Google

蓝海人类学在线 Ryan WEI's Forum of Anthropology

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 10584|回复: 60

Russians y-snp from Yaroslavl oblast

[复制链接]
发表于 2017-4-13 18:50 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 198401 于 2017-4-13 18:56 编辑

Is there a Finno-Ugric component in the gene pool of Russians from Yaroslavl oblast? Evidence from Y-chromosome
Abstract
The Upper Volga region was an area of contacts of Finno-Ugric, Slavic, and Scandinavian speaking populations in the 8th–10th centuries AD. However, their role in the formation of the contemporary gene pool of the Russian population of the region is largely unknown. To answer this question, we studied four populations of Yaroslavl oblast (N = 132) by a wide panel of STR and SNP markers of the Y-chromosome. Two of the studied populations appear to be genetically similar: the indigenous Russian population of Yaroslavl oblast and population of Katskari are characterized by the same major haplogroup, R-M198 (xM458). Haplogroup R-M458 composes more than half of Sitskari’s gene pool. The major haplogroup in the gene pool of the population of the ancient town of Mologa is N-M178. Subtyping N-M178 by newest “genomeera” Y-SNP markers showed different pathways of entering this haplogroup into the gene pools of Yaroslavl Volga region populations. The majority of Russian populations have subvariant N3a3-CTS10760; the regular sample of Yaroslavl oblast is equally represented by subvariants N3a3-CTS10760 and N3a4-Z1936, while subvariant N3a4-Z1936 predominates in the gene pool of population of Mologa. This N3a4-Z1936 haplogroup is common among the population of the north of Eastern Europe and the Volga-Ural region. The obtained results indicate preservation of the Finno-Ugric component in the gene pool of population of Mologa and a contribution of Slavic colonization in the formation of the gene pool of the Yaroslavl Volga region populations and make it possible to hypothesize the genetic contribution of the “downstream” (Rostov- Suzdal) rather than “upstream” (Novgorod) Slavic migration wave.

Keywords

gene pool genogeography Y-chromosome SNP STR Russians Yaroslavl oblast Finno-Ugric peoples Merya Sitskari Katskari Mologzhane

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1022795417030048
QQ截图20170413185509.png
发表于 2017-4-13 20:08 | 显示全部楼层
这些M198(xM458),我怀疑有不少Z280下面的分支。
发表于 2017-4-13 23:52 | 显示全部楼层
雅罗斯拉夫尔属于东斯拉夫人较早期的定居点,N不是很多啊。
发表于 2017-4-14 08:32 | 显示全部楼层
M198(xM458)是一个很空泛的标识,几乎没有意义。另外,单单一个L23也不足以说明问题,看来作者这方面还需要努力~~
发表于 2017-4-14 08:34 | 显示全部楼层
雅罗斯拉夫尔属于东斯拉夫人较早期的定居点,N不是很多啊。
lindberg 发表于 2017-4-13 23:52

molog地区的Z1936有26.4%,也是不少了~
发表于 2017-4-14 09:37 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2017-4-14 09:51 编辑
M198(xM458)是一个很空泛的标识,几乎没有意义。另外,单单一个L23也不足以说明问题,看来作者这方面还需要努力~~
imvivi001 发表于 2017-4-14 08:32

是不是缺钱?其实感觉作者的意思就是想得出‘’雅州人是东斯拉夫人从下游的弗拉基米尔公国向伏尔加河上游渗透的结果,而不是从上游的诺夫哥罗德公国‘’的结论,这两个东斯拉夫人的定居点比雅的时间要早,没有雅州的地图,猜测那个N高的地方在伏尔加河上游靠近诺夫哥罗德方向。因为M458是斯拉夫标志HG,所以他对其他R1a做了统称。
发表于 2017-4-14 09:53 | 显示全部楼层
M198(xM458)是一个很空泛的标识,几乎没有意义。另外,单单一个L23也不足以说明问题,看来作者这方面还需要努力~~
imvivi001 发表于 2017-4-14 08:32

你不说我还没注意L23,倒是证实了我的一些猜想
发表于 2017-4-14 10:07 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2017-4-14 09:51 编辑


M198(xM458)是一个很空泛的标识,几乎没有意义。另外,单单一个L23也不足以说明问题,看来作者这方面还需要努力~~
imvivi001 发表于 2017-4-14 08:32
是不是缺钱?其实感觉作者的意思就是想得出‘’雅州人是东斯拉夫人从下游的弗拉基米尔公国向伏尔加河上游渗透的结果,而不是从上游的诺夫哥罗德公国‘’的结论,这两个东斯拉夫人的定居点比雅的时间要早,没有雅州的地图,猜测那个N高的地方在伏尔加河上游靠近诺夫哥罗德方向。因为M458是斯拉夫标志HG,所以他对其他R1a做了统称。
lindberg 发表于 2017-4-14 09:37

你这个分析颇有道理~
发表于 2017-4-14 10:08 | 显示全部楼层
你不说我还没注意L23,倒是证实了我的一些猜想
lindberg 发表于 2017-4-14 09:53

不妨说说看...
发表于 2017-4-14 10:42 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2017-4-14 11:13 编辑
你这个分析颇有道理~
imvivi001 发表于 2017-4-14 10:07

维基上的详细信息都是俄文的,实在看不懂,英文的不够详细。
刚才说的有些不对,不是弗拉基米尔,应该是罗斯托夫-苏兹达尔(后来才改名的),两者都有影响,但下游影响更大。人群的渗透不是从两个公国才开始的,从伏尔加河上游和下游向雅罗斯拉夫尔地区的渗透应该在更早就开始了。
作者说了:
The Upper Volga region was an area of contacts of Finno-Ugric, Slavic, and Scandinavian speaking populations in the 8th–10th centuries AD.
诺夫哥罗德是早期维京人建立的定居点,附近肯定有大量的波罗的人和芬-乌戈尔人,而罗斯托夫可能在基辅罗斯建立以前就是东斯拉夫人的聚居区了。
发表于 2017-4-14 11:27 | 显示全部楼层
不妨说说看...
imvivi001 发表于 2017-4-14 10:08
看错了,L23是没啥太大意义,谁知道是Z2103呢还是L51下面的?分布很不均匀,闹不好是L51下面的,如果是这样可能和维京人有有关。
发表于 2017-4-14 23:26 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 imvivi001 于 2017-4-15 08:36 编辑

(以下摘自或改编自eupedia的maciamo编撰的数据与说明)

I1在欧洲的分布图
y-Haplogroup_I1.gif

The I1 branch is estimated to have split away from the rest of haplogroup I some 27,000 years ago. I1 is defined by over 300 unique mutations, which indicates that this lineage experienced a serious population bottleneck. Most of the Late Glacial and Mesolithic remains tested to date belonged to haplogroup I* or I2. It is not yet clear in which part of Europe I1 originated. It has been speculated that I1 evolved in isolation in Scandinavia during the late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods, when hunter-gatherers from southern Europe recolonised the northern half of the continent from their LGM refugia. (在LGM时期能够在北欧躲过严寒的可能性不大,应该是两石时期从南方避难所重新北上的结果。vivi注。)The oldest attested evidence of postglacial resettlement of Scandinavia dates from 11,000 BCE with the appearance of the Ahrensburg culture. ( Ahrensburg文化是欧洲旧石器末期北欧的一个游猎者文化遗址,我怀疑是LGM结束之后南方游猎者北上的一个据点,在新仙女木时期能够硬挺,也是很不容易的,萨米人的I1d可能与这个文化有关。而日耳曼族群常见的I1a,感觉是后期从南方避难所重新北上的结果。vivi注。).  
However, five Y-DNA samples from Mesolithic Sweden, dating from c. 5800 to 5000 BCE and tested by Lazaridis et al. 2013 and Haak et al. 2015 all turned out to belong to haplogroup I2. The earliest sign of haplogroup I1 emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2014). A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture, which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany and the Low Countries. This means that haplogroup I1 was present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion.
It is therefore possible that I1 lineages were among the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers assimilated by the wave of East Mediterranean Neolithic farmers (represented chiefly by Y-haplogroup G2a). There is also evidence from the Neolithic samples of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture and Cardium Pottery cultures that haplogroup I2a lived alongside G2a farmers both in south-east and south-west Europe.
应该是指2014年Anna Szécsényi-Nagy-W. Haak,--Kurt Alt团队的那篇关于中欧早期农业遗址的检测结果,一共是9个Y, 其中3个F* (M89) 、2个G2a2b (S126)、 1个G2a (P15) 、1个I2a1 (P37.2) ,而同一地区后期的LBK遗址则测出1个G2a2b (S126) 与1个I1 (M253)。这个结果,可以初步理解为早期来自小亚细亚的农民首先与中南欧的I2a1土著混合,使他们开始向农业转化,但是当地的I1游猎者土著的主体没有参与早期的融合,而被迫北上到北欧。但是依然有小部分I1最终还是参与了后期的融合,成为当地农业人群的一部分,并且成功参与其后的东欧与北欧早期农业大扩散。正好可以阐释我前面的判断,当然,也可能会出现小概率的意外,毕竟LBK的y-I1没有测下游。vivi注。)


The most likely hypothesis at present is that I1 and I2 lineages were dispersed around Europe during the Mesolithic, and that some branches prospered more than others thanks to an early adoption of agriculture upon contact with the Near Eastern farmers who were slowly making their way across the Balkans and the Mediterranean shores..   The small group of farmers from the early LBK culture from Hungary might have formed a blend of I1 and G2a men. Yet distinct families would have spread in different directions and met varying successes in their expansion. It would appear that a founder effect in the northern LBK population led to a sudden explosion of I1 lineages, perhaps in part thanks to their better knowledge of the Central European terrain and fauna (since hunting was typically practised side by side to agriculture to complement the farmers' diet). I1 would later have spread to Scandinavia from northern Germany.(感觉作者这一段分析颇有道理)

Extent of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK, c. 5600-4250 BCE)

y-LBK_culture.png
This data is consistent with a Neolithic dispersal of I1 from Hungary with the LBK culture and the subsequent Funnelbeaker culture (4000-2700 BCE) in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. One Swedish sample from the late Mesolithic Pitted Ware culture (3200-2300 BCE) also turned out to belong to I2a1 and not I1.(这个结果非常有趣,一方面再次提示北欧地区因其偏僻位置,而沦为在整个亚欧大陆中为期最短的新石器农业社会,在尚未发展为成熟农业社会之前,便猝然之中开始面对邻近地区也已发展成熟的农业社会兼新兴的畜牧业化社会,因此成为新一轮的殖民地也是在所难免的。稍后展开讨论...)

评分

1

查看全部评分

发表于 2017-4-14 23:29 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 imvivi001 于 2017-4-15 08:51 编辑

再阐述欧洲的y-I1的早期发展史的同时,当然不能忘了它的最亲近的兄弟支系I2。
I2发育树图 y-I2a1-tree.png

(这个图是maci做的,不过做的很粗糙,远不如他最关心的R1b或R1a,作为一个地道的欧洲人,这个倒是有一点令人难以理解,呵呵)

I2 (M438/P215/S31) is thought to have originated during the Late Paleolithic, around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), which lasted approximately from 26,500 to 19,000 years agoyfull提供的数据是formed 27500 ybp, TMRCA 21800 ybp,不过考虑到这个y-F大家庭的小兄弟经历了太多的苦难,我是说瓶颈期特别漫长,也许诞生期还可以提前一些。vivi注。).
I2 probably appeared in western Europe, although its exact region of origin cannot be determined since Paleolithic Europeans were nomadic hunter-gatherers.  The oldest I2 sample recovered from archeological skeletons is a 13,500 year-old man from the Grotte du Bichon in Switzerland associated with the Azilian culture (see Jones et al. (2015)). His maternal lineage was U5b1h.  As of October 2016, 15 Mesolithic European Y-DNA samples have been tested. Among them one belonged to haplogroup C1a2 (in Spain), one to F (in Germany), two to I* (in France), and six to I2 (Luxembourg and Sweden), including to I2a1* (P37.2), I2a1a1a (L672), I2a1b (M423) and I2c2 (PF3827). The maternal (mtDNA) lineages that they carried were U2e, U4, U5a1, U5a2 and U5b. The four samples from Russia belonged to Y-haplogroup J*, R1a1 (2x) and R1b1a. This shows that there was already a certain amount of diversity among Mesolithic European lineages, although many of these lineages (C1a2, F, I*, J*) are now exceedingly rare. Haplogroup I2a1 seems to have come out of the Neolithic period as the big winner for reasons that are not yet clear.
---------------------------------------------------

好,maci的最后这句话非常耐人寻味,为什么作为众多欧洲本土起源的y类型,偏偏是I2a1获得了非常明显的成功呢? 天时?地利?人和? 我看三样因素皆有之。
首先说天时。这个比较容易理解,严酷的LGM过去了,从温暖的南方迎来了一种新兴的生活方式---农业。这可能意味着生活更稳定了,人口开始增长。正好,有一批I2a1主频人群彼时可能正好活动在欧洲伊甸园巴尔干或气候适宜的中欧某地一带,于是较早被来自小亚细亚的农夫们同化,享受了‘欧洲第一次改革开放’的红利。(在匈牙利测到的那些欧洲农业早期的I2a1应该是一个生动的写照)


不过I2a1并不一定是欧洲改革开放的最早的受益者,因为学者们发现了更早的y-I2农业人群,那就是I2c (L596),请接着看...
The analysis of Early Neolithic genomes from Anatolia by Mathieson et al. (2015) shows that I2c (L596) was already present in north-western Turkey 8,500 years ago(!!!)and had been assimilated by the Neolithic farmers on their way from the Fertile Crescent to Europe. Various ancient DNA studies conducted between 2014 and 2016 revealed that all Mesolithic European lineages became absorbed by the wave of Neolithic farmers. (all? 真的未必,这一点上,感觉maci下结论有一点过于仓促)。Yet I2a stood out as the most common among them, amounting to 16% of the 69 Neolithic Y-DNA samples tested. (的确是算得上很成功了,至今依然如此,看来还是新石器时代打下的良好基础)。That places it as the second most common paternal lineage after G2a, the original lineage lineage of Anatolian farmers(为啥二者同为新石器早期农业的主要人群,后来的发展情况却大不相同,个中缘由,耐人寻味,这个以后再详细探讨).  I2a1 seems to have particularly prospered in the Starčevo–Kőrös–Criş culture (6000-4500 BCE) in Southeast Europe, where it is still one of the main male lineages today. I2a1 also appeared in the Printed-Cardium Pottery culture (5000-1500 BCE) in the western Mediterranean. The modern Sardinians and Basques inherited the biggest share of their genome from those Neolithic farmers from the Printed-Cardium Pottery culture.(时至今日,撒丁岛居民的I2a的频度依然高的惊人

Although only one I2a2 has only been found during the early or middle Neolithic samples so far (a I2a2a-M223 from Spain), many of them showed up during the Copper and Bronze Ages. Copper - Bronze age samples consist of one I2a2, two I2a2a and one I2a2a1 (CTS616) in Spain, one I2a2a1b1b2 (S12195) in southern Russia (Yamna culture), one I2a2a1 (CTS9183) and one I2a2a1a2a (L229) in Hungary (Vatya culture), six I2a2b (L38) in Germany (Unetice and Urnfield cultures). I2a1 samples from the Copper Age include an I2a1a1 from northern Italy (Remedello culture), an I2a1 from Hungary (Vatya culture). I2c2 was also found in the Unetice culture in Germany.
--------------------------------(目前I2c在欧洲的频度永比不上它的兄弟支系y-I2a,个人估计,可能I2c在农业早期正好活动于小亚与东南欧交界处,尽管其大部分及时融入了当地的农业社会得到延续与发展,但是只有小部分如I2c2加入了小亚细亚农夫西扩的大浪潮之中

y-Haplogroup_I2a.gif


maci估测的y-I2相关古文化变迁图
y-Hallstatt_La_Tene_map.gif

评分

1

查看全部评分

发表于 2017-4-15 21:59 | 显示全部楼层
Rybinsk_vdhr_eng.svg.png
发表于 2017-4-15 22:32 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2017-4-15 23:06 编辑

先上个图
对这篇文章产生了严重的兴趣,不知谁能找到全文?

以前说错了,upstream并不是伏尔加河上游,而是指西边的诺夫格罗德方向,
downstream则指的是南边的罗斯托夫-苏兹达尔方向。

作者描述了雅州的四个族群,1个是Sitskari,一个是Katskari,一个是molog地区的人(为了修雷宾斯克水库,Molog古城被淹,估计测试的人群是水库移民),最后一个雅州的其他居民。

从上图看:
1.Sitskari住在Sit河附近(图中雅州名称里A和R中间那条小河),他们是俄罗斯人的一个小族群,金发比例高,历史上喜欢留着短发,说一种俄语北方方言,祖先有波罗的人血统
2.Katskari也在雅罗斯拉夫尔州,他们是俄罗斯人的一个小族群,也说一种独特的俄语北方方言,有许多特有词,并不把自己看作为俄罗斯人,他们大概在Sitskari南方
3.molog地区在molog河附近(就是流入水库两个角下面那个的那条河),可以看出这个地方靠近诺夫哥罗德州(和我猜测的一致)
4.雅州的主流人群。
发表于 2017-4-15 23:45 | 显示全部楼层
因为没有看全文,只是看了作者的结论,作者重点说了R1a和N:
1. 雅州主流人群和Katskari的R1a非常一致,xM458比M458要多, Sitskari的斯拉夫人标志hg R1a-M458非常高
2. 雅州主流人群的N3a3和N3a4基本一致,而Molog人的N3a4非常高,而主流东斯拉夫人中是N3a3较多,因Molog人以前是居住在靠近诺夫哥罗德方向的,因此作者得出结论,来自罗斯托夫-苏兹达尔方向的移民比来自诺夫格罗德方向的移民对当地人的基因贡献大。
发表于 2017-4-15 23:48 | 显示全部楼层
(以下摘自或改编自eupedia的maciamo编撰的数据与说明)

I1在欧洲的分布图
50936

The I1 branch is estimated to have split away from the rest of haplogroup I some 27,000 years ago. I1 is defined by o ...
imvivi001 发表于 2017-4-14 23:26

感觉I2也好,I1也好,都是给R做小弟的,早期I2在巴尔干抱上了印欧人大腿,向西向北扩张,而I1在日耳曼人崛起后迅速向南向西扩张

评分

1

查看全部评分

发表于 2017-4-16 00:13 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lindberg 于 2017-4-16 00:24 编辑

芬-乌人对俄罗斯人血统的贡献很大,有的俄罗斯人甚至认为他们只是说斯拉夫语的芬乌人而已。从上面结果看,说不定Sitskari倒是最接近以前的斯拉夫人祖先。
我认为芬-乌人在俄罗斯人血统中的高比例,和蒙古人入侵密切相关,蒙古人占据了南方草原,北方罗斯诸公国只能向原来森林地带进发,伏尔加芬人大部分被同化,波罗的芬人也被同化一部分。

随着蒙古汗国的解体,俄国人向东进发,彼尔姆人和乌戈尔人也被同化大部分。

这些古代芬乌民族目前只剩下很少的人。
 楼主| 发表于 2017-4-16 06:57 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2017-4-16 07:48 | 显示全部楼层
没有看原文,但是从楼主提供的这个y-Hg频度表中,倒是颇能说明一些问题。

      很明显,俄罗斯族中的Katskari族群的确有一些特殊之处。首先他们的R-M198 (xM458)频度非常高,在全部雅州土著中赫然排在第一位(尽管雅州土著的R-M198 (xM458)普遍都很高)。Katskari族群的另一个特点是他们的R1b-L23的频度不低(高达16.2%)加之10%的I2,而他们的y-N基本为零,说明这个族群的主体应该是来自日耳曼人(估计与条顿人关联性最大,也可能是叶卡捷琳娜二世时期请来的德意志开垦团的后裔)。



     雅州土著的背景来源似乎各不相同,比如我上面说到的mologa民系,其突出的特点就是乌-芬语人群的N-Z1936类型非常高,而俄罗斯特有的N-CTS10760却不高,说明这个民系的确是被俄罗斯化的乌-芬民系,而且同化的历史并不久。



相对而言,雅州的Sitskari民系是最正宗的‘俄罗斯’背景了,其R-M458高达56.7%!(很有可能是奠基者效应),但是也是有其特点的,比如闪米特人主频的P58频度在当地人比较显目,尽管作者没有检测其下游是否属于新石器末期进军欧洲的P58欧洲支系,但是从雅州其他土著居民的P58基本为零的结果来看,我有理由怀疑Sitskari的P58来自于这些‘条顿人’后裔中被同化的犹太人。


      本文有一个很大的不足是,除了测了俄罗斯族特色的M458以及CTS10760以及乌芬人群特色的Z1936,没有对其他欧洲人常见的marker进行点射(其实不会增加什么检测费),以至于我们无法准确估测雅州土著非俄罗斯背景的具体来源成分,尽管大体上判定一个方向是可以的。 当然,也可能作者本次发文的主旨在于说明雅州土著的乌芬特色背景,因此有一些内部检测数据暂时没有公开也是可能的,但愿如此,不然就事半功倍了~
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|人类生物学在线 ( 苏ICP备16053048号 )

GMT+8, 2020-11-30 06:29 , Processed in 0.327464 second(s), 26 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表