4.5 Article

The maternal aborigine colonization of La Palma (Canary Islands)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 17, 期 10, 页码 1314-1324

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.46

关键词

ancient DNA; mtDNA haplogroups; Canarian aborigines; colonization

资金

  1. Spain Ministry of Science and Technology [BFU2006-04490]
  2. Gobierno de Canarias

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Teeth from 38 aboriginal remains of La Palma (Canary Islands) were analyzed for external and endogenous mitochondrial DNA control region sequences and for diagnostic coding positions. Informative sequences were obtained from 30 individuals (78.9%). The majority of lineages (93%) were from West Eurasian origin, being the rest (7%) from sub-Saharan African ascription. The bulk of the aboriginal haplotypes had exact matches in North Africa (70%). However, the indigenous Canarian sub-type U6b1, also detected in La Palma, has not yet been found in North Africa, the cradle of the U6 expansion. The most abundant H1 clade in La Palma, defined by transition 16260, is also very rare in North Africa. This means that the exact region from which the ancestors of the Canarian aborigines came has not yet been sampled or that they have been replaced by later human migrations. The high gene diversity found in La Palma (95.2 +/- 2.3), which is one of the farthest islands from the African continent, is of the same level than the previously found in the central island of Tenerife (92.4 +/- 2.8). This is against the supposition that the islands were colonized from the continent by island hopping and posterior isolation. On the other hand, the great similarity found between the aboriginal populations of La Palma and Tenerife is against the idea of an island-by-island independent maritime colonization without secondary contacts. Our data better fit to an island model with frequent migrations between islands. European Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 17, 1314-1324; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.46; published online 1 April 2009

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

4.5
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