Skip to main content

Not sure where to post this.
I thought it was interesting after some of the flareups in recent post about similiar subjects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8027269.stm
____________________________________________________ Got no love for politicians Or that crazy scene in D.C. It's just a power mad town But the time is ripe for changes There's a growing feeling That taking a chance on a new kind of vision is due I used to trust the media To tell me the truth, tell us the truth But now I've seen the payoffs Everywhere I look Who do you trust when everyone's a crook? Revolution calling Revolution calling Revolution calling you (There's a) Revolution calling Revolution calling Gotta make a change Gotta push, gotta push it on through catch
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This is all well and good, but, don't you notice how they continually leave Eygpt out of African history, etc.? Until Eygpt is included in it's proper place in African history, African history will NEVER be complete and Eygpt's history will NEVER be true. The will do a dna test to find the genetic origin of any of the 'Egyptian' mummies (except, maybe those they KNOW to be post non-African over population).
Sunnubian, why do you think the authors left out Egypt?

----

Unfortunately, my institution doesn't have access to the article yet (and I let my personal subscription lapse), but here is the abstract.

quote:
"Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, 4 African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observe high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historic migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan-speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies."
Oh okay. I was looking at the percentages of African-American ancestry and the numbers just didn't add up to 100%, only 92%. I'm supposing that the remaining 8% of the ancestry would be Asian/Native American? I'm also surprised at the low percentage of European ancestry only 13%? I presumed that it would be at least 30%, especially since the only other group, African Ancestry is putting out that percentage in terms of paternity of AA men. And of course, oral history which is an absolute key element for our culture here in the U.S.
What are your thoughts on this doc Shulamite? Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
Oh okay. I was looking at the percentages of African-American ancestry and the numbers just didn't add up to 100%, only 92%. I'm supposing that the remaining 8% of the ancestry would be Asian/Native American? I'm also surprised at the low percentage of European ancestry only 13%? I presumed that it would be at least 30%, especially since the only other group, African Ancestry is putting out that percentage in terms of paternity of AA men. And of course, oral history which is an absolute key element for our culture here in the U.S.
What are your thoughts on this doc Shulamite? Big Grin



Quit being so desperate to be something other than African. Other people can't stand you, and you expect everyone to believe that every ethnic group and some yet to be discovered were/are lined up around the block to "mix" with you?


If African Americans are mixed, then the Japanese are biracial since many here will say they are liked a hell of a lot more than AAs.


I know that you need to believe you are mixed since you think you are the lowest group of humans on the planet, but damn show some self-respect.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
Sunnubian, why do you think the authors left out Egypt?

----

Unfortunately, my institution doesn't have access to the article yet (and I let my personal subscription lapse), but here is the abstract.

quote:
"Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, 4 African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observe high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historic migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan-speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies."

I could not access the article itself via Rice. I did get the supplemental material/data which is 102 pages and 8 Meg. Here is another summary from the May 1 issue of Science.
African Genetic Roots

Attachments

Files (1)
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
Here is another summary from the May 1 issue of Science. African Genetic Roots


Thanks, kresge. Maybe Science has an access restriction on epubs or hot epubs. Weird. Anyway, I'll read the supplemental materials today, but in the meantime, the editorial you posted is nice.

quote:
They ended up with blood from 3194 Africans from 113 populations. Working with additional collaborators, they genotyped the samples for a panel of 1327 well-known markers used to map genetic diseases in diverse populations. They then used various statistical methods to sort the DNA into closely related clusters and to trace patterns of inheritance. They also compared markers in Africans with those from 98 African-Americans, 21 Yemenites, and 952 individuals from around the world.


I can see why this made Science. A cohort of 3200 people looking at over 1300 biomarkers is huge. That eclipses the West African dataset for the HapMap... ek and will likely become the "go to" dataset for many, many future genome-wide studies regarding people of African ancestry.

I'm impressed, and this is a win for black folk, imo.

quote:
The team focused on another migration as well: the exodus of slaves from Africa, sampling DNA from African-Americans in four U.S. states. These people inherited, on average, 71% of their DNA from ancestors who came from all over western Africa, 8% from other parts of Africa, and 13% from Europeans.


Yemaya, thanks for the question. First, I don't know what the "missing" 8% admixture comes from. I haven't yet read the original article, and I don't know who the 98 AAs tested are, but if you follow my link to the abstract, you can click on the "supplemetary materials", which kresge states is accessible. Given that this is Science, I bet the data you're looking for will be in the supplementary materials. I'm going to read through them during the day today, as well. Just keep in mind that the "missing" 8% could be but doesn't necessarily have to be Asian or a population not listed in the study. It could just be DNA that is highly conserved and not given to mutation across populations.

Second, Empty Purnata and I have posted on AA.org a few studies looking at African-American admixture. From the studies we've posted and the studies I've read and not posted, the European admixture rate (depending on the study) in AAs is 18-31% (and now, 13-31%). Perhaps the commercial product advertising the "30%" number is based on the the dataset from one of the studies showing a higher admixture of 30%.

Although it is true that no one owns sequences of DNA, as I told you in another thread, it is true that companies do own tests uniquely looking at specific groups of DNA sequences put together. It is the grouping of different DNA sequences that is proprietary. If the dataset (and stats algorithms used) is good enough, the scientists can patent and then license that "test" out to a commercial company (like Sorensen Genetics did with it's test to Ancestry.com).

quote:
This suggests that most African-Americans had ancestors from all over Africa, which will make it difficult to pinpoint their origins to specific ethnic groups, as ancestry-tracing kits now purport to do.


Oshun and Vox, if you're reading this, this is the point that Dr. Thomas was making in the BBC article. And, now, perhaps I shoud retract my "yes" answer to your question about the validity of tests linking people to the Wolof group. I should say instead that I don't know.

Evidently, given the huge heterogeneity AAs have based on this Science paper, maybe the authors are saying that the proprietary markers used for the commercial studies are too narrow. And I'd wonder if the authors have their 1392 biomarker dataset licensed for commercial use, too, though I sincerely hope not. But if they did, I'd do my ancestry testing against their biomarker dataset to the exclusion of anything else easily.

quote:
The data will be important for “studies that seek to map disease genes in African-Americans,” says Rosenberg.


True, and not just African Americans, but modern African populations as well.

quote:
“To understand the population genetics of any human population, we really need to understand Africa first,” says geneticist Jonathan Pritchard of the University of Chicago in Illinois.


Spot on. tfro
quote:
Originally posted by MaynardJ:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
Oh okay. I was looking at the percentages of African-American ancestry and the numbers just didn't add up to 100%, only 92%. I'm supposing that the remaining 8% of the ancestry would be Asian/Native American? I'm also surprised at the low percentage of European ancestry only 13%? I presumed that it would be at least 30%, especially since the only other group, African Ancestry is putting out that percentage in terms of paternity of AA men. And of course, oral history which is an absolute key element for our culture here in the U.S.
What are your thoughts on this doc Shulamite? Big Grin



Quit being so desperate to be something other than African. Other people can't stand you, and you expect everyone to believe that every ethnic group and some yet to be discovered were/are lined up around the block to "mix" with you?


If African Americans are mixed, then the Japanese are biracial since many here will say they are liked a hell of a lot more than AAs.


I know that you need to believe you are mixed since you think you are the lowest group of humans on the planet, but damn show some self-respect.


You know you just made yourself look like a complete idiot. Right? :lo:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by MaynardJ:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
Oh okay. I was looking at the percentages of African-American ancestry and the numbers just didn't add up to 100%, only 92%. I'm supposing that the remaining 8% of the ancestry would be Asian/Native American? I'm also surprised at the low percentage of European ancestry only 13%? I presumed that it would be at least 30%, especially since the only other group, African Ancestry is putting out that percentage in terms of paternity of AA men. And of course, oral history which is an absolute key element for our culture here in the U.S.
What are your thoughts on this doc Shulamite? Big Grin



Quit being so desperate to be something other than African. Other people can't stand you, and you expect everyone to believe that every ethnic group and some yet to be discovered were/are lined up around the block to "mix" with you?


If African Americans are mixed, then the Japanese are biracial since many here will say they are liked a hell of a lot more than AAs.


I know that you need to believe you are mixed since you think you are the lowest group of humans on the planet, but damn show some self-respect.


You know you just made yourself look like a complete idiot. Right? :lo:



No you're describing yourself.

You need to believe the myth that you're mixed when as you all like to say Africans and their diaspora are despised. Its nonsense and not to mention a falsehood.


If AAs are so mixed then groups that are not despised should be mixed to the 50th degree. And since they are not, your wishful thinking has been exposed for the delusion it is.
Last post.... language trees...

"Figure S30: Linguistic relationships among populations and trees of language divergence constructed with several sources of linguistic, archeological, and ethnographic data (S45, S46). Divergence times between related languages were estimated with archeological dates and glottochronological methods (S49). Percent similarity is from the number of shared cognates between languages. Linguistic phylogenies for

(a) the Khoesan language family
(b) Niger-Kordofanian language family
(c) Eastern Bantu-congo languages
(d) Deep-level Bantu relationships
(e) Second-level Bantu relationships
(f) Second-level Bantu relationships for Savanna-bantu
(g) Third-level bantu relationships for Mashariki Bantu languages
(h) Nilo-Saharan languages
(i) Nilotic languages
(j) Chadic languages
(k) Cushitic languages"

Attachments

Really last post.... 1

I just wanted to know how many of the study authors were from African institutions. Looks like 11 out of 25 people from 8 institutions. Good for them...

-------

Sarah A. Tishkoff 1*, Floyd A. Reed 2, Françoise R. Friedlaender 3, Christopher Ehret 4, Alessia Ranciaro 5, Alain Froment 6, Jibril B. Hirbo 1, Agnes A. Awomoyi 7, Jean-Marie Bodo 8, Ogobara Doumbo 9, Muntaser Ibrahim 10, Abdalla T. Juma 10, Maritha J. Kotze 11, Godfrey Lema 12, Jason H. Moore 13, Holly Mortensen 14, Thomas B. Nyambo 12, Sabah A. Omar 15, Kweli Powell 16, Gideon S. Pretorius 17, Michael W. Smith 18, Mahamadou A. Thera 9, Charles Wambebe 19, James L. Weber 20, Scott M. Williams 21


1 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.; Departments of Genetics and Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
2 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.; Present address: Department of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, 24306 Plön, Germany.
3 Independent researcher, Sharon, CT 06069, USA.
4 Department of History, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
5 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.; Departments of Genetics and Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.; Dipartimento di Biologia ed Evoluzione, Università di Ferrara, 44100 Ferrara, Italy.
6 UMR 208, IRD-MNHN, Musée de l’Homme, 75116 Paris, France.
7 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.; Present address: Department of Internal Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
8 Ministère de la Recherche Scientifique et de l’Innovation, BP 1457, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
9 Malaria Research and Training Center, University of Bamako, Bamako, Mali.
10 Department of Molecular Biology, Institute of Endemic Diseases, University of Khartoum, 15-13 Khartoum, Sudan.
11 Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa.
12 Department of Biochemistry, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
13 Departments of Genetics and Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.
14 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.; Present address: Office of Research and Development, National Center for Computational Toxicology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
15 Kenya Medical Research Institute, Center for Biotechnology Research and Development, 54840-00200 Nairobi, Kenya.
16 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.; Present address: College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
17 Division of Human Genetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa.
18 Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702, USA.
19 International Biomedical Research in Africa, Abuja, Nigeria.
20 Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI 54449, USA.
21 Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Center for Human Genetics Research, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
The four AA populations (98 people) came from Chicago, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and North Carolina. The 121 African populations (3194 people) and their respective language breakdowns are in the attached table.

Looks like they didn't include Egypt, Sunnubian...


Only 98 people? I think that they would've had better results if they focused more of their testing on the Southern AA population since that's where the majority of AAs reside.
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
Only 98 people? I think that they would've had better results if they focused more of their testing on the Southern AA population since that's where the majority of AAs reside.


Yemaya, what cities would you have chosen as representative of the AA population?

And what would be "better results" from your perspective? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "better".

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×