4.8 Article

Khoe-San Genomes Reveal Unique Variation and Confirm the Deepest Population Divergence in Homo sapiens

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 2944-2954

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msaa140

关键词

Khoe-San; southern Africa; population structure

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council for Infrastructures and Science for Life Laboratory, Sweden
  2. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  3. Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA)
  4. South African San Council
  5. University of Witwatersrand (South Africa) Human Research Ethics Committee [M180654]
  6. Swedish Ethical Review Authority [Dnr 2019-05174]
  7. Swedish Research Council [621-2014-5211, 642-2013-8019]
  8. Lars Hierta Foundation
  9. NilssonEhle Endowments
  10. European Research Council (ERC) [759933]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The southern African indigenous Khoe-San populations harbor the most divergent lineages of all living peoples. Exploring their genomes is key to understanding deep human history. We sequenced 25 full genomes from five Khoe-San populations, revealing many novel variants, that 25% of variants are unique to the Khoe-San, and that the Khoe-San group harbors the greatest level of diversity across the globe. In line with previous studies, we found several gene regions with extreme values in genome-wide scans for selection, potentially caused by natural selection in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens and more recent in time. These gene regions included immunity-, sperm-, brain-, diet-, and muscle-related genes. When accounting for recent admixture, all Khoe-San groups display genetic diversity approaching the levels in other African groups and a reduction in effective population size starting around 100,000 years ago. Hence, all human groups show a reduction in effective population size commencing around the time of the Out-of-Africa migrations, which coincides with changes in the paleoclimate records, changes that potentially impacted all humans at the time.

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