived racial or ethnic identities, both in the US and around the world, and the resulting sensitivities in such debates. Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view.

From a 2005 interview:

Gitschier: Let’s talk about the former, the genetic basis of race. As you know, I went to a session for the press at the ASHG [American Society for Human Genetics] meeting in Toronto, and the first words out of the mouth of the first speaker were “Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races.”

Risch: What is your definition of races? If you define it a certain way, maybe that’s a valid statement. There is obviously still disagreement.

Gitschier: But how can there still be disagreement?

Risch: Scientists always disagree! A lot of the problem is terminology. I’m not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways.

In our own studies, to avoid coming up with our own definition of race, we tend to use the definition others have employed, for example, the US census definition of race. There is also the concept of the major geographical structuring that exists in human populations—continental divisions—which has led to genetic differentiation. But if you expect absolute precision in any of these definitions, you can undermine any definitional system. Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn’t preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility.

We talk about the prejudicial aspect of this. If you demand that kind of accuracy, then one could make the same arguments about sex and age!

You’ll like this. In a recent study, when we looked at the correlation between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus self-description, we found 99.9% concordance between the two. We actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome! So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person’s chronological age does not correspond perfectly with his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone’s actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? No. Also, there is ageism—prejudice related to age in our society. A lot of these arguments, which have a political or social aspect to them, can be made about all categories, not just the race/ethnicity one.

Risch is not obscure. In the piece the author observes that Risch ‘was described by one of the field’s founding fathers [of the field] as “the statistical geneticist of our time.’

2005 is a long way from 2017. Risch may have changed his mind. In fact, it is probably best for him and his reputation if he has changed his mind. I wouldn’t be surprised if Risch comes out and engages in a struggle session where he disavows his copious output from 2005 and earlier defending the utilization of race as a concept in statistical genetics.

Also, genotyping is cheap enough and precise enough that one might actually make an argument for leaving off any self-reported ancestry questions. It’s really not necessary. This isn’t 2005.

But that section on the Vox piece is simply false. Vox is a high profile website which serves to “explain” things to people. The academics who co-wrote that piece are very smart, prominent, and known to me. I don’t plan on asking them why put that section in there. I think I know why.

There will be no update to that piece I’m sure. It will be cited widely. It will become part of what “we” all know. Who I am to disagree with Vox? This is journalism from what have been able to gather and understand. The founders of Vox are rich and famous now. Incentives matter.

As for science and the academy? I am frankly too depressed to say more.

May 17, 2017

The population genetic structure of Sicily and Greece

Filed under: Genetics,Italy,Mediterranean — Razib Khan @ 8:44 am


By total coincidence a paper came out yesterday, Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean (I blogged about the topic). It’s open access, and it has a lot of statistics and analyses. I’d recommend you read it yourself.

You see the Sicilian and Greek populations and their skew toward the eastern Mediterranean. But in the supplements they displayed some fineSTRUCTURE clustering, and at K = 3 you see that Europe and the Middle East diverge into three populations. What this is showing seems to be: 1) in red, those groups least impacted by post-Neolithic migration 2) in blue, Middle Eastern groups characterized by the fusion between western & eastern Middle Eastern farmer which occurred after the movement west of the ancestors of the “Early European Farmers” (who gave rise to the red cluster), who were related to the western Middle Eastern farmers 3) the groups most impacted by Pontic steppe migration.

The authors confirm what I reported over two years ago on this blog: mainland and island Greeks are genetically distinct, probably because the former have recent admixture from Slavs and Slav-influenced people. And, many Southern Italians resemble island Greeks.

One has to be careful about dates inferred from genetic patterns. For example:

Significant admixture events successfully dated by ALDER reveal that all Southern Italian and Balkan groups received contributions from populations bearing a Continental European ancestry between 3.0 and 1.5 kya

The beginning of folk wanderings in the Balkans which reshaped its ethnographic landscape really dates to the later 6th century, when the proto-Byzantines began to divert all its resources to the eastern front with Persia, and abandoned the hinterlands beyond the Mediterranean coast in Europe to shift its focus toward the Anatolian core of the empire. The Slavic migrations were such that there were tribes resident in the area of Sparta in the early medieval period. Presumably because they were not a seafaring folk they don’t seem to have had much impact on the islands.

Such an early period in the interval though can not be the Slavs. What can it be? I suspect that that there are signals of Indo-European migrations in there that are being conflated due to low power to detect them since they are rather modest in demographic impact. The islands such as Sardinia, Crete and Cyprus had non-Indo-European speakers down to the Classical period.

Overall it’s an interesting paper. But it needs a deeper dig than I have time right now.

The Orantes has not mixed much with the Tiber

Filed under: Genetics,Italian Genetics — Razib Khan @ 12:21 am


In a moment of weakness I decided to read some of Mary Beard’s SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. I say weakness because I want to wean myself off of excessive reading of Roman history, as in terms of inferential utility I’ve long reached diminishing returns. But I quite enjoy the topic, and so here I am.

The author is an excellent writer as well as a scholar, and I quite enjoyed Roman Triumph, so I am entirely not surprised that SPQR has me hooked. Some of my correspondents have exhibited some disdain toward it because of Beard’s attempts to draw some connections to present day mores and values from that of Rome, presumably with a progressive bent.

Myself, this does not bother me. I don’t come into reading about Rome as an ignorant, so I can sort that from the nuggets of fact and positivistic interpretation. In any case, I think of it rather like how Islamic philosophers viewed Aristotle through their own religio-cultural lens. Obviously this was an issue that caused resistance to the transmission of Aristotle to the Christian West, but ultimately it did not stop what was inevitable. At the end of the day it was more about Aristotle than the glosses.

Though I highly recommend SPQR (I’m halfway through), that’s not the point of this post. Going along I kept thinking about the section on the Etruscans. The Rasena. Their origins have a genetic connection that is clouded and uncertain right now. I would like to dig deeper into this issue in the future; no doubt some day it will be cleared up. But that day is not this day.

Modern Italians have more “Indo-European” admixture than they do “Middle Eastern”

Rather, I want to address the idea that modern Italians are genetically a distinct people from ancient Roman Italians. Because on that score we have the answers. Ultimately the idea that this is even a debate goes back to Juvenal:

It is that the city is become Greek, Quirites, that I cannot tolerate; and yet how small the proportion even of the dregs of Greece! Syrian Orontes has long since flowed into the Tiber, and brought with it its language, morals, and the crooked harps with the flute-player, and its national tambourines, and girls made to stand for hire at the Circus. Go thither, you who fancy a barbarian harlot with embroidered turban….

These comments are rooted in the reality that Rome during Juvenal’s period was quite a cosmopolitan city, with large numbers of Greeks and people from the Eastern Mediterranean who were Hellenized to various degrees (in the early 3rd century Rome was ruled by a family of Hellenized Syrians). We know this because we have plenty of observations and complaints, and there are a plethora of inscriptions and graffiti in the new languages.

In the 19th and early 20th century the ascendency of Nordic racial theories about the origins of white supremacy across the world presented a problem. The Mediterranean peoples had been in decline for centuries, and were perceived to be Orientalized and inferior. Yet in the past they had achieved greatness which Northern Europeans were attempting to emulate. How could a racially inferior people have created such excellence?

A simple explanation for this condition for Victorians and their Continental fellow travelers was one of racial degradation. The ancient Romans were in this telling fundamentally a different people than modern Romans, with the latter being derived from migrants from the eastern Mediterranean who had arrived during the period of the Empire.

Though most of the racially derogatory elements are gone form this narrative, it is still strongly persistent in public consciousness. Being a Cavalli-Sforza nerd (there is such a thing), I have a copy of Consanguinity, Inbreeding, and Genetic Drift in Italy, and there was data in it which made me skeptical of wholesale replacement in the middle 2000s. Then there was Peter Ralph and Graham Coop’s 2013 paper, The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe, which reported lots of deep regional structure across Italy.

This is important because it suggests a local stability to the demographic character of the regions for a long time. Probably earlier than the period of the Roman Empire. Though one can imagine scenarios of demographic replacement which would produce this result, they’re generally less parsimonious than the model whereby modern Italian population structure maintains the general outline it had at the beginning of the Iron age.

Finally, over the past seven years I have done a lot of analysis and manipulation of tens of thousands of Europeans and Middle Easterners in relation to their genetic data for personal and professional reasons. Some patterns jump out at you, and some subtle tendencies come into the foreground. It is pretty clear that Italians are not a transplanted Middle Eastern population (though there is some recent non-Italian ancestry; Sicilians often have minor components of clear North African ancestry as well as small percentages of Sub-Saharan heritage, which I think is almost certainly due not to Greek and Roman cosmopolitanism, but the legacy of the Arab emirate which existed on the island for a few centuries).

But now I have realized probably the best illustration of this. The Reich lab has been generating a massive genotype dataset over the past five years on the Human Origins Array. And not only do you have modern populations, but you have ancient ones (from ancient DNA). The PCA plots in their papers make what I’m saying above pretty clear.

I’ve modified the PCA plot from Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East. Notice where various Italian groups and Greeks are. I’ve also labeled the Druze; they are almost certainly an excellent representation of Near Eastern Syrians from 2,000 years ago. They have been endogamous for nearly 1,000 years in the Lebanese highlands, and don’t have admixture that is more common in Syrian Muslims from the lowlands.

Notice that the most of the Greeks are shifted further toward Northwestern Europeans than Southern Italians. I say most, because I’ve had access to a larger data set of Greeks, and it becomes clear that a minority of Greeks cluster more with Southern Italians, and the majority have a minority admixture element from a Northern European population. This is Slavic ancestry that arrived after the middle of the 6th century, when the East Roman state basically abandoned most of the Balkans to focus on maintaining control over Constantinople, Salonika, and the Peloponnese.

Northern Italians are shifted toward Sardinians and Spaniards. The Sardinians are important, because we now know that they are the closest modern Europeans to the agriculturalists who arrived from the eastern Mediterranean during the early Neolithic. This population, “Early European Farmers” (EEF), once dominated most of the continent. But ~5,000 years ago migrations from the steppe brought a new element which replaced and assimilated them in Northern Europe.

But in Southern Europe their genetic legacy remains strong and to a great extent dominant. Iberia and the Italian peninsula have been impacted by the migrations out of the steppe, with Sardinia the least so. In the smaller plot above you can see that the early Neolithic individuals are close to the Sardinians, with mainland Italians being shifted toward other populations.

The Northern Italians in particular show some influence from Northern European populations. Some of this may be gene flow through diffusion due to proximity, but the Alps are a rather formidable barrier. Rather, I suspect it reflects episodic migration. I generally do not weight the Lombards too highly as a major influence. Rather, I suspect that it is a combination of Gaulish settlement in the Po river valley, and early impacts from the Indo-Europeans who arrived in the Italian peninsula.

The Southern Italian shift toward the Middle East probably does indicate some gene flow, but it is important to remember that this was also Magna Graecia, so there is probably a Greek element here similar to what occurs among those Greeks without Slavic admixture (please note that Byzantine Greek rule also persisted in Southern Italy up until the Norman conquest ). And if you look at how they relate to the Neolithic samples, they exhibit a lot of shift on the plane toward the steppe populations, parallel to the Levantines. In other words, a lot of the change since the Neolithic in Southern Italy is attributable to the influence of the steppe migration, not Roman era gene flow from Syrians.

I will probably do some formal analysis at some point so that the numbers can get out there now that there are so many ancient genotypes available too. But really this shouldn’t be a discussion anymore.

Addendum: You may be asking, if there are so many literary comments about non-Italians during the Roman Empire in Italy, where did they go? I think the big thing to remember is that there is an ascertainment bias toward what we know in urban areas. There is a high likelihood that urban areas were population sinks, which could not maintain themselves without constant migration.

May 15, 2017

The end of insurance (some if it)

Filed under: Genetics,Insurance — Razib Khan @ 5:58 am

Unless you’ve been sleeping under a rock you are aware that the cost of sequencing has been going down. Less clear to many is that genotyping has also been declining. At last year’s ASHG some physicians were talking about SNP-chips in the range of the low tens of dollars.

Right now most diseases for most people who buy health care are accounted for by the standard issue SNP-chips. If you have a rare mutation not on the chip, or are of a minority ethnic group not well ascertained by the chip, well, tough luck. My point is that chips probably have a near term future.

And that’s what’s at the heart of this piece in The New York Times, New Gene Tests Pose a Threat to Insurers:

So Ms. Reilly, 77, a retired social worker in Ann Arbor, Mich., applied for a long-term care insurance policy. Wary of enrolling people at risk for dementia, the insurance company tested her memory three times before issuing the policy.

But Ms. Reilly knew something the insurer did not: She has inherited the ApoE4 gene, which increases the lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s. “I decided I’d best get long-term care insurance,” she said.

I think the headline will mislead many people because when we hear “insurance” in relation to health, we assume health insurance. But long-term care insurance and life insurance are both relevant to health, and both of these have a major issue now with asymmetric information.

Many people are declaring that health insurance is over once everyone gets sequenced. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. The minority of the population that has a highly penetrant Mendelian disease may be in trouble without legal protection. But most disease variance is not going to be due to Mendelian disorders. Rather, people have risks based on family history and polygenic scores and lifestyle. And, a substantial proportion of disease and illness remains and will remain random.

With all that said, it’s not going to be a pretty picture when pockets of the insurance industry collapse. With greater knowledge comes the reckoning that we as a society have to make about the values who hold to be true.

May 11, 2017

When conquered pre-Greece took captive her rude Hellene conqueror

Filed under: Genetics,Genomics,Greece,History,Migration — Razib Khan @ 12:22 am


When I was a child in the 1980s I was captivated by Michael Wood’s documentary In Search of the Trojan War (he also wrote a book with the same name). I had read a fair amount of Greek mythology, prose translations of the Iliad, as well as ancient history. The contrast between the Classical Greeks, the strangeness of their mythology was always something that on the surface of my mind. The reality that Bronze Age Greeks were very different from Classical Greeks resolved this issue to some extent.

Though Classical Greeks were very different from us, to some extent Western civilization began with them, and they are very familiar to us. Rebecca Goldstein’s Plato at the Googleplex was predicated on the thesis that the ancient Greek philosopher had something to tell us, and that if he was alive today he would be a prominent public speaker.

I’m going to dodge the issue of Julian Jaynes’ bicameral mind, and just assert that people of the Bronze Age were fundamentally different from us. And that difference is preserved in aspects of Greek mythology. Though it is fashionable, and correct, to assert that Homer’s world was not that of Mycenaeans, but the barbarian period of the Greek Dark Age, it is not entirely true. Homer clearly preserved traditions where citadels such as Mycenae and Pylos were preeminent, and details such as the boar’s tusk helmets are also present in the Iliad.

But aesthetic details or geopolitics are not what struck me about Greek mythology, but events such as the sacrifice of Iphigenia. Like Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son, this plot element strikes moderns as cruel, barbaric, and unthinking. And though the Classical Greeks did not have our conception of human rights, they had turned against human sacrifice (and the Romans suppressed the practice when they conquered the Celts) on the whole, but it seems to have occurred in earlier periods.

The rupture between the world of the Classical Greeks and the strange edifices of Mycenaean Greece were such that scholars were shocked that the Linear B tablets of the Bronze Age were written in Greek when they were finally deciphered. In fact many of the names and deities on these tablets would be familiar to us today; the name Alexander and the goddess Athena are both attested to in Mycenaean tablets.

Preceding the Mycenaeans, who  emerge in the period between 1400-1600 BCE, are the Minoans, who seem to have developed organically in the Aegean in the 3rd millennium. This culture had relations with Egypt and the Near East, their own system of writing, and deeply influenced the motifs of the successor Mycenaean Greek civilization. The aesthetic similarities between Mycenaeans and Minoans is one reason that many were surprised that the former were Greek, because the Minoan language was likely not.

Mycenaean civilization seems to have been a highly militarized and stratified society. There is a reason that this is sometimes referred to as the “age of citadels.” Allusions to the Greeks, or Achaeans, in the diplomatic missives of the Egyptians and Hittites suggests that the lords of the Hellenes were reaver kings. In 1177 B.C. Eric Cline repeats the contention that a fair portion of the “sea peoples” who ravaged Egypt in the late Bronze Age were actually Greeks.

So when did these Greeks arrive to the shores of Hellas? In The Coming of the Greeks Robert Drews argued that the Greeks were part of a broader movement of mobile charioteers who toppled antique polities and turned them into their own. The Hittites and Mitanni were two examples of Indo-European ruling elites who took over a much more advanced civilizational superstructure and made it their own. While the Hittites and other Indo-Europeans, such as the Luwians and Armenians, slowly absorbed the non-Indo-European substrate of Anatolia, the Indo-Aryan Mitanni elite were linguistically absorbed by their non-Indo-European Hurrian subjects. Indo-Aryan elements persisted only their names, their gods, and tellingly, in a treatise on training horses for charioteers.

Drews’ thesis is that the Greek language percolated down from the warlords of the citadels and their retinues over the Bronze Age, with the relics who did not speak Greek persisting into the Classical period as the Pelasgians. Set against this is the thesis of Colin Renfrew that Greece was one of the first Indo-European languages, as Indo-European languages began in Anatolia.

The most recent genetic data suggest to me that both theses are likely to be wrong. The data are presented in two preprints The Population Genomics Of Archaeological Transition In West Iberia and The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe. The two papers cover lots of different topics. But I want to focus on one aspect: gene flow from steppe populations into Southern Europe.

We know that in the centuries after 2900 BCE there was a massive eruption of individuals from the steppe fringe of Eastern Europe, and Northern Europe from Ireland to to Poland was genetically transformed. Though there was some assimilation of indigenous elements, it looks to be that the majority element in Northern Europe were descended from migrants.

For various reasons this was always less plausible for Southern Europe. The first reason is that Southern Europeans shared a lot of genetic similarities to Sardinians, who resembled Neolithic farmers. Admixture models generally suggested that in the peninsulas of Southern Europe the steppe-like ancestry was the minority component, not the majority, as was the case in Northern Europe.

These data confirm it. The Bronze Age in Portugal saw a shift toward steppe-inflected populations, but it was not a large shift. There seems to have been later gene flow too. But by and large the Iberian populations exhibit some continuity with late Neolithic populations.  This is not the case in Northern Europe.

In The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe the authors note that steppe-like ancestry could be found sporadically during early periods, but that there was a notable increase in the Bronze Age, and later individuals in the Bronze Age had a higher fraction. Nevertheless, by and large it looks as if the steppe-like gene flow in the southerly Balkans (focusing on Bulgarian samples) was modest in comparison to the northern regions of Europe. Unfortunately I do not see any Greece Bronze Age samples, but it seems likely that steppe-like influence came into these groups after they arrived in Bulgaria, which is more northerly.

Down to the present day a non-Indo-European language, Basque, is spoken in Spain. Paleo-Sardinian survived down to the Classical period, and it too was not Indo-European. Similarly, non-Indo-European Pelasgian communities continued down to the period of city-states in Greece.

These long periods of coexistence point to the demographic equality (or even superiority) of the non-Indo-European populations. The dry climate of the Mediterranean peninsulas are not as suitable for cattle based agro-pastoralism. This may have limited the spread and dominance of Indo-Europeans. Additionally, the Mediterranean peninsulas were likely touched by Indo-European migrations relatively late. Much of the early zeal for expansion may have already dissipated by them. The high frequency of likely Indo-European R1b lineages among the Basques is curious, and may point to the spreading of male patronization networks, and their assimilation into non-Indo-European substrates where necessary. R1b is also found in Sardinia, and in high frequencies in much of Italy.

The interaction and synthesis between native and newcomer was likely intensive in the Mediterranean. For example, of the gods of the Greek pantheon only Zeus is indubitably of Indo-European origin. Some, such as Artemis, have clear Near Eastern antecedents. But other Greek gods may come down from the pre-Greek inhabitants of what became Greece.

Ultimately these copious interactions and transformations should not be a great surprise. The sunny lands of the Mediterranean attracted Northern European tribes during Classical antiquity. The Cimbri invasion of Italy, Galatians in Thrace and Anatolia, the folk wandering of Vandals and Goths into Iberia, are all instances of population movements southward. These likely moved the needle ever so slightly toward convergence between Northern and Southern Europe in terms of genetic content.

In relation to the more general spread of Indo-Europeans, I believe there are a few areas like Northern Europe, where replacement was preponderant (e.g., the Tarim basin). But I also believe there were many more which presented a Southern European model of synthesis and accommodation.

When conquered pre-Greece took captive her rude Hellene conqueror

Filed under: Genetics,Genomics,Greece,History,Migration — Razib Khan @ 12:22 am


When I was a child in the 1980s I was captivated by Michael Wood’s documentary In Search of the Trojan War (he also wrote a book with the same name). I had read a fair amount of Greek mythology, prose translations of the Iliad, as well as ancient history. The contrast between the Classical Greeks, the strangeness of their mythology was always something that on the surface of my mind. The reality that Bronze Age Greeks were very different from Classical Greeks resolved this issue to some extent.

Though Classical Greeks were very different from us, to some extent Western civilization began with them, and they are very familiar to us. Rebecca Goldstein’s Plato at the Googleplex was predicated on the thesis that the ancient Greek philosopher had something to tell us, and that if he was alive today he would be a prominent public speaker.

I’m going to dodge the issue of Julian Jaynes’ bicameral mind, and just assert that people of the Bronze Age were fundamentally different from us. And that difference is preserved in aspects of Greek mythology. Though it is fashionable, and correct, to assert that Homer’s world was not that of Mycenaeans, but the barbarian period of the Greek Dark Age, it is not entirely true. Homer clearly preserved traditions where citadels such as Mycenae and Pylos were preeminent, and details such as the boar’s tusk helmets are also present in the Iliad.

But aesthetic details or geopolitics are not what struck me about Greek mythology, but events such as the sacrifice of Iphigenia. Like Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son, this plot element strikes moderns as cruel, barbaric, and unthinking. And though the Classical Greeks did not have our conception of human rights, they had turned against human sacrifice (and the Romans suppressed the practice when they conquered the Celts) on the whole, but it seems to have occurred in earlier periods.

The rupture between the world of the Classical Greeks and the strange edifices of Mycenaean Greece were such that scholars were shocked that the Linear B tablets of the Bronze Age were written in Greek when they were finally deciphered. In fact many of the names and deities on these tablets would be familiar to us today; the name Alexander and the goddess Athena are both attested to in Mycenaean tablets.

Preceding the Mycenaeans, who  emerge in the period between 1400-1600 BCE, are the Minoans, who seem to have developed organically in the Aegean in the 3rd millennium. This culture had relations with Egypt and the Near East, their own system of writing, and deeply influenced the motifs of the successor Mycenaean Greek civilization. The aesthetic similarities between Mycenaeans and Minoans is one reason that many were surprised that the former were Greek, because the Minoan language was likely not.

Mycenaean civilization seems to have been a highly militarized and stratified society. There is a reason that this is sometimes referred to as the “age of citadels.” Allusions to the Greeks, or Achaeans, in the diplomatic missives of the Egyptians and Hittites suggests that the lords of the Hellenes were reaver kings. In 1177 B.C. Eric Cline repeats the contention that a fair portion of the “sea peoples” who ravaged Egypt in the late Bronze Age were actually Greeks.

So when did these Greeks arrive to the shores of Hellas? In The Coming of the Greeks Robert Drews argued that the Greeks were part of a broader movement of mobile charioteers who toppled antique polities and turned them into their own. The Hittites and Mitanni were two examples of Indo-European ruling elites who took over a much more advanced civilizational superstructure and made it their own. While the Hittites and other Indo-Europeans, such as the Luwians and Armenians, slowly absorbed the non-Indo-European substrate of Anatolia, the Indo-Aryan Mitanni elite were linguistically absorbed by their non-Indo-European Hurrian subjects. Indo-Aryan elements persisted only their names, their gods, and tellingly, in a treatise on training horses for charioteers.

Drews’ thesis is that the Greek language percolated down from the warlords of the citadels and their retinues over the Bronze Age, with the relics who did not speak Greek persisting into the Classical period as the Pelasgians. Set against this is the thesis of Colin Renfrew that Greece was one of the first Indo-European languages, as Indo-European languages began in Anatolia.

The most recent genetic data suggest to me that both theses are likely to be wrong. The data are presented in two preprints The Population Genomics Of Archaeological Transition In West Iberia and The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe. The two papers cover lots of different topics. But I want to focus on one aspect: gene flow from steppe populations into Southern Europe.

We know that in the centuries after 2900 BCE there was a massive eruption of individuals from the steppe fringe of Eastern Europe, and Northern Europe from Ireland to to Poland was genetically transformed. Though there was some assimilation of indigenous elements, it looks to be that the majority element in Northern Europe were descended from migrants.

For various reasons this was always less plausible for Southern Europe. The first reason is that Southern Europeans shared a lot of genetic similarities to Sardinians, who resembled Neolithic farmers. Admixture models generally suggested that in the peninsulas of Southern Europe the steppe-like ancestry was the minority component, not the majority, as was the case in Northern Europe.

These data confirm it. The Bronze Age in Portugal saw a shift toward steppe-inflected populations, but it was not a large shift. There seems to have been later gene flow too. But by and large the Iberian populations exhibit some continuity with late Neolithic populations.  This is not the case in Northern Europe.

In The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe the authors note that steppe-like ancestry could be found sporadically during early periods, but that there was a notable increase in the Bronze Age, and later individuals in the Bronze Age had a higher fraction. Nevertheless, by and large it looks as if the steppe-like gene flow in the southerly Balkans (focusing on Bulgarian samples) was modest in comparison to the northern regions of Europe. Unfortunately I do not see any Greece Bronze Age samples, but it seems likely that steppe-like influence came into these groups after they arrived in Bulgaria, which is more northerly.

Down to the present day a non-Indo-European language, Basque, is spoken in Spain. Paleo-Sardinian survived down to the Classical period, and it too was not Indo-European. Similarly, non-Indo-European Pelasgian communities continued down to the period of city-states in Greece.

These long periods of coexistence point to the demographic equality (or even superiority) of the non-Indo-European populations. The dry climate of the Mediterranean peninsulas are not as suitable for cattle based agro-pastoralism. This may have limited the spread and dominance of Indo-Europeans. Additionally, the Mediterranean peninsulas were likely touched by Indo-European migrations relatively late. Much of the early zeal for expansion may have already dissipated by them. The high frequency of likely Indo-European R1b lineages among the Basques is curious, and may point to the spreading of male patronization networks, and their assimilation into non-Indo-European substrates where necessary. R1b is also found in Sardinia, and in high frequencies in much of Italy.

The interaction and synthesis between native and newcomer was likely intensive in the Mediterranean. For example, of the gods of the Greek pantheon only Zeus is indubitably of Indo-European origin. Some, such as Artemis, have clear Near Eastern antecedents. But other Greek gods may come down from the pre-Greek inhabitants of what became Greece.

Ultimately these copious interactions and transformations should not be a great surprise. The sunny lands of the Mediterranean attracted Northern European tribes during Classical antiquity. The Cimbri invasion of Italy, Galatians in Thrace and Anatolia, the folk wandering of Vandals and Goths into Iberia, are all instances of population movements southward. These likely moved the needle ever so slightly toward convergence between Northern and Southern Europe in terms of genetic content.

In relation to the more general spread of Indo-Europeans, I believe there are a few areas like Northern Europe, where replacement was preponderant (e.g., the Tarim basin). But I also believe there were many more which presented a Southern European model of synthesis and accommodation.

May 9, 2017

The Beaker is breaking!

The link is up, The Beaker Phenomenon And The Genomic Transformation Of Northwest Europe, but the paper is still processing:

I’ll update the post when I can read the paper.

May 6, 2017

Synergistic epistasis as a solution for human existence

Filed under: epistasis,Evolution,Evolutionary Genetics,Genetics,Genomics — Razib Khan @ 12:16 am

Epistasis is one of those terms in biology which has multiple meanings, to the point that even biologists can get turned around (see this 2008 review, Epistasis — the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems, for a little background). Most generically epistasis is the interaction of genes in terms of producing an outcome. But historically its meaning is derived from the fact that early geneticists noticed that crosses between individuals segregating for a Mendelian characteristic (e.g., smooth vs. curly peas) produced results conditional on the genotype of a secondary locus.

Molecular biologists tend to focus on a classical, and often mechanistic view, whereby epistasis can be conceptualized as biophysical interactions across loci. But population geneticists utilize a statistical or evolutionary definition, where epistasis describes the extend of deviation from additivity and linearity, with the “phenotype” often being fitness. This goes back to early debates between R. A. Fisher and Sewall Wright. Fisher believed that in the long run epistasis was not particularly important. Wright eventually put epistasis at the heart of his enigmatic shifting balance theory, though according to Will Provine in Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology even he had a difficult time understanding the model he was proposing (e.g., Wright couldn’t remember what the different axes on his charts actually meant all the time).

These different definitions can cause problems for students. A few years ago I was a teaching assistant for a genetics course, and the professor, a molecular biologist asked a question about epistasis. The only answer on the key was predicated on a classical/mechanistic understanding. But some of the students were obviously giving the definition from an evolutionary perspective! (e.g., they were bringing up non-additivity and fitness) Luckily I noticed this early on and the professor approved the alternative answer, so that graders would not mark those using a non-molecular answer down.

My interested in epistasis was fed to a great extent in the middle 2000s by my reading of Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process. Unfortunately not too many people read this book. I believe this is so because when I just went to look at the Amazon page it told me that “Customers who viewed this item also viewed” Robert Drews’ The End of the Bronze Age. As it happened I read this book at about the same time as Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process…and to my knowledge I’m the only person who has a very deep interest in statistical epistasis and Mycenaean Greece (if there is someone else out there, do tell).

In any case, when I was first focused on this topic genomics was in its infancy. Papers with 50,000 SNPs in humans were all the rage, and the HapMap paper had literally just been published. A lot has changed.

So I was interested to see this come out in Science, Negative selection in humans and fruit flies involves synergistic epistasis (preprint version). Since the authors are looking at humans and Drosophila and because it’s 2017 I assumed that genomic methods would loom large, and they do.

And as always on the first read through some of the terminology got confusing (various types of statistical epistasis keep getting renamed every few years it seems to me, and it’s hard to keep track of everything). So I went to Google. And because it’s 2017 a citation of the paper and further elucidation popped up in Google Books in Crumbling Genome: The Impact of Deleterious Mutations on Humans. Weirdly, or not, the book has not been published yet. Since the author is the second to last author on the above paper it makes sense that it would be cited in any case.

So what’s happening in this paper? Basically they are looking to reduced variance of really bad mutations because a particular type of epistasis amplifies their deleterious impact (fitness is almost always really hard to measure, so you want to look at proxy variables).

Because de novo mutations are rare, they estimate about 7 are in functional regions of the genome (I think this may be high actually), and that the distribution should be Poisson. This distribution just tells you that the mean number of mutations and the variance of the the number of mutations should be the same (e.g., mean should be 5 and variance should 5).

Epistasis refers (usually) to interactions across loci. That is, different genes at different locations in the genome. Synergistic epistasis means that the total cumulative fitness after each successive mutation drops faster than the sum of the negative impact of each mutation. In other words, the negative impact is greater than the sum of its parts. In contrast, antagonistic epistasis produces a situation where new mutations on the tail of the distributions cause a lower decrement in fitness than you’d expect through the sum of its parts (diminishing returns on mutational load when it comes to fitness decrements).

These two dynamics have an effect the linkage disequilibrium (LD) statistic. This measures the association of two different alleles at two different loci. When populations are recently admixed (e.g., Brazilians) you have a lot of LD because racial ancestry results in lots of distinctive alleles being associated with each other across genomic segments in haplotypes. It takes many generations for recombination to break apart these associations so that allelic state at one locus can’t be used to predict the odds of the state at what was an associated locus. What synergistic epistasis does is disassociate deleterious mutations. In contrast, antagonistic epistasis results in increased association of deleterious mutations.

Why? Because of selection. If a greater number of mutations means huge fitness hits, then there will strong selection against individuals who randomly segregate out with higher mutational loads. This means that the variance of the mutational load is going to lower than the value of the mean.

How do they figure out mutational load? They focus on the distribution of LoF mutations. These are extremely deleterious mutations which are the most likely to be a major problem for function and therefore a huge fitness hit. What they found was that the distribution of LoF mutations exhibited a variance which was 90-95% of a null Poisson distribution. In other words, there was stronger selection against high mutation counts, as one would predict due to synergistic epistasis.

They conclude:

Thus, the average human should carry at least seven de novo deleterious mutations. If natural selection acts on each mutation independently, the resulting mutation load and loss in average fitness are inconsistent with the existence of the human population (1 − e−7 > 0.99). To resolve this paradox, it is sufficient to assume that the fitness landscape is flat only outside the zone where all the genotypes actually present are contained, so that selection within the population proceeds as if epistasis were absent (20, 25). However, our findings suggest that synergistic epistasis affects even the part of the fitness landscape that corresponds to genotypes that are actually present in the population.

Overall this is fascinating, because evolutionary genetic questions which were still theoretical a little over ten years ago are now being explored with genomic methods. This is part of why I say genomics did not fundamentally revolutionize how we understand evolution. There were plenty of models and theories. Now we are testing them extremely robustly and thoroughly.

Addendum: Reading this paper reinforces to me how difficult it is to keep up with the literature, and how important it is to know the literature in a very narrow area to get the most out of a paper. Really the citations are essential reading for someone like me who just “drops” into a topic after a long time away….

Citation: ScienceNegative selection in humans and fruit flies involves synergistic epistasis.

May 4, 2017

Africa’s great demographic transformation

Filed under: Bantu Expansion,Genetics,Genomics — Razib Khan @ 9:56 pm

Stonehenge has been a preoccupation for moderns since the Victorian period. It was built over 5,000 years ago, and its usage in some fashion continued down to about 2,500 years ago. For a long while it had been associated with the Celts, but more recently there has been some suspicion that its roots must be pre-Celtic.

And that is almost certainly true. The original site of Stonehenge had a wooden structure. But during the arrival of the Bell Beaker culture it was extensively rebuilt, and eventually stone monoliths were erected in the fashion we are used to seeing today.

Bernard Cornwell’s novel Stonehenge deals with this period. There is no major focus on physical conflict between the native populations, and the Bell Beaker groups. Rather, the plot centers around the cultural tumult and innovation that was triggered by the arrival of the newcomers.

In Stonehenge the Bell Beakers occupied more marginal, out of the way, territory. The novel presumed that ultimately there would be cultural fusion between the two groups, as there was a lot of interaction inter-personally among the characters of the two groups. We now know that the reality was likely one of near total replacement. From the abstract to be presented on shortly on the Bell Beakers:

British individuals associated with Beakers are genetically indistinguishable from continental individuals associated with the same material culture and genetically nearly completely discontinuous with the previously resident population.

This is not entirely surprising. Ancient Ireland seems to have been characterized by discontinuity with the arrival of Bell Beakers genetically.

Ancient DNA is not magic. But it can literally put some flesh on the bones of cultural shifts that archaeologists have seen in the material culture. One key element here is that the predominant ancestry across the British Isles today derives from migrations that date to the early Bronze Age.* I do not know if this has any relevance as to the arrival of the Celtic languages to the Britain and Ireland, but I suspect it does.

This was percolating in my mind because there’s a new paper which attempts to explore in more detail the Bantu expansions which occurred between 1000 BCE and 500 CE. It’s pretty incredible that from Gabon to Capetown Africans speak one language family, with similarities at least as close as that of the Romance language family.

But then is it incredible? Indo-European languages span the North Sea to the Bay of Bengal. The Bantu expansion in some ways serves as a template for the argument in First Farmers, as an agricultural revolution triggered a demographic expansion which did not stop until they reached the their geographic limits.

The paper in Science, which is open access, Dispersals and genetic adaptation of Bantu-speaking populations in Africa and North America, focuses on two issues. First, the demographic history and phylogenomics of the Bantu populations. Second, using population genomic methods it explores the dynamics of natural selection in these peoples. They utilize and extensive SNP data set, with more than 500,000 markers in their core analyses.

In general I think there are lots of interesting results in this paper. But the one angle I was unsatisfied by was their purported increase in coverage. As you can see it’s highly localized to a few countries. This is probably common sense since much of Africa is not accessible due to political issues (e.g., sampling in the Democratic Republic of Congo is treacherous right now). But one always has to be careful of the limitations of the data when making inferences. Though they have samples from the southwest (Angola, Namibia), the the African Great Lakes region around Uganda, and in South Africa, huge zones between are missing. And, they are highly over sampled in and around Gabon.

With all that said, I think with a variety of methods they probably have confirmed a major aspect of Bantu migration. I’ll quote:

Two hypotheses have been proposed concerning the dispersal of Bantu-speaking populations across sub-Saharan Africa (2–4). According to the “early-split” hypothesis, the western and eastern branches split early, within the Bantu heartland, into separate migration routes. By contrast, the “late-split” model suggests an initial spread southward from the Bantu homeland into the equatorial rainforest (i.e., Gabon/Angola), followed by expansions toward the rest of the subcontinent. We tested these hypotheses by determining whether eBSPs and seBSPs were genetically closer to wBSPs from the southern part, relative to wBSPs from the northern part, of western central Africa….

…Although additional sampling of African populations may further refine these patterns, our results, together with previous genetic data supporting the late-split model (2, 3), indicate that BSPs [Bantu-speaking peoples] first moved southward through the rainforest before migrating toward eastern and southern Africa, where they admixed with local populations. This model is further supported by linguistics (15) and archaeoclimate data (16), suggesting that a climatic crisis ~2500 years ago fragmented the rainforest into patches and facilitated the early movements of BSPs farther southward from their original homeland.

That being said, their sample limitations produce interesting assertions. E.g., “The GLOBETROTTER method estimated that eBSPs resulted from two consecutive admixture events (P < 0.05) occurring 1000 to 1500 years ago and 150 to 400 years ago between a wBSP (~75% contribution) and an Afroasiatic-speaking population from Ethiopia (~10% contribution).” GLOBETROTTER is powerful, but too often people use it in a manner where they assume that the inferences it generates from the data it has are the truth, as opposed to the closest GLOBETROTTER can get to the truth with the tools its given.

In this case I would contend that because there aren’t any Nilotic samples it leaves a major hole in their power to be able to accurately infer what really happened. The presence of pastoralist Nilotic people in close proximity to Bantu agriculturalists has been one of the major dynamics which define the East African landscape. The admixture into eastern Bantu agriculturalists therefore is almost certainly from Nilotic peoples, though there has been Afro-Asiatic (Cushitic) influence as far south as Tanzania, evident in enigmatic peoples such as the Sandawe.

The point here is that just because the GLOBETROTTER method inferred gene flow from a population in the sample set, it does not mean that the gene flow was necessarily from that population. The sampling of the region is sparse, so obviously this is only a first approximation. To some extent I assume the authors assume the readers will connect the dots, but often this sort of thing gets lost in translation, and then it gets into the media….

Though it is difficult to make in the admixture plot above, there are subtle differences in the eastern Bantu groups. The Luyha, who are from Kenya, do not show evidence of the blue component which is clearly Eurasian, while the Bakiga from Rwanda do. But even in the Bakiga the ratio of the violet element that seems to be associated with an indigenous African component which is distinct from that of the Bantu and the blue Eurasian is far higher than in the Afro-Asiatic populations in their data set (this does not mean they don’t have Eurasian ancestry, since admixture plots aren’t perfect proxies).

Because of the nature of the sampling and the utilization of admixture to frame their results I do feel that we don’t get a good sense of the variation among the Bantu across their full range. Granted, the between population genetic distance is actually quite low across this zone, on the order of 0.01, because of the recent shared ancestry. Africans may have much greater total diversity than Eurasians in their genomes, but their between population distance is actually not much different or even lower than Eurasians because of the recent demographic expansions. But did the Bantu expand into empty lands? The Khoisan, Pygmy and Nilotic (I’m sure that’s what it is) contribution to the Bantus across their range is clear, but that’s because we have close enough reference populations to model this contribution. What about areas like Tanzania? Or Mozambique? Were they empty? I suspect the issue here is that we don’t have any non-Bantu indigenous groups as they’ve all been absorbed.

But it is in the selection component that they offer a possible way to ascertain non-Bantu ancestry from ghost populations in the future. They found lots and lots of selection around immune genes. This is not surprising. There were local diseases which they had to adapt to. Therefore, “the HLA region in wBSPs showed a strong excess of ancestry from rainforest hunter-gatherers, at 38%, 6.74 SD higher than the genome-wide average of 16%…..”

In places like Mozambique it would be curious if the regions known to be under selection or enriched for indigenous ancestry in other areas where there are still indigenous populations exhibited a higher Fst against other groups. That is, the Mozambique ghost populations should leave an inordinate impact on regions of the genome associated with immunological function.

Which brings me back to Stonehenge. We do have ancient genomes. But not that many. Especially further back. Apparently the names of rivers and mountains often have very deep histories. For example, the river Humber has a name which may date back to pre-Celtic times (consider the Mississippi river, which has an American Indian origin). These serve as shadows of cultures long gone and replaced. The Bantu expansion is close enough to the margins of history that we don’t have so much time interposed between it and concrete records. We can skein out its outlines with more rigor and surety. And the patterns we see among the Bantus can give us a sense of how past demographic-cultural expansions may have occurred.

* The papers coming out of the PoBI project suggest that a significant minority of the ancestry in eastern England is Anglo-Saxon. But only there.

Addendum: I can’t find the data to download and test some things myself.

The coming of the Milesians: abstract of “The Bell Beaker Paper” (tBBp)

Filed under: Ancient Europe,Bell Beakers,Genetics,History — Razib Khan @ 10:18 am

I get asked about this all the time, and promised I’d post something first I heard anything, so here is a foretaste, Western Europe during the third millennium BCE: A genetic characterization of the Bell Beaker
Complex
:

The Bell Beaker Complex (BBC) was the first widely distributed archaeological phenomenon of western Europe, arising after 2800 BCE probably in Iberia and spreading to the north and east before disappearing at the latest by 1800 BCE. An open question is the extent to which the cultural elements associated with the BBC spread through movement of ideas or people. We present new genome-wide DNA data from 196 Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans – the largest report of genome-wide data in a single study to date – and merge it with published data to form a dataset with 109 BBC individuals that provides a genomic characterization of the BBC across its geographic and temporal range. In contrast to people of the Corded Ware Complex who were partly contemporaries of the BBC in central and eastern Europe and who brought steppe ancestry into central Europe through mass migration and replacement of local populations, we show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas. However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people. Focusing on Britain, which includes 81 of our new samples in a time transect from 3900-1300 BCE, we show that the arrival of the BBC around 2400 BCE was mediated by migration from the continent: British individuals associated with Beakers are genetically indistinguishable from continental individuals associated with the same material culture and genetically nearly completely discontinuous with the previously resident population. Such discontinuity persists through to samples from the Bronze Age, documenting a demographic turnover at the onset of the Bronze Age that was crucial to understand the formation of the present-day British gene pool. The arrival of the BBC in Britain can thus be viewed as the western continuation of the massive movement of people that brought the Corded Ware Complex and steppe ancestry into central Europe a few hundred years before.

Ancient DNA has revolutionized our understanding of the history of the past. In a fundamental manner many archaeologists were wrong in assuming that the dominant dynamic of the spread of culture was that of the diffusion of ideas, as opposed to the movement of peoples. But to interpret these results it is clear that archaeological knowledge must be brought to bear, albeit updated with knew prior assumptions.

It would not be entirely surprising if the originators of a cultural complex transmitted it to another group, and then that culture “hitchhiked” on the demographic expansion of the receiving group. A good example would be Roman Catholic Christianity. The Iberians spread it to the New World, along with substantial demographic movement. But the religion itself did not spread to Iberia through migration, but rather cultural shift.

April 28, 2017

Beyond “Out of Africa” and multiregionalism: a new synthesis?

Filed under: Africa,Evolution,Genetics,Genomics,Human Evolution,Human Genetics — Razib Khan @ 4:14 pm

For several decades before the present era there have been debates between proponents of the recent African origin of modern humans, and the multiregionalist model. Though molecular methods in a genetic framework have come of the fore of late these were originally paleontological theories, with Chris Stringer and Milford Wolpoff being the two most prominent public exponents of the respective paradigms.

Oftentimes the debate got quite heated. If you read books from the 1990s, when multiregionalism in particular was on the defensive, there were arguments that the recent out of Africa model was more inspirational in regards to our common humanity. As a riposte the multiregionalists asserted that those suggesting recent African origins with total replacement was saying that our species came into being through genocide.

Though some had long warned against this, the dominant perception outside of population genetics was that results such the “mitochondrial Eve” had given strong support to the recent African origin of modern humans, to the exclusion of other ancestry. 2002’s Dawn of Human Culture took it for granted that the recent African origin of modern humans to the total exclusion of other hominin lineages was established fact.

In 2008 I went to a talk where Svante Paabo presented some recent Neanderthal ancient mtDNA work. It was rather ho-hum, as Paabo showed that the Neanderthal lineages were highly diverged from modern ones, and did not leave any descendants. Though of course most modern human lineages did not leave any descendants from that period, Paabo took this evidence supporting the proposition that Neanderthals did not contribute to the modern human gene pool.

When his lab reported autosomal Neanderthal admixture in 2010, it was after initial skepticism and shock internally. I know Milford Wolpoff felt vindicated, while Chris Stringer began to emphasize that the recent African origin of modern humanity also was defined by regional assimilation of other lineages. The data have ultimately converged to a position somewhere between the extreme models of total replacement or balanced and symmetrical gene flow.

This is not surprising. Extreme positions are often rhetorically useful and popular when there’s no data. But reality does not usually conform to our prejudices, so ultimately one has to come down at some point.

The data for non-Africans is rather unequivocal. The vast majority of (>90%) of the ancestry of non-Africans seems to go back to a small number of common ancestors ~60,000 years ago. Perhaps in the range of ~1,000 individuals. These individuals seem to be a node within a phylogenetic tree where all the other branches are occupied by African populations. Between this period and ~15,000 years ago these non-Africans underwent a massive range expansion, until modern humans were present on all continents except Antarctica. Additionally, after the Holocene some of these non-African groups also experienced huge population growth due to intensive agricultural practice.

To give a sense of what I’m getting at, the bottleneck and common ancestry of non-Africans goes back ~60,000 years, but the shared ancestry of Khoisan peoples and non-Khoisan peoples goes back ~150,000-200,000 years. A major lacunae of the current discussion is that often the dynamics which characterize non-Africans are assumed to be applicable to Africans. But they are not.

A 2014 paper illustrates one major difference by inferring effective population from whole genomes: African populations have not gone through the major bottleneck which is imprinted on the genomes of all non-African populations. The Khoisan peoples, the most famous of which are the Bushmen of the Kalahari, have the largest long term effective populations of any human group. The Yoruba people of Nigeria have a history where they were subject to some population decline, but not to the same extent as non-Africans.

What do we take away from this?

One thing is that we have to consider that the assimilationist model which seems to be necessary for non-Africans, also applies to Africans. For years some geneticists have been arguing that some proportion of African ancestry as well is derived from lineages outside of the main line leading up to anatomically modern humans. Without the smoking gun of ancient genomes this will probably remain a speculative hypothesis. I hope that Lee Berger’s recent assertion that they’ve now dated Homo naledi to ~250,000 years before the present may offer up the possibility that ancient DNA will help resolver the question of African archaic admixture (i.e., if naledi is related to the “ghost population”?).

The second dynamic is that the bottleneck-then-range-expansion which is so important in defining the recent prehistory of non-Africans is not as relevant to Africans during the Pleistocene. The very deep split dates being inferred from whole genome analysis of African populations makes me wonder if multiregional evolution is actually much more important within Africa in the development of modern humans in the last few hundred thousand years. Basically, the deep split dates may highlight that there was recurrent gene flow over hundreds of thousands of years between different closely related hominin populations in Africa.

Ultimately, it doesn’t seem entirely surprising that the “Out of Africa” model does not quite apply within Africa.

Addendum: Over the past ~5,000 years we have seen the massive expansion of agricultural populations within the continent. The “deep structure” therefore may have been erased to a great extent, with Pygmies, Khoisan, and Hadza, being the tip of the iceberg in terms of the genetic variation which had characterized the Africa during the Pleistocene.

April 26, 2017

“Out of Africa” bottleneck is what really matters for mutations

Filed under: Africa,Genetics,Genomics,Human Evolution,Pygmies — Razib Khan @ 10:49 pm


At least in relation to mutational load, if you read a new preprint in biorxiv, The demographic history and mutational load of African hunter-gatherers and farmers:

The distribution of deleterious genetic variation across human populations is a key issue in evolutionary biology and medical genetics. However, the impact of different modes of subsistence on recent changes in population size, patterns of gene flow, and deleterious mutational load remains to be fully characterized. We addressed this question, by generating 300 high-coverage exome sequences from various populations of rainforest hunter-gatherers and neighboring farmers from the western and eastern parts of the central African equatorial rainforest. We show here, by model-based demographic inference, that the effective population size of African populations remained fairly constant until recent millennia, during which the populations of rainforest hunter-gatherers have experienced a ~75% collapse and those of farmers a mild expansion, accompanied by a marked increase in gene flow between them. Despite these contrasting demographic patterns, African populations display limited differences in the estimated distribution of fitness effects of new nonsynonymous mutations, consistent with purifying selection against deleterious alleles of similar efficiency in the different populations. This situation contrasts with that we detect in Europeans, which are subject to weaker purifying selection than African populations. Furthermore, the per-individual mutation load of rainforest hunter-gatherers was found to be similar to that of farmers, under both additive and recessive modes of inheritance. Together, our results indicate that differences in the subsistence patterns and demographic regimes of African populations have not resulted in large differences in mutational burden, and highlight the role of gene flow in reshaping the distribution of deleterious genetic variation across human populations.

There’s two major moving parts in this preprint. First, they using phylogenomic methods to explicitly model population history. Second, they integrated their demographic results in generation and interpreting the distribution of mutations within the exomes of these populations. That is, they combined phylogenomics to gain insight into population genomics, as the latter focuses more on the parameters which define variation with a population.

The data they worked with was from the exome. The regions of the genome which translate into genes. That’s ~30 million bases. They get really good precision due to high coverage, hitting site about 70 times. Their sample was about 300 Africans and 100 Europeans, and they got ~500,000 polymorphisms or variants for their trouble.

The populations were labeled by subsistence and provenance. The Europeans were Belgians. For the Africans they had two groups of hunter-gatherer Pymgies, and two groups of Bantu agriculturalists, sampled from western and eastern locations as you see on the map above.

The admixture plots, which separate out individuals into K numbers of populations break out in a way that makes sense. First, Europeans separate, and the eastern agriculturalist populations have a little bit of evidence of European-like ancestry. This is almost certainly Middle Eastern farmer, which has been found in many East African populations, and those populations which have mixed with them. Then the hunter-gathers separate from the agriculturalists. This is in line with expectation and earlier research; the hunter-gatherers of Africa seem very different from the agriculturalists, and are actually more closely related to each other than the agriculturalists in their neighboring regions.

The exception to this pattern is caused by recent gene flow, which is clearly evident above. Due to population size differences it looks like there is more agricultural ancestry in the Pygmies than vice versa. I wish that they had sampled Mbuti Pygmies. I’m told that this group has the least agricultural admixture.

But then they decided to get fancy and explicitly model demographic histories with fastsimcoal2. What does this do? From the website for the software:

While preserving all the simulation flexibility of simcoal2, fastsimcoal is now implemented under a faster continous-time sequential Markovian coalescent approximation, allowing it to efficiently generate genetic diversity for different types of markers along large genomic regions, for both present or ancient samples. It includes a parameter sampler allowing its integration into Bayesian or likelihood parameter estimation procedure.

fastsimcoal can handle very complex evolutionary scenarios including an arbitrary migration matrix between samples, historical events allowing for population resize, population fusion and fission, admixture events, changes in migration matrix, or changes in population growth rates. The time of sampling can be specified independently for each sample, allowing for serial sampling in the same or in different populations.

The models you see that were tested are pretty simple, and they all seem plausible I suppose. Their simulations suggested that the three above scenarios, with alternative branching patterns and various gene flows, were all of equal likelihood. That is, given the models and the data that they had (4-fold synonymous sites which are likely to be neutral) you can’t distinguish which is right.

In all the models hunter-gatherers diverged relatively recently and so did the agriculturalists. Europeans, who are stand-ins for all non-Africans in this scenario, diverged pretty early from the Africans. But how the Africans relate to each other and Europeans is not totally clear. Why? Because ancient population structure. It is becoming rather obvious now that ~100,000 years ago, and earlier, there were many different modern human lineages which had already diversified. The Khoisan seem to have diverged from other human lineages closer to 200,000 thousand than 100,000 years ago. What this means is that for most of the history of anatomically modern humans population structure  existed between distinct lineages. And some of that persists down to today within Africa.

I’ll bullet point some of their inferences from these models (verbatim quotes below):

  1. Our results suggest that the ancestors of the contemporary RHG, AGR and EUR populations diverged between 85 and 140 thousand years ago (kya), from an ancestral population that underwent demographic expansion between 173 and 191 kya
  2. After the initial population splits, the Ne of AGR and RHG (NaAGR and NaRHG) remained within a range extending from 0.55 to 2.2 times the ancestral African Ne (NHUM), whereas EUR (NaEUR) experienced a decrease in Ne by a factor of three to seven.
  3. The ancestors of the wRHG and eRHG populations diverged 18 to 20 kya (TRHG), and underwent a decreased in Ne by a factor of 3.8 to 5.7 for the wRHG (NwRHG) and 7.1 to 11 for the eRHG (NeRHG), regardless of the branching model considered.
  4. The ancestors of the AGR (NaAGR) split into western and eastern populations 6.7 to 11 kya (TAGR), and underwent a mild expansion, by a factor of 2.3 to 3.1 for the wAGR (NwAGR) and 1.2 to 2.2 for the eAGR (NeAGR).
  5. The EUR population experienced a 7.1- to 8.3-fold expansion (NEUR) 12 to 22 kya (TEUR).

No results are perfect. But some of these dates do not make sense. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that the ancestors of European populations began to expand over the last 10,000 years. The dates above suggest there was a Pleistocene expansion. Basically you can divide that value by half, and then you get a reasonable range.

Second, both the agriculturalists sampled here are Bantu speaking, and there’s a good amount of cultural and genetic data for recent shared ancestry of the Bantu over the last 3,000 years. I understand that admixture with a very diverged lineage (e.g., eastern Bantu agriculturalist samples mixing with Nilotic populations, which is how they got some non-African ancestry, as well as local Pygmy groups) can inflate these divergence dates. If that’s the case, they should note that in the text.

We don’t have much historical or archaeological clarity from what I know about divergences between Pygmy groups. This particular group has studied the topic and published on it before, so I’m inclined to trust them more than anyone else. But, the above dates for groups we do know make me a bit more skeptical of a simple divergence around the Last Glacial Maximum.

Then there are the earliest divergences. And 85 to 140,000 year interval is huge for when non-Africans split off from Africans. If closer to 140 than 85, then that means that non-African divergence from Africans preserves ancient African diversity. That is, non-Africans descend from an African group that no longer exists (or has not been sampled in this study at least!). I’ve poked around this question, and when you take into account recent gene flow, it is hard to find the specific African group that non-Africans descend from, though there is some consensus that they branched off from the non-Khoisan Africans later than from the Khoisan.

But there is also a lot of archaeological and some ancient genetic DNA now that indicates that the vast majority of non-African ancestry began to expand rapidly around 50-60,000 years ago. This is tens of thousands of years after the lowest value given above. Therefore, again we have to make recourse to a long period of separation before the expansion. This is not implausible on the face of it, but we could do something else: just assume there’s an artifact with their methods and the inferred date of divergence is too old. That would solve many of the issues.

I really don’t know if the above quibbles have any ramification for the site frequency spectrum of deleterious mutations. My own hunch is that no, it doesn’t impact the qualitative results at all.

Figure 3 clearly shows that Europeans are enriched for weak and moderately deleterious mutations (the last category produces weird results, and I wish they’d talked about this more, but they observe that strong deleterious mutations have issues getting detected). Ne is just the effective population size and s is the selection coefficient (bigger number, stronger selection).

Why are the middle two values enriched? Presumably it’s the non-African bottleneck. This is where another non-African population would have been a nice check to make sure that it was the “Out of Africa” bottleneck…but it’s probably asking a bit much to sequence more individuals to 70x coverage.

The lack of difference between the African populations is an indication that recent demography is not shaping the distribution much. Additionally, they note that gene flow between the African groups probably increased diversity in some ways, so that as long as a group is connected with other populations it will probably be rescued (note that none of these in their data were particular inbred as judging by runs of homozygosity).

Finally, they found that the number of homozygote mutations that were deleterious is higher in their model results for Europeans than the African groups. This is not surprising, and what one expects. But, they found that this is a function likely of continuous gene flow between the African groups. Without gene flow homozygosity would have been much higher. This gets back to the fact that gene flow is a powerful homogenizing tool, and the lack of gene flow has to be pretty extreme for divergence to occur.

Which brings us back to the “Out of Africa” event. The next ten years are going to see a lot of investigation of African phyologenomics and population genomics. Basically, the relationships, and selection pressures. It is totally implausible that Bantu groups in Kenya and Tanzania did not absorb local non-Nilotic populations. We’ll figure that out. Additionally, selection pressures are probably different between different groups. We’ll know more about that. But, ancient DNA will probably give us some understanding of why non-Africans went through such a massive demographic sieve. We know in broad sketches. But most people want to fill in the details.

Citation: The demographic history and mutational load of African hunter-gatherers and farmers, Marie Lopez, Athanasios Kousathanas, Helene Quach, Christine Harmant, Patrick Mouguiama-Daouda, Jean-Marie Hombert, Alain Froment, George H Perry, Luis B Barreiro, Paul Verdu, Etienne Patin, Lluis Quintana-Murci, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/131219

April 25, 2017

Dost thou know the equilibrium at panmixia?

Filed under: Genetics,Population genetics — Razib Khan @ 3:58 pm

If you read a blog about Biblical criticism from a Christian perspective it would probably be best if you were familiar with the Bible. You don’t have to have read much scholarly commentary, rather, just the New Testament. Barring that, at least the synoptic gospels!

At this point, with over 400 individuals responding to the reader survey, it is strange to consider that more people believe they have a handle on what Fst is than the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. First, Fst is a more subtle concept than people often think it is. And second, because the HWE is so easy, important, and foundational to population genetics. I mean p^2 + 2pq^2 + q^2 = 1. Could it be simpler???

So a quick ask. If you are one of the people who doesn’t understand HWE or why it is important, please get yourself a copy of John Gillespie’s Population Genetics: A Concise Guide. I understand that not everyone has the time, interest, or money for Principles of Population Genetics, or any of the more “hardcore” texts. But Population Genetics: A Concise Guide will surely suffice to follow anything on this blog.

Or, barring that, please review the online resources which you have available. Two examples:

Graham Coop’s Notes on Population Genetics or Joe Felsenstein’s unpublished textbook Theoretical Evolutionary Genetics.

April 23, 2017

Why the rate of evolution may only depend on mutation

Filed under: Evolutionary Genetics,Genetics,Population genetics — Razib Khan @ 10:07 pm

Sometimes people think evolution is about dinosaurs.

It is true that natural history plays an important role in inspiring and directing our understanding of evolutionary process. Charles Darwin was a natural historian, and evolutionary biologists often have strong affinities with the natural world and its history. Though many people exhibit a fascination with the flora and fauna around us during childhood, often the greatest biologists retain this wonderment well into adulthood (if you read W. D. Hamilton’s collections of papers, Narrow Roads of Gene Land, which have autobiographical sketches, this is very evidently true of him).

But another aspect of evolutionary biology, which began in the early 20th century, is the emergence of formal mathematical systems of analysis. So you have fields such as phylogenetics, which have gone from intuitive and aesthetic trees of life, to inferences made using the most new-fangled Bayesian techniques. And, as told in The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, in the 1920s and 1930s a few mathematically oriented biologists constructed much of the formal scaffold upon which the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis was constructed.

The product of evolution

At the highest level of analysis evolutionary process can be described beautifully. Evolution is beautiful, in that its end product generates the diversity of life around us. But a formal mathematical framework is often needed to clearly and precisely model evolution, and so allow us to make predictions. R. A. Fisher’s aim when he wrote The Genetical Theory Natural Selection was to create for evolutionary biology something equivalent to the laws of thermodynamics. I don’t really think he succeeded in that, though there are plenty of debates around something like Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection.

But the revolution of thought that Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane unleashed has had real yields. As geneticists they helped us reconceptualize evolutionary process as more than simply heritable morphological change, but an analysis of the units of heritability themselves, genetic variation. That is, evolution can be imagined as the study of the forces which shape changes in allele frequencies over time. This reduces a big domain down to a much simpler one.

Genetic variation is concrete currency with which one can track evolutionary process. Initially this was done via inferred correlations between marker traits and particular genes in breeding experiments. Ergo, the origins of the “the fly room”.

But with the discovery of DNA as the physical substrate of genetic inheritance in the 1950s the scene was set for the revolution in molecular biology, which also touched evolutionary studies with the explosion of more powerful assays. Lewontin & Hubby’s 1966 paper triggered a order of magnitude increase in our understanding of molecular evolution through both theory and results.

The theoretical side occurred in the form of the development of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which also gave birth to the nearly neutral theory. Both of these theories hold that most of the variation with and between species on polymorphisms are due to random processes. In particular, genetic drift. As a null hypothesis neutrality was very dominant for the past generation, though in recent years some researchers are suggesting that selection has been undervalued as a parameter for various reasons.

Setting the live scientific debate, which continue to this day, one of the predictions of neutral theory is that the rate of evolution will depend only on the rate of mutation. More precisely, the rate of substitution of new mutations (where the allele goes from a single copy to fixation of ~100%) is proportional to the rate of mutation of new alleles. Population size doesn’t matter.

The algebra behind this is straightforward.

First, remember that the frequency of the a new mutation within a population is \frac{1}{2N}, where N is the population size (the 2 is because we’re assuming diploid organisms with two gene copies). This is also the probability of fixation of a new mutation in a neutral scenario; it’s probability is just proportional to its initial frequency (it’s a random walk process between 0 and 1.0 proportions). The rate of mutations is defined by \mu, the number of expected mutations at a given site per generation (this is a pretty small value, for humans it’s on the order of 10^{-8}). Again, there are 2N individuals, so you have 2N\mu to count the number of new mutations.

The probability of fixation of a new mutations multiplied by the number of new mutations is:

    \[ \( \frac{1}{2N} \) \times 2N\mu = \mu \]

So there you have it. The rate of fixation of these new mutations is just a function of the rate of mutation.

Simple formalisms like this have a lot more gnarly math that extend them and from which they derive. But they’re often pretty useful to gain a general intuition of evolutionary processes. If you are genuinely curious, I would recommend Elements of Evolutionary Genetics. It’s not quite a core dump, but it is a way you can borrow the brains of two of the best evolutionary geneticists of their generation.

Also, you will be able to answer the questions on my survey better the next time!

The logic of human destiny was inevitable 1 million years ago

Filed under: Evolution,Genetics,Genomics,Human Evolution,Human Genetics — Razib Khan @ 1:11 pm

Robert Wright’s best book, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, was published near 20 years ago. At the time I was moderately skeptical of his thesis. It was too teleological for my tastes. And, it does pander to a bias in human psychology whereby we look to find meaning in the universe.

But this is 2017, and I have somewhat different views.

In the year 2000 I broadly accepted the thesis outlined a few years later in The Dawn of Human Culture. That our species, our humanity, evolved and emerged in rapid sequence, likely due to biological changes of a radical kind, ~50,000 years ago. This is the thesis of the “great leap forward” of behavioral modernity.

Today I have come closer to models proposed by Michael Tomasello in The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition and Terrence Deacon in The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. Rather than a punctuated event, an instance in geological time, humanity as we understand it was a gradual process, driven by general dynamics and evolutionary feedback loops.

The conceit at the heart of Robert J. Sawyer’s often overly preachy Neanderthal Parallax series, that if our own lineage went extinct but theirs did not they would have created a technological civilization, is I think in the main correct. It may not be entirely coincidental that the hyper-drive cultural flexibility of African modern humans evolved in African modern humans first. There may have been sufficient biological differences to enable this to be likely. But I believe that if African modern humans were removed from the picture Neanderthals would have “caught up” and been positioned to begin the trajectory we find ourselves in during the current Holocene inter-glacial.

Luke Jostins’ figure showing across board encephalization

The data indicate that all human lineages were subject to increased encephalization. That process trailed off ~200,000 years ago, but it illustrates the general evolutionary pressures, ratchets, or evolutionary “logic”, that applied to all of them. Overall there were some general trends in the hominin lineage that began to characterized us about a million years ago. We pushed into new territory. Our rate of cultural change seems to gradually increased across our whole range.

One of the major holy grails I see now and then in human evolutionary genetics is to find “the gene that made us human.” The scramble is definitely on now that more and more whole genome sequences from ancient hominins are coming online. But I don’t think there will be such gene ever found. There isn’t “a gene,” but a broad set of genes which were gradually selected upon in the process of making us human.

In the lingo, it wasn’t just a hard sweep from a de novo mutation. It was as much, or even more, soft sweeps from standing variation.

April 20, 2017

Aryan marauders from the steppe came to India, yes they did!

Filed under: Genetics,Genomics,History,India — Razib Khan @ 10:21 pm

Its seems every post on Indian genetics elicits dissents from loquacious commenters who are woolly on the details of the science, but convinced in their opinions (yes, they operate through uncertainty and obfuscation in their rhetoric, but you know where the axe is lodged). This post is an attempt to answer some questions so I don’t have to address this in the near future, as ancient DNA papers will finally start to come out soon, I hope (at least earlier than Winds of Winter).

In 2001’s The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity Wells et al. wrote:

The current distribution of the M17 haplotype is likely to represent traces of an ancient population migration originating in southern Russia/Ukraine, where M17 is found at high frequency (>50%). It is possible that the domestication of the horse in this region around 3,000 B.C. may have driven the migration (27). The distribution and age of M17 in Europe (17) and Central/Southern Asia is consistent with the inferred movements of these people, who left a clear pattern of archaeological remains known as the Kurgan culture, and are thought to have spoken an early Indo-European language (27, 28, 29). The decrease in frequency eastward across Siberia to the Altai-Sayan mountains (represented by the Tuvinian population) and Mongolia, and southward into India, overlaps exactly with the inferred migrations of the Indo-Iranians during the period 3,000 to 1,000 B.C. (27). It is worth noting that the Indo-European-speaking Sourashtrans, a population from Tamil Nadu in southern India, have a much higher frequency of M17 than their Dravidian-speaking neighbors, the Yadhavas and Kallars (39% vs. 13% and 4%, respectively), adding to the evidence that M17 is a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker. The exceptionally high frequencies of this marker in the Kyrgyz, Tajik/Khojant, and Ishkashim populations are likely to be due to drift, as these populations are less diverse, and are characterized by relatively small numbers of individuals living in isolated mountain valleys.

In a 2002 interview with the India site Rediff, the first author was more explicit:

Some people say Aryans are the original inhabitants of India. What is your view on this theory?

The Aryans came from outside India. We actually have genetic evidence for that. Very clear genetic evidence from a marker that arose on the southern steppes of Russia and the Ukraine around 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. And it subsequently spread to the east and south through Central Asia reaching India. It is on the higher frequency in the Indo-European speakers, the people who claim they are descendants of the Aryans, the Hindi speakers, the Bengalis, the other groups. Then it is at a lower frequency in the Dravidians. But there is clear evidence that there was a heavy migration from the steppes down towards India.

But some people claim that the Aryans were the original inhabitants of India. What do you have to say about this?

I don’t agree with them. The Aryans came later, after the Dravidians.

Over the past few years I’ve gotten to know the above first author Spencer Wells as a personal friend, and I think he would be OK with me relaying that to some extent he was under strong pressure to downplay these conclusions. Not only were, and are, these views not popular in India, but the idea of mass migration was in bad odor in much of the academy during this period. Additionally, there was later work which was less clear, and perhaps supported an Indian origin for R1a1a. Spencer himself told me that it was not impossible for R1a to have originated in India, but a branch eventually back-migrated to southern Asia.

But even researchers from the group at Stanford where he had done his postdoc did not support this model by the middle 2000s, Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists. In 2009 a paper out of an Indian group was even stronger in its conclusion for a South Asian origin of R1a1a, The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system.

By 2009 one might have admitted that perhaps Spencer was wrong. I was certainly open to that possibility. There was very persuasive evidence that the mtDNA lineages of South Asia had little to do with Europe or the Middle East.

Yet a closer look at the above papers reveals two major systematic problems.

First, ancient DNA has made it clear that there has been major population turnover during the Holocene, but this was not the null hypothesis in the 2000s. Looking at extant distributions of lineages can give one a distorted view of the past. Frankly, the 2009 Indian paper was egregious in this way because they included Turkic groups in their Central Asian data set. Even in 2009 there was a whole lot of evidence that Central Asian Turkic groups were likely very different from Indo-European Turanian populations which would have been the putative ancestors of Indo-Aryans. Honestly the authors either consciously loaded the die to reduce the evidence for gene flow from Central Asia, or they were ignorant (the nature of the samples is much clearer in the supplements than the  primary text for what it’s worth).

Second, Y chromosomal marker sets in the 2000s were constrained to fast mutating microsatellite regions or less than 100 variant SNPs on the Y. Because it is so repetitive the Y chromosome is hard to sequence, and it really took the technologies of the last ten years to get it done. Both the above papers estimate the coalescence of extant R1a1a lineages to be 10-15,000 years before the present. In particular, they suggest that European and South Asian lineages date back to this period, pushing back any possible connection between the groups, and making it possible that European R1a1a descended from a South Asian founder group which was expanding after the retreat of the ice sheets. The conclusions were not unreasonable based on the methods they had.  But now we have better methods.*

Whole genome sequencing of the Y, as well as ancient DNA, seems to falsify the above dates. Though microsatellites are good for very coarse grain phyolgenetic inferences, one has to be very careful about them when looking at more fine grain population relationships (they are still useful in forensics to cheaply differentiate between individuals, since they accumulate variation very quickly). They mutate fast, and their clock may be erratic.

Additionally, diversity estimates were based on a subset of SNP that were clearly not robust. R1a1a is not diverse anywhere, though basal lineages seem to be present in ancient DNA on the Pontic steppe in some cases.

To show how lacking in diversity R1a1a is, here are the results of a 2016 paper which performed whole genome sequencing on the Y. Instead of relying on the order of 10 to 100 SNPs, this paper discover over 65,000 Y variants worldwide. Notice how little difference there is between different South Asian groups below, indicative of a massive population expansion relatively recently in time which didn’t even have time to exhibit regional population variation. They note that “The most striking are expansions within R1a-Z93 [the South Asian clade], ~4.0–4.5 kya. This time predates by a few centuries the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization, associated by some with the historical migration of Indo-European speakers from the western steppes into the Indian sub-continent.

(BEB = Bengali, GIH = Gujarati, PJL = Punjabi, STU = Sri Lanka Tamil, ITU = Indian Telugu)

The spatial distribution of Z93 lineages of R1a is as you can see to the left. There are branches in South Asia, Central Asia, and in the Altai region. Ancient DNA from the Bronze Age Mongolia has found Z93. Modern Mongolians clearly have a small, but appreciable, fraction of West Eurasian ancestry. Some also carry R1a1a. Z93 has also been found in North-Central Asian steppe samples that date to ~4,500 years before the present.

Today with ancient DNA we’re discovering individuals who lived around the time of the massive  expansion alluded to above. What are these individuals like? They are a mix of European, Central Eurasian, Near Eastern, and Siberian. Many of them share quite a bit of ancestry with South Asian populations, in particular those from the northwest of subcontinent, as well as upper castes more generally.

A new paper using ancient DNA from Scythians (Iranian speakers) also shows that they carried Z93. Some of them had East Asian admixture. These were the ones from the eastern steppe. So not entirely surprising. In the supplements of the paper they have an admixture plot with many populations. At K = 15 in supplementary figure 14 you see many ancient Central Eurasian populations run against modern groups. At this K there is a South Asian modal cluster which is found in South Asians as well as nearby Iranian groups from Afghanistan.

It is not light green or dark blue. You see see that this salmon color is modal in tribal South Indian populations, or non-Brahmin South Indians. It drops in frequency as you move north and west, and as you move up the caste ladder. Observe that is present even among the relatively isolated Kalash people of Chitral.

Outside of South Asia-Afghanistan, this salmon component is found among Thai and Cambodians. From talking to various researchers, and recent published findings, it seems clear that this signature is not spurious, but is indicative of some migration from South Asia to Southeast Asia in the historical period, as one might infer based on cultural affinities. It is also found at lower frequencies among the Uyghur of Xinjiang. This is not entirely surprising either. This region of the Tarim basin was connected to Kashmir across the Pamirs. The 4th century Buddhist monk from the Tarim basin city of Kucha, who was instrumental in the translation of texts into Chinese, Kumārajīva, may have had a Kashmiri father.

Even before Islam much of Northwest India and Central Asia were under the rule of the same polity, and after Islam there is extensive record of the enslavement of many Indians in the cities of the eastern Islamic world, as well as the travel of some Indian merchants and intellectuals into these regions.

And yet this South Asia cluster is not present in the ancient steppe samples carrying R1a1a-Z93. None of them to my knowledge. Many ancient samples share ancestry with South Asians. For example it seems that many ancient West Asian samples from Iran share common history as evident in genetic drift patterns with many South Asians. And, there is good evidence that a subset of South Asians, skewed toward northwest and upper caste groups, share drift with steppe Yamna samples. But South Asians are often clearly composites of these exogenous populations and an indigenous component with affinities with Andaman Islanders, and more distantly Southeast Asians and other eastern non-Africans.

How can you reconcile this with migration out of South Asia? The path is found in publications such as Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India. Here you have a paper which models mixing between Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). The ANI would be the source population for the ancestry shared with West Eurasians. And, they would lack ASI ancestry because the mixing had not occurred. The admixture dates the paper are between two and four thousand years before the present.

There is a problem though. These methods detect the last admixture events. Therefore, they are a lower bound on major mixing events, not a record of when there was no mixing. Secondarily, but not less importantly, recent work indicates that because of the pulse admixture simplification these methods likely underestimate the time period of admixture.

Another issue for me is the idea that ANI and ASI could be so separate within India. If ANI is the source of gene flow into other parts of Eurasia from South Asia, then I believe that ASI is intrusive to the subcontinent. I don’t think that ASI being intrusive is so implausible. Southeast Asia has undergone massive genetic changes over the Holocene, and it may be that there was much more ASI ancestry in placers like Burma before the arrival of Austro-Asiatic rice farmers. The presence of Austro-Asiatic languages in northeast India and central India shows a precedent of migration from Southeast Asia into the subcontinent.

In sum, the balance of evidence suggests male mediated migration into South Asia from Central Asia on the order of ~4-5,000 years ago. There are lots of details to be worked out, and this is not an assured model in terms of data, but it is the most likely. In the near future ancient DNA will clear up confusions. Writing very long but confused comments just won’t change this state of affairs. New data will.

Addendum: Indian populations have finally been relatively well sampled, thanks to Mait Mepsalu’s group in Estonia, David Reich’s lab and, the Indian collaborators of both, and the 1000 Genomes (HGDP gave us Pakistanis). Additionally, Zack Ajmal’s Harappa website did some work filling in some holes in the early 2010s.

* A Facebook argument broke out about one of my posts where one interlocutor asserted that he leaned on papers from the late 2000s, not all the new stuff. That’s obviously because the new stuff did not support his preferred position, while the old stuff did. I would prefer that faster-than-light travel were possible, so I’ll just stick to physics before 1910?

April 19, 2017

Mouse fidelity comes down to the genes

Filed under: Genetics,Genomics,Human Genetics — Razib Khan @ 10:02 pm

While birds tend to be at least nominally monogamous, this is not the case with mammals. This strikes some people as strange because humans seem to be monogamous, at least socially, and often we take ourselves to be typically mammalian. But of course we’re not. Like many primates we’re visual creatures, rather than relying in smell and hearing. Obviously we’re also bipedal, which is not typical for mammals. And, our sociality scales up to massive agglomerations of individuals.

How monogamous we are is up for debate. Desmond Morris, who is well known to many from his roles in television documentaries, has been a major promoter of the idea that humans are monogamous, with a focus on pair-bonds. In contrast, other researchers have highlighted our polygamous tendencies. In The Mating Mind Geoffrey Miller argues for polygamy, and suggests that pair-bonds in a pre-modern environment were often temporary, rather than lifetime (Miller is now writing a book on polyamory).

The fact that in many societies high status males seem to engage in polygamy, despite monogamy being more common, is one phenomenon which confounds attempts to quickly generalize about the disposition of our species. What is preferred may not always be what is practiced, and the external social adherence to norms may be quite violated in private.

Adducing behavior is simpler in many other organisms, because their range of behavior is more delimited. When it comes to studying mating patterns in mammals voles have long been of interest as a model. There are vole species which are monogamous, and others which are not. Comparing the diverged lineages could presumably give insight as to the evolutionary genetic pathways relevant to the differences.

But North American deer mice, Peromyscus, may turn to be an even better bet: there are two lineages which exhibit different mating patterns which are phylogenetically close enough to the point where they can interbreed. That is crucial, because it allows one to generate crosses and see how the characteristics distribute themselves across subsequent generations. Basically, it allows for genetic analysis.

And that’s what a new paper in Nature does, The genetic basis of parental care evolution in monogamous mice. In figure 3 you can see the distribution of behaviors in parental generations, F1 hybrids, and the F2, which is a cross of F1 individuals. The widespread distribution of F2 individuals is likely indicative of a polygenic architecture of the traits. Additionally, they found that some traits are correlated with each other in the F2 generation (probably due to pleiotropy, the same gene having multiple effects), while others were independent.

With the F2 generation they ran a genetic analysis which looked for associations between traits and regions of the genome. They found 12 quantitative trait loci (QTLs), basically zones of the genome associated with variation on one or more of the six traits. From this analysis they immediately realized there was sexual dimorphism in terms of the genetic architecture; the same locus might have a different effect in the opposite sex. This is evolutionarily interesting.

Because the QTLs are rather large in terms of physical genomic units the authors looked to see which were plausible candidates in terms of function. One of their hits was vasopressin, which should be familiar to many from vole work, as well as some human studies. Though the QTL work as well as their pup-switching experiment (which I did not describe) is persuasive, the fact that a gene you’d expect shows up as a candidate really makes it an open and shut case.

The extent of the variation explained by any given QTL seems modest. In the extended figures you can see it’s mostly in the 1 to 5 percent range. In Carl Zimmer’s excellent write up he ends:

But Dr. Bendesky cautioned that the vasopressin gene would probably turn out to be just one of many that influence oldfield mice. Though it is strongly linked to parental behavior, the vasopressin gene accounts for 6.7 percent of the variation in nest building among males, and only 2.9 percent among females.

The genetic landscape of human parenting will turn out to be even more rugged, Dr. Bendesky predicted.

“You cannot do a 23andMe test and find out if your partner is going to be a good father,” he said.

Sort of. The genetic architecture above is polygenic…but not incredibly diffuse. The proportion of variation explained by the largest effect allele is more than for height, and far more than for education. If human research follows up on this, I wouldn’t be surprised if you could develop a polygenic risk score.

But I don’t have a good intuition on how much variation in humans there really is for these sorts of traits that are heritable. I assume some. But I don’t know how much. And how much of the variance in behavior might be explained by human QTLs? Humans don’t lick or build nests, or retrieve pups. Also, as one knows from Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits sexually dimorphic traits take a long time to evolve. These are two deer mice species. Within humans there may not have been enough time for this sort of heritable complexity of behavior to evolve.

There are a lot of philosophical issues here about translating to a human context.

Nevertheless, this research shows that ingenious animal models can powerfully elucidate the biological basis of behavior.

Citation: The genetic basis of parental care evolution in monogamous mice. Nature (2017) doi:10.1038/nature22074

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress