Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, September 1, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Human geography is mapped in the genes

by New Scientist

Thanks to GP for the link.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn14631-human-geography-is-mapped-in-the-genes.html?feedId=online-news_rss20


Human geography is mapped in the genes

By Ewen Callaway

The genes of a European person can be enough to pinpoint their ancestry down to their home country, claim two new studies.

By reading single-letter DNA differences in the genomes of thousands of Europeans, researchers can tell a Finn from a Dane and a German from a Brit. In fact a visual genetic map mirrors the geopolitical map of the continent, right down to Italy's boot.

"It tells us that geography matters," says John Novembre, a population geneticist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who led one of the studies. Despite language, immigration and intermarriage, genetic differences between Europeans are almost entirely related to where they were born.

This, however, does not mean that the citizens of each European nation represent miniature races. "The genetic diversity in Europe is very low. There isn't really much," says Manfred Kayser, a geneticist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, who led the other study.

One-letter differences

Kayser's and Novembre's teams uncovered the gene-geography pattern only by analysing hundreds of thousands of common gene variants called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the genomes of people from about two dozen countries. SNPs are places in the genome where one person's DNA might read A, while another's T.

Though the teams worked independently, they used some of the same DNA samples, which were gathered by the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline to help hunt for genes linked to drug side effects. The researchers recorded the results alongside the country of origin for each subject as well as that of their parents and grandparents when possible.

For each subject, the researchers decoded half a million SNPs. However, to get an overall assessment of the difference between any two genomes, the researchers used a mathematical trick that scrunched the hundreds of thousands of SNPs into two coordinates, with each person's genome represented by a point. The greater the distance between two points, the greater the difference in their genomes.

When both teams plotted thousands of genomes on a single graph along with their country of origin, a striking map of Europe emerged. Spanish and Portuguese genomes clustered "south-west" of French genomes, while Italian genomes jutted "south-east" of Swiss.

These cardinal directions are artificial, but the spatial relationships between genomes are not. In general, the closer together two people live, the more similar their DNA. The same is known to be true of animals .
Predicting origins

The map was so accurate that when Novembre's team placed a geopolitical map over their genetic "map", half of the genomes landed within 310 kilometres of their country of origin, while 90% fell within 700 km.

Both teams found that southern Europeans boast more overall genetic diversity than Scandinavians, British and Irish.

"That makes perfect sense with the major migration waves that went into Europe," says Kayser, noting Homo sapien's European debut 35,000 years ago, post-ice age expansions 20,000 years ago, and movements propelled by the advent of farming 10,000 years ago. In each case, members of established southern populations struck north.

"A pattern in which genes mirror geography is essentially what you would expect from a history in which people moved slowly and mated mainly with their close neighbours," says Noah Rosenberg, a geneticist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Journal references: Nature (DOI: 10.1038/nature07331)

Current Biology (DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.049)

Comments 1 - 23 of 23 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #240735 by Stafford Gordon on September 1, 2008 at 1:38 am

Professor Steve Jones writes fascinatingly about this subject in his "Language of the Genes".

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

2. Comment #240748 by oasis-al-reason on September 1, 2008 at 2:16 am

 avatarReading research such as this leaves me just as elevated as when I read Richard Dawkins books. I find myself smugly declaring "well, its obvious and intuitive common sense, what else could it be". Then I read the circular dribbles by the likes of Jonathon Sacks and the Archbishop and Canterbury and I realize that some people must a mental block, either willful or indoctrinated.

Other Comments by oasis-al-reason

3. Comment #240753 by Roger Stanyard on September 1, 2008 at 2:25 am

 avatarStephen Oppenheimer at UCL has also done a lot of work on this but from a historical perspective. he found that the Brits were simply not divided into Celts and Anglo Saxons but that both are all basically of Basque origin.

So the history books now need to be seriously revised and various sundry nationalistic movements in the Brtish Isles need a radical rethink of what they are on about. There are no Celts!

That's one of the things I love about science. It has huge ripple on effects about the way we think.

No wonder the religous fundamentalists hate it.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

4. Comment #240768 by dvespertilio on September 1, 2008 at 2:57 am

What?!!?? No Celts? I'm cut to the quick of my Anglo-Welsh-Irish heart!!! Say it ain't so!

Other Comments by dvespertilio

5. Comment #240774 by Roger Stanyard on September 1, 2008 at 3:03 am

 avatardvespertilio says "What?!!?? No Celts? I'm cut to the quick of my Anglo-Welsh-Irish heart!!! Say it ain't so!"

Well if it helps there are no Anglo-Saxons either!

So we are all a bit up the proverbial creek without a paddle when it comes to how we see ourselves.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

6. Comment #240795 by Shane McKee on September 1, 2008 at 4:00 am

 avatarThis picture has been coming more into focus over the past several years, and one of the most interesting things is how genetically similar we all are. Also, the archaic notion of great population shifts over history (e.g. the migration of Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc. to Britain), with displacement of the "indigenous" population has turned out to be largely an artefact of the way we do history.

In reality, some ruling elites may change (if even that), but the population largely stays put, and adopts the customs of the "invaders". So much for wandering "lost tribes" and similar nonsense. I'll bet the "British Israelites" don't like it.

Incidentally, this sort of information is of good effect in countering creationist claims of descent from Noah - for even this small amount of genetic diversity to arise over ~4500 years, evolution would need to be even *more* powerful than the creationists like to acknowledge. The irony...

Other Comments by Shane McKee

7. Comment #240796 by ficklefiend on September 1, 2008 at 4:09 am

 avatarI've been thinking it might be interesting to buy my grannie a DNA test as a present so we can finally find out the source of our dark hair and generally mediterranean appearance. Anyone done anything like this?

Other Comments by ficklefiend

8. Comment #240827 by NewEnglandBob on September 1, 2008 at 5:43 am

 avatarNo Celts????


Then who won the NBA championship?????

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

9. Comment #240833 by bachfiend on September 1, 2008 at 6:13 am

What I find fascinating though, is that there are fewer genetic differences between a Swede and a Papuan Highland dweller (separated by perhaps 20,000 km and 40,000 years) than between two common chimps living perhaps 200 km apart. Humans seem to have always been the great emigrants, and chimpanzees live and die where they are born.

Other Comments by bachfiend

10. Comment #240839 by Ishruul on September 1, 2008 at 6:44 am

 avatar
Incidentally, this sort of information is of good effect in countering creationist claims of descent from Noah - for even this small amount of genetic diversity to arise over ~4500 years, evolution would need to be even *more* powerful than the creationists like to acknowledge. The irony...


Those are all lies! Just ask Ray Comfort, he'll say something about Microevolution or that god work in mysterious ways. Oh you atheist, don't you know DNA is Satan way to mess around? Pfff...genones, DNA, fossils, all the technology we have now, what's next? Memes?

I bet if we build up a time machine and send the pope on a five minute trip to 1,000,000 B.C., playing with a T-Rex or something, on his way back, he would still claim it was god way of telling us we should all have blind faith. Cauze he work in mysterious ways.

Other Comments by Ishruul

11. Comment #240909 by Apeseed on September 1, 2008 at 9:21 am

@Roger Stanyard

Brits were simply not divided into Celts and Anglo Saxons but that both are all basically of Basque origin.


This is the first time I've heard this.
I understood that genetically the so-called Anglo-Saxons were identical to the Celts. However I thought that the Basques were the original people of Europe and all other tribes such as the Celtic and Germanic peoples came into Europe later.
If you have any links that I could follow this up with I'd appreciate it.

Other Comments by Apeseed

12. Comment #240980 by Naturalist1 on September 1, 2008 at 11:16 am

 avatarA much more detailed article on a greatly expanded scope of the same work is the subject of the front cover page of the July 2008 Scientific American.
It traces all peoples worldwide out of our African origins and maps the great human migrations of history using mitochondrial dna and Y chromosomes. A very interesting article....worth a read.

Other Comments by Naturalist1

13. Comment #241022 by riemann on September 1, 2008 at 2:49 pm

"And isn't it an arresting thought? We are digital archives of the African Pliocene, even of Devonian seas; walking repositories of wisdom out of the old days. You could spend a lifetime reading in this ancient library and die unsated by the wonder of it."

From a guy you probably wouldn't know...

Other Comments by riemann

14. Comment #241052 by BeyondBelief on September 1, 2008 at 4:27 pm

 avatarI know that Basque is a language with no roots (i.e. it's not Latinate, or Slavic, or ??) It is one of the very few "root" languages on earth, so I assume this means they were pretty ancient.

I also know they cook a good lamb on a spit, and that a large population of them now live in Eastern Nevada, where they work as sheep herders (among other jobs).

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

15. Comment #241053 by mmurray on September 1, 2008 at 4:38 pm

 avatarAwhile back there was a discussion here about this National Geographic project

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

where you can buy a kit and get a sample of your DNA tested to show your ancient history. Did anyone try this ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

16. Comment #241102 by denoir on September 1, 2008 at 7:08 pm

 avatar
I've been thinking it might be interesting to buy my grannie a DNA test as a present so we can finally find out the source of our dark hair and generally mediterranean appearance. Anyone done anything like this?


Female lines are traced through mtDNA (mitochondrial) which is very low resolution. I bought my sister a DNA test kit a few years back and the result was that she (and my mother and my mother's mother etc) belonged to mtDNA haplogroup H - which roughly 50% of women in Europe belong to. So not much info there.

My own Y-DNA test on the other hand could be effortlessly matched to a Scottish highland clan with the most recent common ancestor being about 600 years ago with a 95% confidence. This was quite interesting as I'm Swedish with my paternal line being well documented for the last 400 years and having its origins in southern Europe. Furthermore it would seem that my ancestors have done a full circle - that particular subgroup could be traced to Scotland through the Vikings (and to the Vikings through Russia/the caucasus region).

So if you are interested in one test, do it on the male line as Y-DNA has much higher resolution.

Other Comments by denoir

17. Comment #241110 by lastgreekstanding on September 1, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Awhile back there was a discussion here about this National Geographic project

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

where you can buy a kit and get a sample of your DNA tested to show your ancient history. Did anyone try this ?

Michael


Thank you for the link. It sounds very exciting. I think I'll try it. Not sure, though, whether I should do both the X and Y, or just the Y test. It's 100 dollars a pop.

Other Comments by lastgreekstanding

18. Comment #241155 by lbq on September 1, 2008 at 10:11 pm

I see in the New scientist map that all my Swedish co-nationals are out in the Skagerrak, which must be the explanation why we all have webbed feet.

But seriously, concepts such as 'Celtic' and 'Anglo-Saxon' refer to cultural-lingustic traits, which are NOT genetic. There is a category mistake here, of exactly the same kind as when somebody cooked up the concept of a 'Jewish race'.

I fear that this will give rise to nonsense of exactly the same kind, though maybe in the opposite direction.

Other Comments by lbq

19. Comment #241208 by Roger Stanyard on September 2, 2008 at 2:10 am

 avatar"But seriously, concepts such as 'Celtic' and 'Anglo-Saxon' refer to cultural-lingustic traits, which are NOT genetic."

Oppenheimer's work is interesting on this matter because he argues that English (specifically a germanic language) was basically widely spoken in Southern England before the Romans turned up. He doesn't base this argument on genetics, though and I must admit I find him unconvincing on the matter.

If he is right, though, he has thrown a huge spanner in the works of received historical wisdom - that the Ango Saxons did not, after 400 AD, give the UK its prime language. It originated in Northern France/Belgium.

.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

20. Comment #241311 by Apeseed on September 2, 2008 at 5:19 am

I found it interesting because in Ireland there is book called the Book of Invasions which, while mythological, tells the story of several invasions into Ireland that came from the Iberian peninsula. They preceded the people who came to be known as the Celts. Of course, Celt was never a word used by the people themselves. They were called by their tribal eponyms.
One can't take them at face value because they were oral traditions written down by Christian monks and redacted by them to have the tribes descend from biblical characters.
I've been waiting till the science of genetics is precise enough to try to tease out the various strands that make up the the different migrations.
I'm not surprised that the first peoples into Ireland might be from the same stock as the Basques.

Other Comments by Apeseed

21. Comment #242177 by KRKBAB on September 3, 2008 at 12:49 pm

The applications and conclusions to be drawn from these genetic studies are interesting, but to diminish the actual cultural differences of peoples, like Celts and Anglo-Saxons (no vested interest) is to ignore the bigger picture.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

22. Comment #242589 by mmurray on September 4, 2008 at 6:10 am

 avatar

Thank you for the link. It sounds very exciting. I think I'll try it. Not sure, though, whether I should do both the X and Y, or just the Y test. It's 100 dollars a pop.


See the post above yours which is suggesting the Y line is the way to go.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

23. Comment #250180 by samisami on September 19, 2008 at 3:13 am

If the territories occupied by the Atlantic Celts were replete with pre-celtic toponymy and, more importantly, hydronymy, it would not in any case be a misnomer to call them Celts on account of their celtic language and celtic culture. As it happens, the most ancient strata of toponymy and hydronymy in these regions is almost exclusively celtic or proto celtic. In the case of Ireland it would be very hard to imagine a tiny elite celticising the land and people so thoroughly that it effectively obliterates everything prior to it. Tantalisingly, recent linguistic conjectures, such as the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, suggest a very ancient presence of indo-european in western Europe. Archaeologist Barry Cunliffe posits a western seaboard homeland for celtic culture which then went on to celticise in an easterly direction only to recede and contract to its original bastions. The metallurgical brilliance of the central european Celts does not automatically imply point of origin any more than NASA implies a point of origin for speakers of English.
Anthropogeneticists see no connection between Basques and north western Celtic populations other than the fact that they both share high indices of haplogroup R1B common to most western europeans. Add to this Trask´s cogent arguments for the Aquitanian origin of the Basque language, and also studies which show a more ancient substrata of celtic and proto indoeuropean in the Iberian territories now occupied by Basque speakers,one of the Last Glacial Movement shelters in Europe. Indeed, the ancient Basque custom of the husband moving to the wife´s family home was most likely conducive to the genetic replacement of the original Y-chromosome whilst at the same time allowing the survival of the fascinating Basque language.There´s quite a strong possibility Oppenheimer has put the cart before the horse!

Other Comments by samisami
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: