Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1110672728

Subject: Re: [DNA] Conclusions in Strasbourg?
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:12:08 +0000

Here is the abstract that Bonnie posted. What do you make of it Ken? It concerns me in relation to Weale et al., Capelli et al. and all who would use the populations of a region today to simulate a population that lived in the area 1600 years ago (act as a reference population). It seems to me that this study could be very significant for those of us (myself included) who look at todays haplotypes in an area (e.g., the Altai Mountains in the case of my research) and project backwards in time making what might be unwarranted assumptions.


ABSTRACT: Several studies showed that surnames are good markers to
infer patrilineal genetic structures of populations,both on regional and
microregional scales. As a case study,the spatial patterns of the 9,929
most common surnames of the Netherlands were analyzed by a clustering
method called self-organizing maps (SOMs). The resulting clusters
grouped surnames with a similar geographic distribution and origin. The
analysis was shown to be in agreement with already known features of
Dutch surnames, such as (1) the geographic distribution of some
well-known locative suf fixes, (2) historical census data, (3) the
distribution of foreign surnames,and (4) polyphyletic surnames. Thus,
these results validate the SOM clustering of surnames, and allow for the
generalization of the technique. This method can be applied as a new
strategy for a better Y-chromosome sampling design in retrospective
population genetics studies, since the identi- fication of surnames with
a defined geographic origin enables the selection of the living
descendants of those families settled, centuries ago, in a given area.
In other words, it becomes possible to virtually sample the population
as it was when surnames started to be in use. We show that, in a given
location, the descendants of those individuals who inhabited the area at
the time of origin of surnames can be as low as ~20%. This finding
suggests (1) the major role played by recent migrations that are likely
to have distorted or even defaced ancient genetic patterns, and (2)
that standard-designed samplings can hardly portray a reliable picture
of the ancient Y-chromosome variability of European populations.

Am J Phys Anthropol 126:214 -228, 2005


-------------- Original message --------------

> I'm replying to a message by David Faux replying to my Strasbourg message. I
> saw it in List depository but have not received it yet because of Bresnan INP
> problems. David says its not "fair to conclude...." I wasn't concluding
> anything in my message about Strasbourg; just reporting what I saw in
> Strasbourg's top 20 haplotypes and thought interesting; and commenting on the
> village names in my Nat Geo atlas. And there was a number --- 20 percent or 40
> percent --- concerning stability or instability or something similar about
> populations which came from Bonnie? Was that refering to Strasbourg
> specifically, or all of Europe, or Central Europe ....? Exactly what the number
> is talking about is not clear; perhaps an example and the evidence would help,
> because if interpreted broadly seems unrealistic.
> Ken

This thread: