New PLOS paper, Geographic Patterns of Genome Admixture in Latin American Mestizos. Nothing new, but pushing the ball forward....
A = autosomal
X = X chromosomal
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Significant cultural and physical differences ... the stuff of race and ethnicity ... are prominent when people move across continents or between them. Eventually, the ponderous events of history, which involve occasional foldings in the continuum of human variation, causing apparent patchiness,…
Dienekes points me to a new paper, Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: replacement of native lineages by European (PDF). Here are the results:
Autochthonous (E-M81) and prominent (E-M78 and J-M267) Berber Y-chromosome lineages were detected in the indigenous remains, confirming a…
Apropos of my skepticism of Census projections of 2050 demographic balances, there's a new paper out on Argentina which is relevant. Here's Wikipedia on Argentina's self-conception:
As with other areas of new settlement such as Canada, Australia and the United States, Argentina is considered a…
Analysis of genomic diversity in Mexican Mestizo populations to develop genomic medicine in Mexico:
Mexico is developing the basis for genomic medicine to improve healthcare of its population. The extensive study of genetic diversity and linkage disequilibrium structure of different populations has…
"Nothing new", as you say but still interesting. Anyhow there are a couple of things that drew my attention:
1. The graph showing the apportion of native blood by linguistic/geographical groups (figure 5) shows that many mestizos have not just native blood from the local area but from all the continent without much distinction (for instance, Mexico City mestizos have as much meso/north American native blood as South American). This probably implies that mestizo people moved around the Spanish colonial empire pretty much (at least that's my first thought).
2. A couple of samples (Oriente-Guatemala and Salta-Argentine) show equal apportion of European autosomal and X-chr genetics. If I don't understand wrongly, that means that admixture in those populations was balanced with similar male and female European input, right? I find this somewhat strange. This is a contrast to the general trend that is of significatively more autosomal than X-chr European apportion (mainly male input) and to the systematically much more X-chr (mainly female) than autosomal African input (that is about the same in all samples).
I hope I'm not reading that wrong but, as I see it, basically 67% of the X-chr is statistically female in origin in contrast with 50% of the autosomal pool, right?
re: #1, the paper somewhat argues the opposite based on their data.
re: #2, about right.