4.8 Article

Statistical Inference on Genetic Data Reveals the Complex Demographic History of Human Populations in Central Asia

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 1411-1424

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msv030

关键词

population genetics; human demography; Bayesian inference

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [Demochips ANR-12-BSV7-0012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The demographic history of modern humans constitutes a combination of expansions, colonizations, contractions, and remigrations. The advent of large scale genetic data combined with statistically refined methods facilitates inference of this complex history. Here we study the demographic history of two genetically admixed ethnic groups in Central Asia, an area characterized by high levels of genetic diversity and a history of recurrent immigration. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation, we infer that the timing of admixture markedly differs between the two groups. Admixture in the traditionally agricultural Tajiks could be dated back to the onset of the Neolithic transition in the region, whereas admixture in Kyrgyz is more recent, and may have involved the westward movement of Turkic peoples. These results are confirmed by a coalescent method that fits an isolation-with-migration model to the genetic data, with both Central Asian groups having received gene flow from the extremities of Eurasia. Interestingly, our analyses also uncover signatures of gene flow from Eastern to Western Eurasia during Paleolithic times. In conclusion, the high genetic diversity currently observed in these two Central Asian peoples most likely reflects the effects of recurrent immigration that likely started before historical times. Conversely, conquests during historical times may have had a relatively limited genetic impact. These results emphasize the need for a better understanding of the genetic consequences of transmission of culture and technological innovations, as well as those of invasions and conquests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据