4.8 Article

Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1313787111

关键词

prehistory; population genetics; migration

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [GM103098]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  3. Max Planck Society
  4. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  5. NIH [5T32HG004947-04, GM108348, GM100233]
  6. Simons Foundation
  7. NSF HOMINID Grant [1032255]
  8. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  9. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1032255] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The history of southern Africa involved interactions between indigenous hunter-gatherers and a range of populations that moved into the region. Here we use genome-wide genetic data to show that there are at least two admixture events in the history of Khoisan populations (southern African hunter-gatherers and pastoralists who speak non-Bantu languages with click consonants). One involved populations related to Niger-Congo-speaking African populations, and the other introduced ancestry most closely related to west Eurasian (European or Middle Eastern) populations. We date this latter admixture event to similar to 900-1,800 y ago and show that it had the largest demographic impact in Khoisan populations that speak Khoe-Kwadi languages. A similar signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present throughout eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to similar to 2,700-3,300 y ago. We reconstruct the allele frequencies of the putative west Eurasian population in eastern Africa and show that this population is a good proxy for the west Eurasian ancestry in southern Africa. The most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that west Eurasian ancestry entered southern Africa indirectly through eastern Africa.

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