okarinaofsteiner's East Eurasian megathread [reposts]

[okarinaofsteiner]

This was an interesting paper on Taiwanese Han autosomal genetics I came across several years ago, when I first joined Anthroscape. The abstract and screenshots are from 2 slightly different papers that both use the same Taiwan Biobank genomic data.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27798100/

Population structure of Han Chinese in the modern Taiwanese population based on 10,000 participants in the Taiwan Biobank project

Abstract-

The Taiwan Biobank (TWB ) aims to build a nationwide research database that integrates genomic/epigenomic profiles, lifestyle patterns, dietary habits, environmental exposure history and long-term health outcomes of 300,000 residents of Taiwan. We describe here an investigation of the population structure of Han Chinese on this Pacific island using genotype data of 591,048 SNPs in an initial freeze of 10,801 unrelated TWB participants. In addition to the North-South cline reported in other Han Chinese populations, we find the Taiwanese Han Chinese clustered into three cline groups: 5% were of northern Han Chinese ancestry, 79.9% were of southern Han Chinese ancestry, and 14.5% belonged to a third (T) group. We also find that this T group is genetically distinct from neighbouring Southeast Asians and Austronesian tribes but similar to other southern Han Chinese. Interestingly, high degree of LD between HLA haplotype A*33:03-B*58:01, an MHC allele being of pathological relevance, and SNPs across the MHC region was observed in subjects with T origin, but not in other Han Chinese. This suggested the T group individuals may have experienced evolutionary events independent from the other southern Han Chinese. Based on the newly-discovered population structure, we detect different loci susceptible to type II diabetes in individuals with southern and northern Han Chinese ancestries. Finally, as one of the largest dataset currently available for the Chinese population, genome-wide statistics for the 10,810 subjects are made publicly accessible through Taiwan View (https://taiwanview.twbiobank.org.tw/index; date last accessed October 14, 2016) to encourage future genetic research and collaborations with the island Taiwan.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6078601/


Figure 2.
PCA plots for the TWB and neighbouring ethnic groups from PASNP and 1000G. PCA plot for samples from TWB (TWB ), 1000G (CHB and JPT), and PASNP (Min-Nan, Hakka, Ami and Atayal samples from Taiwan; Zhuang, Hmong, Jiamao, Han [Cantonese], and Han [Mandarin] samples from Mainland China; and the Korean samples).

^ I’m pretty sure the Han [Mandarin] sample is the same one from the Pan-Asian SNP Consortium dataset, which is labeled CN-SH and is comprised of 21 samples.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...1.s004.xls


(B ) PCA plot for the TWB (n = 10,801) and 504 Asian samples of 1000G. A north‐to‐south trend, from the JPT, CHB, CHS, TWB, KHV and CDX samples.


© the scatter plot of the first two PCs showed that the Min‐nan and Hakka groups could not be clearly discriminated. [The Hakka range is narrower than the Minnan range, although this could just be due to sample size]


(E) the individual ancestry‐assigning probabilities under the best model of K=9 ancestry populations


S6 Fig. Significance levels (P values) of differences in the physical examination indices and biochemical measures between the (S2+S3) and the (T1–T4) subgroups.

---

To explore the origin of the T group, we performed additional PCAs to correlate the four distinct groups in Taiwan with the ethnic groups from the HUGO Pan Asian SNP Consortium (PASNP) (22,23). In the PCA plot for TWB and neighbouring PASNP subgroups, although based on different sets of SNPs, the TWB individuals remained in the triangle pattern of geographic distribution (Fig. 2). In particular, the S1 subgroup was close to the Taiwan Austronesian groups (the Ami and Atayal samples of PASNP). This supported the hypothesis that the S1 samples may be an admixture of southern Han Chinese and further origins, possibly Austronesian populations. In the PCA plot, the three distinct groups (N2, S2 and S1) demonstrated the north–south trend in the genetic profiles in terms of PC1 values, whereas T1, with distinct PC2 values, was distinct from all the Asian and Austronesian groups in PASNP (Fig. 2) and 1000G (Fig. 1C), implying that current understanding of the migration history of Han Chinese to Taiwan provides little explanation of the origin of the T group. Because Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch settlements were established in Taiwan during the Age of Discovery in the 17th century before Han Chinese began immigrating to the island (1), it might be that T1 is an admixture of early Taiwanese and Europeans. However, the finding that the T ancestral origin can also be found in CHB (Table 1), and that it showed no clear affinity towards 1000G European samples (Supplementary Material, Fig. S1A), makes this explanation less plausible. Furthermore, the finding that T1 is distinct from the north–south gradient seen in Asian populations excludes the possibility of Japanese ancestral origin for the T group seen in modern Taiwanese, although Taiwan was occupied and governed by the Japanese for 50 years before World War II (1).

[okarinaofsteiner]

Genomic analyses of 10,376 individuals provides comprehensive map of genetic variations, structure and reference haplotypes for Chinese population
Houfeng Zheng, Peikuan Cong, Weiyang Bai, Jinchen Li, Nan Li, Sirui Gai, Saber Khederzadeh, Yuheng Liu, Mochang Qiu, Xiaowei Zhu, Pianpian Zhao, Jiangwei Xia, Shihui Yu, Weiwei Zhao, Junquan Liu, Penglin Guan, Yu Qian, Jianguo Tao, Mengyuan Yang, Geng Tian, Shuyang Xie, Keqi Liu, Beisha Tang

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-184446/v1

Abstract
Here, we initiated the Westlake BioBank for Chinese (WBBC) pilot project with 4,535 whole-genome sequencing individuals and 5,481 high-density genotyping individuals. We identified 80.99 million SNPs and INDELs, of which 38.6% are novel. The genetic evidence of Chinese population structure supported the corresponding geographical boundaries of the Qinling-Huaihe Line and Nanling Mountains. The genetic architecture within North Han was more homogeneous than South Han, and the history of effective population size of Lingnan began to deviate from the other three regions from 6 thousand years ago. In addition, we identified a novel locus (SNX29) under selection pressure and confirmed several loci associated with alcohol metabolism and histocompatibility systems. We observed significant selection of genes on epidermal cell differentiation and skin development only in southern Chinese. Finally, the WBBC haplotype panel, which is a population-specific reference panel, yielded substantial improvement of imputation performance in Chinese population for low-frequency and rare variants compared to 1KG Project, and merging EAS individuals to increase the haplotype size of WBBC could improve the performance across all MAF bins. We provided an online imputation server (https://wbbc.westlake.edu.cn/) which could result in higher imputation accuracy compared to the existing panels, especially for lower frequency variants.

"selection pressure", "alcohol metabolism" => alcohol flush reaction is known to be particularly common (and more severe) in the coastal rice-growing provinces

"selection of genes on skin development only in southern Chinese" => wild guess, this may be selection for lighter skin that is more sunburn resistant? haven't looked into the details, this is purely based on weather/climate [the rice-growing provinces are cloudier and more humid than the wheat-growing provinces] and cultural preferences for pale skin

---

Figure 2. PCA and ADMIXTURE analysis of the Han Chinese populations.

PC2 does not seem to correspond to an east-west axis as far as Han Chinese are concerned.





Chinese samples compared to JPT and KHV from 1000 genomes.


ADMIXTURE analysis of 2,056 Han Chinese individuals from 27 administrative divisions for the optimal K value = 3. Each vertical bar represents the average proportion of ancestral components in the regions. The length of each color indicates the percentage of inferred ancestry components from ancestral populations. Provinces are arranged by the value of hypothetical ancestral components 1 in each group. The upper pie charts denote the average proportion of components across individuals from the four subgroups.
-> 1 = Northern component, 2 = Coastal (East China Sea) component, 3 = SEA component.

---

Fig3. Genetic structure, demographic history and recent selection signatures of the Han Chinese populations.


A maximum likelihood tree of the Han Chinese in 27 administrative divisions. The plot is rooted in the northernmost province, and the x-axis represents estimated genetic drift. All administrative divisions in the tree are colored by different regions. The scale bar shows ten times the average standard error of the entries in the sample covariance matrix for estimating the drift parameter.

[okarinaofsteiner]

K=2 Eurasian ADMIXTURE run

In a K=7 run with the same populations, Tharu got 34% of the Southeast Asian component and 14% of the Siberian component, and Tamang got 48% of the Southeast Asian component and 25% of the Siberian component.

https://genoplot.com/discussions/post/643611, original Anthrogenica post

Thought this graph was really cool, especially the clusters and branching. Interesting how many of the Mainland SE Asian populations are modeled as having 1-3% of the "Paleo-Siberian"/"Eskimo" component. Guess it makes sense given that the "SE Asian" component is modal for "pure East Eurasian" Austronesian groups + Li/Hlai.


This is how I'm reading the branching for the "East Eurasian agriculturalist" subbranch (note that the Mongol-like groups that have historically had less close interactions with China cluster with Siberians, and then with Central Asians and Inuit/Eskimos):

1. "Northeast" Asian
    1a. South Asia-specific groups
        1a1a. Kusunda + Tharu/Newar
    1b. NE Asian proper
        1b1. "Chinese"-like cluster (most SEA-shifted)
            1b2a. "Northern" cluster (Korean/Japanese-like)
            1b2b. "Non-Sinitic Himalayan" cluster

2. "Southeast" Asian
    2a. Continental
        2a1. "Indian-shifted" cluster (Thai + Cambodian are closer to each other than Malay + Tagalog)
            2a2a. "Northern" cluster (Hmong-Mien + Lahu)
                2a2b1. "Viet"-like cluster (includes Zhuang)
                2a2b2. "Dai"-like cluster (includes Dong)
    2b. Maritime
        2b1a. Visayan + Li/Hlai cluster
        2b1b. Gaoshan + Ilocano + Dusun/Murut cluster

[okarinaofsteiner]

Timeskip to one of my final posts in my Anthrogenica megathread, from May 20 2023 genoplot.com/discussions/post/644376

Great phylogenetic chart of East Eurasians, this was posted only 10 days ago. IMO it correctly shows "Ancient Tibetan", "AASI", and "Para-Papuan" as branching off from each other as the same time as the "East Asian + Hoabinhian" branch, which correctly shows Hoabinhian as being closer to East Asians than to AASI or Papuans, but more distant from the Core East Asian group than Jomon or Longlin.

Wikiuser1314 - Own work; data taken and based on:[1][2][3][4]

Phylogenetic structure of Eastern Eurasians; displaying the genetic affinity and distance between different Eastern Eurasian lineages and their inferred diverging patterns. Population hub graphic (upper left) shows the distribution of Paleolithic specimens associated with the IUP expansion >45 kya. Taken from (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...on_Hub_OoA.jpg) Note: Northern East Asian and Southern East Asian specifically refers to the population genetic lineages of "Ancient Northern East Asians" (ANEA) [not to be confused with "Ancient Northeast Asians" (ANA)] and "Ancient Southern East Asians" (ASEA). The phylogenetic tree is primarily based on the summary by Yang 2022: Australasian (AA):"primarily contributed to human populations in Australasia, or the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring islands in the South Pacific Ocean. Represented primarily by present-day Australasians, e.g. Papuans and Aboriginal Australians.", indigenous South Asians (AASI):"primarily contributed to humans living in South Asia, particularly southern India. Partially represented in 5,000–1,500-year-old individuals from in or near the Indus Periphery and present-day Indians [59,60].", and East/Southeast Asians (ESEA): "Together, the genetic patterns described above show that the ESEA lineage differentiated into at least three distinct ancestries: Tianyuan ancestry which can be found 40,000-33,000 years ago in northern East Asia, ancestry found today across present-day populations of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Siberia, but whose origins are unknown, and Hòabìnhian ancestry found 8,000-4,000 years ago in Southeast Asia, but whose origins in the Upper Paleolithic are unknown." Hoabinhian ancestry was found to be the most basal ESEA branch:"All other labeled ancestries are subsets of ESEA lineage, where Hòabìnhian ancestry (yellow region) is deeply diverged from all other labeled ancestries". "Rapid diversification of an ancestral Asian population led to at least three Asian lineages, associated with Australasians and [Philippines] Negritos (AA), South Asians and Andamanese Islanders (AASI), and East and Southeast Asians (ESEA). Sampling across time and space in eastern Asia indicated that the ESEA lineage was highly sub-structured in the Upper Paleolithic, and populations across Siberia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia are associated with many distinct ancestries. Today, most populations from Siberia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia are associated with a mix of ancestries sampled predominantly in ancient individuals of East Asia." Another distinct deep ancestry ("Ancient Tibetan") is representing the Paleolithic ancestry of the Himalayan plateau. The most basal/deep Eastern Eurasian associated ancestries are represented by the Initial Upper-Paleolithic Ust'Ishim, as well as Bacho Kiro and Oase specimens.

[okarinaofsteiner]

One thing that I never really understood was how much Tianyuan-like admixture modern East Asians have. As far as I recall, there were two relatively recent papers that modeled East Asians as being essentially a mixture of Onge-like + Tianyuan, but they had reverse proportions of the forementioned components. I know that Kale and a few others expounded on this at length on Anthrogenica, but I can't search the archive on Genoplot right now since they seem to require you to register an account for you to do so. Do we know which modern populations have the most Tianyuan-like admixture today for that matter?

genoplot.com/discussions/topic/29344/ancient-dna-from-southeast-asia/11

Kale
Mar 9, 2018, 5:20 PM

Interesting that their treemix and f3 models seem to always fit Ami/Han as a mixture of an Onge-sister branch and Tianyuan. This seems logical, but I think it poses problems for the weird Mixe/Surui situation.

Onge and Tianyuan both prefer Surui more than Ami/Han do, which shouldn't be the case if Ami/Han are a simple mix.

The only thing I can think is that Onge/Papuan/Tianyuan are actually all on the same branch.

We also have to reconcile their trifcuration though...
D: Mbuti Tianyuan Onge East-Asian = positive
D: Mbuti Onge Tianyuan East-Asian = positive
D: Mbuti East-Asian Tianyuan Onge = 0

The only solution I can think to resolve this is that the Oceanian group splits, with Onge/Papuan on one branch and Tianyuan on the other.

The Tianyuan branch mixes into East Asians (which could satisfy the first D stat), but if it were this simple stats 2 and 3 would be negative.

To reconcile those we'd need an additional interaction between East Asians and the Onge branch (direction doesn't matter).

genoplot.com/discussions/topic/29545/the-origin-of-east-asians/33

Ryukendo
Aug 10, 2019, 4:27 AM

Mbuti.DG Tianyuan Onge.DG Ami.DG 0.0258 5.560 47397 45011 868656
Mbuti.DG Tianyuan Sunghir Ust_Ishim -0.0005 -0.076 48934 48980 882911
Mbuti.DG Tianyuan Sunghir MA1 0.0171 2.991 34414 33255 637019
Mbuti.DG Onge.DG Ami.DG Tianyuan -0.0302 -6.316 45011 47813 868656
Mbuti.DG Ami.DG Onge.DG Tianyuan -0.0044 -0.900 47397 47813 868656

Nice! So indeed Tianyuan is asymmetrically related to East Asians and Onge, with East Asians closer, and East Asians are closer to Onge than to Tianyuan, all of which are fairly expected.

---

On an unrelated note...

My thoughts:

- It is not surprising the Jarawa and Onge overwhelmingly gravitate towards Hoabhinians between all these references. What is surprising is how tight the % fits are. So contrary to some initial speculation (ie, that they have been isolated for tens of thousands of years, they represent an archaic OOA wave, etc) these guys are quite literally the 1:1 descendants of the Hoabhinians, and their isolation only dates to sometime from the late Neolithic to the Iron Age, when farmers finally ousted them from Mainland SE Asia

- The amount of Vanuatu_2900BP picked up by Austro-Asiatic speakers and Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese (as opposed to Jomon or Hoabhinian for these groups) is pretty surprising. You can see that Vanuatu basically looks a Jomon drifted out into "left field"; a group sharing much of this drift must have been common across much of SE Asia, not just on Taiwan. I think the idea has always been of an Austro-Asiatic substratum in China prior to the arrival of Sino-Tibetan speakers. Well, do these results lean towards a genetic relationship between the Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian language families? (ie, the proposed Austric macrofamily?)

- Chokhopani is obviously "too late" to be a proto-Sino-Tibetan speaker, but from a principal components perspective, it looks to be a decent proxy for whoever spread this ancestry thru East/SE Asia

- Some of the worst fits in these runs involve South Asian tribals. There is obviously additional substructure in AASI that cannot be accounted for by Hoabhinian alone (adding HotuCave to sop up West Eurasian ancestry doesn't help)

I think VUT_2900BP is just a proxy for "South Mongoloid"-like ancestry and/or shared genetic drift.

I made an Excel graph that shows how your modern East Asian populations fall on the PCA- this only includes populations with a relatively good fit (under 10). Based on how I score on various GEDmatch Oracle calculators and old nMonte calculators, I definitely fall somewhere in the triangle between Miao, Korean, and Japanese.

[okarinaofsteiner]

On an unrelated note...

My thoughts:

- It is not surprising the Jarawa and Onge overwhelmingly gravitate towards Hoabhinians between all these references. What is surprising is how tight the % fits are. So contrary to some initial speculation (ie, that they have been isolated for tens of thousands of years, they represent an archaic OOA wave, etc) these guys are quite literally the 1:1 descendants of the Hoabhinians, and their isolation only dates to sometime from the late Neolithic to the Iron Age, when farmers finally ousted them from Mainland SE Asia

- The amount of Vanuatu_2900BP picked up by Austro-Asiatic speakers and Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese (as opposed to Jomon or Hoabhinian for these groups) is pretty surprising. You can see that Vanuatu basically looks a Jomon drifted out into "left field"; a group sharing much of this drift must have been common across much of SE Asia, not just on Taiwan. I think the idea has always been of an Austro-Asiatic substratum in China prior to the arrival of Sino-Tibetan speakers. Well, do these results lean towards a genetic relationship between the Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian language families? (ie, the proposed Austric macrofamily?)

- Chokhopani is obviously "too late" to be a proto-Sino-Tibetan speaker, but from a principal components perspective, it looks to be a decent proxy for whoever spread this ancestry thru East/SE Asia

- Some of the worst fits in these runs involve South Asian tribals. There is obviously additional substructure in AASI that cannot be accounted for by Hoabhinian alone (adding HotuCave to sop up West Eurasian ancestry doesn't help)

I think VUT_2900BP is just a proxy for "South Mongoloid"-like ancestry and/or shared genetic drift.

I made an Excel graph that shows how your modern East Asian populations fall on the PCA- this only includes populations with a relatively good fit (under 10). Based on how I score on various GEDmatch Oracle calculators and old nMonte calculators, I definitely fall somewhere in the triangle between Miao, Korean, and Japanese.

Context- East Asian Ancient PCA and K9 nMonte

I put this together to try and parse out ancient E Asian population history. We have lots of gaps obviously, but, at least there's enough to form some rough outlines. Ryukendo made this post a while back, before we had all this ancient DNA. I think a lot of these predictions are starting to come to fruition, with maybe some slight modifications.

Below is a PCA I made with some ancient E Asian samples. (VUT2900BP = Vanuatu proto-Polynesians; NPL= Nepal). I used Corded_Ware to sop up West Eurasian ancestry, which I figure typically appeared in the form of steppe-related ancestry (though for some South Asians it could be mostly Iran_N-related). The Czech CWC sample also plots closest to Sintashta on PCA.


Here is a spreadsheet with how moderns match to these components in nMonte:

archive.today archive of Ryukendo's 2016 post

Actually, based on the findings of HUGO PASNP, down to the newer papers on Sherpa and Tibetan genetics, Onge, and also the papers on Jomon genetics, I think we are very close to constructing a valid component-based model of East Asian ancestry, just that no one has bothered to actually reach the conclusions extraneous to the main ones in their papers and publish the results. The reason being that we have a lot of relic populations like Onge, Taiwanese Aborigines, Aslians, Phillippine negritos and so on, which testify to the broken island and mountain geography of much of E and SE Asia and give us some of the 'ancestral pops', so to speak.

Just by 'filling in the gaps', the scenario is probably something like: after the Ainu and Sherpa-like populations split off from mainline East Asian groups, with the Ainu filling up Japan down the chain of islands to the Taiwanese coast and into SE coastal China, and the Sherpa-likes going to live in the Tibetan Plateau, there is probably a SE Asian cluster associated with agriculturalists and a NE Asian cluster associated with Hunter Gatherers that develop in central-Northern China. Some SE Asian agriculturalists moving south admix with Ainu-likes in SE coastal China, and possibly Phillippine negrito-likes in Taiwan, to form the pre-Austronesians in Taiwan and Guangdong/Fujian; some SE Asian Agriculturalists even further south mix with Onge-like Hunter Gatherers in Indochina to create the pre-Autroasiatics; and other SE Asian Agriculturalists mix with NE Asian HGs, creating Hmong-like peoples and more 'northerly' versions of them across the N China plain. Then a NE-SE mixed pop near Sichuan comes under pressure from Sherpa-like HGs from the Tibetan foothills, and the new Sherpa-ised mixed pop expand around the same timeframe as the Indo-Europeans to create Sino-Tibetans. Around the same time the more northerly Hmong-likes in East China around the Bohai region move into Korea, and later into Japan in the Yayoi period; their contact with populations in Manchuria and the Beijing-Ordos region lends these languages their 'Altaic' features. Some minority SE Asian, mostly NE Asian populations living from the Ordos to Manchuria, descendants from the Pig-Farming Hongshan, recorded in history as the semi-sedentary Rong and Di tribes during the earliest Chinese proto-states, pastoralise under pressure from the early Chinese states and the IE groups from the Western Steppes in Mongolia, creating the Altaic groups that back-migrate into Mongolia and C Asia in the historical periods.

I would say that this is 60% gap-filling on a framework of 40% information about genetic clusters we already know.

[okarinaofsteiner]

First original post in this thread- both parents from Laos
reddit.com/r/23andme/s/IzbAjlpcOh

---

Old vs New Illustrative DNA hunter-gatherer-vs-farmer ancestry calculator results

From Apr 2022- 86.4% Yellow River Neolithic, 7.2% SEA Neolithic, 5.0% Amur River Neolithic, 1.4% Melanesian

From Sept 2023- 87.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 5.2% SEA Neolithic, 5.4% Amur River Neolithic, 1.8% Melanesian

[okarinaofsteiner]

Link to the Proboards thread this one is copied from

Copying + pasting blurbs from my Anthrogenica megathread here:

Here is the link to the Genoplot archive of my original Anthrogenica megathread. Would have edited the first post in this thread but it seems I can't do that after enough time has passed. Not sure if the grace period is longer or shorter than what it was with Anthrogenica.

[okarinaofsteiner]

First original post in this thread- both parents from Laos
reddit.com/r/23andme/s/IzbAjlpcOh

Another Overseas Laotian result

49.4% Chinese Dai
28.8% Vietnamese
12.8% Lao (family origin)
2.5% Southern Chinese
6.3% Broadly East Asian
0.1% South Indian/Sri Lankan
0.1% Unassigned

[okarinaofsteiner]

Show Content

Spoiler

First original post in this thread- both parents from Laos
reddit.com/r/23andme/s/IzbAjlpcOh

Another Overseas Laotian result

49.4% Chinese Dai
28.8% Vietnamese
12.8% Lao (family origin)
2.5% Southern Chinese
6.3% Broadly East Asian
0.1% South Indian/Sri Lankan
0.1% Unassigned

Cosmopolitan Hong Konger 23andMe result with a very high "Chinese Dai" percentage". I think their on-paper ancestry is 2/4 Pearl River Delta Han Chinese, 1/4 Teochew Han Chinese, 1/4 Thai national. Posting in this thread because it isn't specifically about Han Chinese results

Speaking of "significant amounts of Chinese Dai", here's one of my DNA relatives from Hong Kong who has 1 grandparent born in Shantou and another grandparent born in Thailand. @Tsakhur;

47.3% Chinese (34.2% non-Lingnan Southern, 7.7% Lingnan, 5.4% Broadly)
34.8% Dai
10.7% Vietnamese
1.4% Indo/Thai/Khmer/Myanmar
5.1% Broadly East Asian

0.5% Bengali + NE Indian

0.2% Finnish

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comment...ils_in_my/

Tibetan Muslim results

59.1% East Asian (55.2% Northern Chinese & Tibetan, 3.7% South Chinese [i.e. Lingnan region], 0.1% Broadly Chinese, 0.1% Broadly East Asian)
40.6% Central & East Asian (19.1% Central Asian, 18.9% Bengali & NE Indian, 2.6% Broadly CSA)

I already was aware of my Tibetan and South Chinese heritage but I thought it would be around 80%. So i was excited to look for more details in my Central and South Asian ancestry. Unfortunately there’s no detail.

Some cool things I discovered: I share more Neanderthal DNA than 98% of other customers. My maternal haplogroup is rare - 1 in 85000 of 23andme customers have it.

The OP's husband's (Tajiki Afghan) results were also interesting because they show 3 different streams of Iranic ancestry: WANA > Northern WA > Iranian + Caucasian + Mesopotamian, Central-SouthAsian > Central Asia (Afghanistan, Uzbekistan), and Central-SouthAsian > N Indian + Pakistani (Khyber Pakhunkhwa). Fascinating to see how 23andMe breaks down this ethnolinguistic group into different categories!

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://np.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments..._accurate/


66.2% Chinese Dai, 33.8% Vietnamese. Mixed Kinh and Tày result from the China-Vietnam border area it seems

I'm from a small town in Northern Vietnam where most people identify themselves as Tày or (Chinese) Dai. Both my grandmothers are Vietnamese but the rest of my ancestors are probably Dai. My parents and many people in my hometown can still speak Tai language. They can communicate with people in Thailand to a certain extent with some similar sounding words. There's no longer any written form of our language that's in use. The food we eat is heavily influenced by Chinese cuisine. We don't celebrate water splashing festival Songkran like in Thailand.

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://np.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments...ults_pics/

My grandpa from my dads side was from Buryatia and my mom has hazel eyes. She and her parents were living around the center of Mongolia before moving to the capital.

83.5% Manchurian & Mongolian, 4.4% Siberian, 0.7% Broadly Northern Asian, 0.2% Vietnamese, 0.3% Broadly East Asian
10.3% Central Asian (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc)
0.2% Peninsular Arab
0.2% Finnish

[okarinaofsteiner]

Not from my original "East Eurasian megathread" Anthrogenica thread but thought this was worth resharing here

https://genoplot.com/discussions/topic/1...eadings/27

Regarding Sichuanese, in many papers I have read, such as those by He Guanglin, Sichuan Han (and other groups) show some Austroasiatic-related component (in some ADMIXTURE runs appearing as Mlabri) which Han from Hubei or further east do not (otherwise Han from Sichuan and Han from Hubei share more similarities than to be expected by older shared ancestry, likely due to historical events affecting Sichuan during the Ming-Qing transition and subsequent repopulation from further east).

Very interesting, I have no contentions about the linguistic arguments, about genetics, is Vietnam_N=Liangdao+Hoabinhian? Its composition may provide clue to its origins.

Vietnam_N forms a clade with a bunch of other genomes, such as Laos_N and some initial neolithic genomes from Malaya and Cambodia. This group is likely to derive from an admixture between Southeast Asian ancestry (for which the best representative rn is Liangdao/Qihe) and Hoabinhian (~30% according to Huang et al if I remember correctly), yes, but is also likely to have accumulated their own drift apart from this (you can see this in the Huang et. al. genetic history of Southern China paper), because Liangdao is already closer to Austronesian and Tai-Kradai ancestry, so Inland and Coastal SE Asians are likely to have split before the time of Liangdao.

[okarinaofsteiner]

Sharing the Genoplot archive of post #286 in my original Anthrogenica megathread, it got a thank from a Guamanian poster lol

Ancient DNA reveals five streams of migration into Micronesia and matrilocality in early Pacific seafarers

Human migrations into Micronesia
The movements of ancient humans can be difficult to ascertain from their current population genetic structure. Studying the peopling of the Micronesian islands, Liu et al. examined 164 ancient human remains from five different archaeological sites in remote Oceania from different prehistoric time frames, along with 112 present-day individuals from the same area. They combined these new data with the results of previous studies and also compared their results with linguistic studies. Their analysis revealed successive movements from island Southeast Asia that differ from those in the southwest Pacific. Furthermore, co-analysis of Micronesian and southwest Pacific ancient DNA indicates that the first people who colonized the Pacific islands had a population structure in which men moved to find their mates, whereas women rarely moved to join men. —LMZ

Abstract
Micronesia began to be peopled earlier than other parts of Remote Oceania, but the origins of its inhabitants remain unclear. We generated genome-wide data from 164 ancient and 112 modern individuals. Analysis reveals five migratory streams into Micronesia. Three are East Asian related, one is Polynesian, and a fifth is a Papuan source related to mainland New Guineans that is different from the New Britain-related Papuan source for southwest Pacific populations but is similarly derived from male migrants ~2500 to 2000 years ago. People of the Mariana Archipelago may derive all of their precolonial ancestry from East Asian sources, making them the only Remote Oceanians without Papuan ancestry. Female-inherited mitochondrial DNA was highly differentiated across early Remote Oceanian communities but homogeneous within, implying matrilocal practices whereby women almost never raised their children in communities different from the ones in which they grew up.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm6536

I’m glad this isn’t Anthroscape or some similarly phenotype-oriented forum. No weird “racial purity” statements about Chamorro-Filipina-American goddess Joleen Diaz please, let’s admire her slightly-augmented youthful beauty without any of that crap.