mtDNA variation in East Africa unravels the history of afro-asiatic groups

Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology, University of Bologna, 40126, Bologna, Italy. .
American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Impact Factor: 2.51). 03/2013; 150(3). DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22212
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT East Africa (EA) has witnessed pivotal steps in the history of human evolution. Due to its high environmental and cultural variability, and to the long-term human presence there, the genetic structure of modern EA populations is one of the most complicated puzzles in human diversity worldwide. Similarly, the widespread Afro-Asiatic (AA) linguistic phylum reaches its highest levels of internal differentiation in EA. To disentangle this complex ethno-linguistic pattern, we studied mtDNA variability in 1,671 individuals (452 of which were newly typed) from 30 EA populations and compared our data with those from 40 populations (2970 individuals) from Central and Northern Africa and the Levant, affiliated to the AA phylum. The genetic structure of the studied populations-explored using spatial Principal Component Analysis and Model-based clustering-turned out to be composed of four clusters, each with different geographic distribution and/or linguistic affiliation, and signaling different population events in the history of the region. One cluster is widespread in Ethiopia, where it is associated with different AA-speaking populations, and shows shared ancestry with Semitic-speaking groups from Yemen and Egypt and AA-Chadic-speaking groups from Central Africa. Two clusters included populations from Southern Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. Despite high and recent gene-flow (Bantu, Nilo-Saharan pastoralists), one of them is associated with a more ancient AA-Cushitic stratum. Most North-African and Levantine populations (AA-Berber, AA-Semitic) were grouped in a fourth and more differentiated cluster. We therefore conclude that EA genetic variability, although heavily influenced by migration processes, conserves traces of more ancient strata. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Download full-text


Available from: Donata Luiselli, Oct 20, 2014
1 Follower
  • Source
    • "Batai et al. 2013; Beleza et al. 2005; Castri et al. 2009; Coia et al. 2005; Gonder et al. 2007; Plaza et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 2008; Richards et al. 2004; Salas et al. 2002; Scozzari et al. 1994). Several also studied populations speaking Nilo-Saharan languages (Krings et al. 1999; Poloni et al. 2009; Tishkoff et al. 2007, 2009; Watson et al. 1996; Wood et al. 2005) and Afroasiatic languages (Boattini et al. 2013), and a substantial genome-wide dataset from Ethiopia points to significant differentiation amongst speakers of the different language phyla (Pagani et al. 2012). Studies of mtDNA in Bantu-and Nilotic-speaking groups in Kenya have shown that they have much in common, but that they can nevertheless be differentiated phylogeographically by language phylum (Castri et al. 2008), and that even distinct Bantu-speaking groups can differ significantly genetically, possibly depending on the extent of assimilation of local lineages (Batai et al. 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Great Lakes lie within a region of East Africa with very high human genetic diversity, home of many ethno-linguistic groups usually assumed to be the product of a small number of major dispersals. However, our knowledge of these dispersals relies primarily on the inferences of historical, linguistics and oral traditions, with attempts to match up the archaeological evidence where possible. This is an obvious area to which archaeogenetics can contribute, yet Uganda, at the heart of these developments, has not been studied for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation. Here, we compare mtDNA lineages at this putative genetic crossroads across 409 representatives of the major language groups: Bantu speakers and Eastern and Western Nilotic speakers. We show that Uganda harbours one of the highest mtDNA diversities within and between linguistic groups, with the various groups significantly differentiated from each other. Despite an inferred linguistic origin in South Sudan, the data from the two Nilotic-speaking groups point to a much more complex history, involving not only possible dispersals from Sudan and the Horn but also large-scale assimilation of autochthonous lineages within East Africa and even Uganda itself. The Eastern Nilotic group also carries signals characteristic of West-Central Africa, primarily due to Bantu influence, whereas a much stronger signal in the Western Nilotic group suggests direct West-Central African ancestry. Bantu speakers share lineages with both Nilotic groups, and also harbour East African lineages not found in Western Nilotic speakers, likely due to assimilating indigenous populations since arriving in the region ~3000 years ago.
    Human Genetics 07/2015; 134(9). DOI:10.1007/s00439-015-1583-0 · 4.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Much of the literature that deals with various quantification techniques comes from faunal analysis. Generally, these techniques have two goals when working with animal remains. The first is to quantify the deposited/recovered faunal assemblage and from this data extrapolate information about past hominid behavior. The results of such studies attempt to draw conclusions concerning human diet, animal procurement strategies, and predator-prey relationships (Lyman 1987). The second goal is directed toward quantifying the recovered faunal assemblage in order to reconstruct the living community of animals. The results of these types of studies attempt to drawconclusions concerning faunal turnover and succession, reconstruction of paleoenvironmental conditions, and geographic faunal patterns (Lyman 1987). When working with commingled human remains, the goal of quantification is obviously to estimate the total number of dead, and many of the techniques developed for faunal analysis are not appropriate. Two exceptions are the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) and the Lincoln Index (LI). In paleodemographic studies, estimation of the number of individuals is critical for the interpretation of past cultures, while in the forensic context it is vital for the identification process and for possible criminal trials. With few exceptions, the extent of discussions concerning commingled human remains revolves almost exclusively around the MNI. Certainly, one of the reasons for the popularity of the MNI is due to the ease of its calculation. Another reason is that most physical anthropologists are not familiar with other options. Recent research has shown that the Lincoln Index (LI) is a viable option for dealing with human remains and is not significantly more complicated than the MNI in its calculation (Adams 1996). A more statistically accurate modification of the LI has been presented called the Most Likely Number of Individuals, or MLNI (Adams and Konigsberg 2004). These alternatives to the MNI provide physical anthropologists with more analytical power when dealing with commingled remains. The key difference between the MNI and the LI or MLNI is that both the LI and MLNI estimate the original number of individuals represented by the osteological assemblage, while the MNI only estimates the recovered assemblage. In cases of taphonomic loss, this distinction can be quite important since the values presented by the MNI may provide misleading number estimates. The LI and MLNI, on the other hand, will present a more accurate estimate of the original population size that can be used for paleodemographic or forensic purposes. Furthermore, it is possible to provide confidence intervals with the LI and MLNI, but not with the MNI.
    02/2008: pages 241-255;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this article, we both contend and illustrate that biological anthropologists, particularly in the Americas, often think like Bayesians but act like frequentists when it comes to analyzing a wide variety of data. In other words, while our research goals and perspectives are rooted in probabilistic thinking and rest on prior knowledge, we often proceed to use statistical hypothesis tests and confidence interval methods unrelated (or tenuously related) to the research questions of interest. We advocate for applying Bayesian analyses to a number of different bioanthropological questions, especially since many of the programming and computational challenges to doing so have been overcome in the past two decades. To facilitate such applications, this article explains Bayesian principles and concepts, and provides concrete examples of Bayesian computer simulations and statistics that address questions relevant to biological anthropology, focusing particularly on bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. It also simultaneously reviews the use of Bayesian methods and inference within the discipline to date. This article is intended to act as primer to Bayesian methods and inference in biological anthropology, explaining the relationships of various methods to likelihoods or probabilities and to classical statistical models. Our contention is not that traditional frequentist statistics should be rejected outright, but that there are many situations where biological anthropology is better served by taking a Bayesian approach. To this end it is hoped that the examples provided in this article will assist researchers in choosing from among the broad array of statistical methods currently available. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 12/2013; 152. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22397 · 2.51 Impact Factor
Show more