Genes show women were the true adventurers

Jois:

I mean no disrespect in saying “weird.” Some of the best science ever has been published in PNAS – namely Meselson and Stahl (DNA replication is semiconservative), Seymour Benzer’s work on phages (showing gene order of the phage genome before any kind of molecular manipulation was possible), and many others.

I would be perfectly happy with an article in PNAS. It is a very good journal, and is widely read. It is just this little oddity that most of the work is not peer reviewed in the strict sense of the term. Amongst the good stuff, you sometimes find really bad papers in PNAS. This happens more often than in Cell, Science, Nature, or any of the other hundreds of peer-reviewed journals. Not that you don’t find bad papers in those journals, but I have learned to be much more careful of stuff that I read in PNAS

Sure the NAS member who lends his name to the track I articles puts his reputation at stake (a little). It is just that that is one line in a large paper. I read an article on microsatellite instability in colon cancer from PNAS last year. I will get a cite if you want. It was communicated by Al Knudson, who is one of the founders of cancer genetics (he conceived the two-hit hypothesis for retinoblastoma). The article was just wrong. Plain wrong. Bad science, bad hypothesis, bad conclusions. I can assure you I still have respect for Knudson, though.

So, yes, I say it is “weird,” but this doesn’t mean that it still isn’t in the top 20 or so journals out there…

If you’re going to look at primate patterns, don’t forget our cousins, the bonobo.

Thank you, Edwino, for explaining.

I think the PNAS article can be used as a good example of ** one ** of the great differences between someone professionally prepared (you, for example) and an interested amateur (me, for example) – I can read, get through some of the methods, some of the materials, some of the statistics, comments, and conclusions, but I can’t eyeball an article critically (or quickly) and say they should have done this or that; or that the statistics are fuzzy; that the change in materials from previous studies might make a difference in these results and so on - too much background and prep missing!

I’ve been thinking about the use of mtDNA, Y and X chromosomes as migratory markers for a while. Another article: “The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapeins in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective” Science Vol 290 10 November 2000 pp 1155-1159. The timing differences between mtDNA and Y Chromosomes is discussed again here. Can you comment on this?

Jois

I got all my info from the Discovery Channel.

But how did social pressures keep women from being conquerers? The only woman i know who was a conquerer did that was Joan of Arc. But im not sure many other women would want to ride around chopping people’s heads off, would you?

I know you are going to ask me the same thing, so the answer is: yes, yes i would. If i can make a good, viable, and sensible reason for doing it I would; and not to mention if it wasn’t illegal.

The same social pressures that kept women from being artists, from being composers, from being equals in almost every area of their lives and in every profession.

Not to be rude, but…“duh.” Women are TAUGHT not to enjoy riding off to conquer. The same way men are taught that it’s great fun. There very well may BE genetic pressures for certain sex-based behaviors, but since you don’t have any evidence for any of these, your comments (particularly the offensive one about women being genetically pre-disposed to talking a lot) are really just your rather questionable opinion and have no basis in reality. Not that you’ve proven anyway.

-L

ssj_man2k: **"But how did social pressures keep women from being conquerers? The only woman i know who was a conquerer did that was Joan of Arc. But im not sure many other women would want to ride around chopping people’s heads off, would you?

“I know you are going to ask me the same thing, so the answer is: yes, yes i would. If i can make a good, viable, and sensible reason for doing it I would; and not to mention if it wasn’t illegal.” **

A good part of how we behave is cultural, no matter how much of our behavior is genetic - we are a mix of both.

There have been several famous women “conquerers” most from the English Isles. Someone just dug up a chariot with it’s female occupant, a burial usually given to males of the war hero variety.

It’s a question of what is considered history and what’s important to those who write the history books. A history book might have a 100 page chapter devoted to WWII and 2 pages for a US president’s 8 year term of peace and prosperity.

SexyWriter’s post make me laugh - go stand a hospital’s newborn nursery window (if they still exist and you don’t get tossed into jail) and I promise you the dads will use deep gurr voices to say hello to their 6 pound baby boys and soft little squeeky voices to their 9 pound baby girls.

I also think the numbers might change a bit if 50% of the guys got pregnant and 50% of the gals didn’t.

Jois

Jois

I am working on the Science article. I have downloaded the PDF and I will read it sometime this weekend. I’d just like to say that Cavalli-Sforza is a big giant stud though. 250 articles or so since 1966.

Anyway, I’m working on it. I’ll respond in a day or so.

::Yes!::


Here is my analysis of the article “The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective” by Semino et. al., Science *290 1155.

There is quite a lot of work published on this stuff and I am not intimately familiar with all (or most, or even a chunk) of the literature, so what I say may be outdated/wrong by now.

Anyway, this article is quite interesting. In it, they analyze many populations throughout Europe and the Middle East for their Y chromosome haplotypes.

Some background: The Y chromosome is passed from father to son. Unlike most other regions of the genome, most of the Y chromosome never exchanges genetic material with other chromosomes. Thus, it passes through generations untouched, except for the occasional mutation.

Mutations happen rarely. You can count the number of mutations which have arisen between two populations of males and determine a time when the two populations separated (as the mutation rate per locus is relatively constant). These collections of mutations are termed the “Y chromosome haplotype” (haplo because there is only one Y chromosome in each male cell).

Also, there are many different mutations out there, and some regions mutate faster than others (so there are different time rulers for different areas of the Y chromosome). By looking at the mutations, you can determine which Y chromosomes are related, and establish a phylogenetic tree to relate all of the Y chromosomes to each other.

For instance, take the word “dope” as a Y chromosome haplotype (established by looking at great ape populations and so forth). Arrows represent mutations.

dope -> hope -> hole -> holt -> molt -> moat -> goat
| | | | | |
v v v v v v
dole hype sole dolt malt moan

So anyway, Semino, et. al. went through Europe populations and found the most “pure” populations in certain regions. They then did cheek swabs to get DNA samples from men in these populations. They established a phylogenetic tree. No population has a pure haplotype, but many are dominated by one kind. This represents the so-called “founder effect” of the Y chromosomes, where the descendants of a few males (or perhaps one) came in and populated a region.

To the paper:
There are several haplotypes which dominate Europe. Two general families of haplotypes appear to have been in Europe since the Paleolithic era, by an estimation of the mutation rates and their subgroups. These are M170 and M173.

M173 is interesting – it has been in Europe for 35-40,000 years and extends into Asia and into the Americas. It has two subtypes which predominate in Europe. They appear with grossly contrasting geographic patterns – one (Eu18) appearing most frequently in Basques and declines eastward, the other (Eu19) appearing most frequently in the east and declining westward. The hypothesis presented is that M173 characterizes early Paleolithic inhabitors of Europe. During the last glacial maximum 22,000 years ago, Central Europe became uninhabitable. M173s retreated eastward and westward, and mutated at some point into Eu18 (in the Balkans) and Eu19 (in Iberia). After the glaciers melted, Eu19s and Eu18s repopulated central Europe. Eu18 actually spreads into India as well, perhaps marking the spread of Indo-European languages in the Yamnaia culture. Eu19 perhaps marks the Aurignac culture.

M170 has been for 20,000 years, and perhaps marks the “invasion” of a Middle Eastern population into Europe after the glaciers. They link this with the Gravettian culture. Gravettians and Aurignacs mingled, but remained largely isolated and non-interbreeding. One sees this if looking at other markers (mtDNA, which is passed mother to child and also doesn’t recombine with the genome).

Other haplotypes represent Neolithic Eastern invasion around 17,000 years ago. The frequency of these decrease from the Middle East into Europe, and represent demic farmers.

They then go on to correlate this to other data points. One is autosomal protein polymorphisms. They correlate these nicely to the Aurignac, Yamnaia, and demic farmer contribution. The other is mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA alluded to above). These mainly correlate, except some data points have no correlation between the two. Namely, mtDNA supports a 45,000 year old Middle East invasion which is not found in the Y chromosome stuff. Also, more of the mtDNA appears to be Paleolithic. This could be due to a number of factors – more rapid replacement of males than females during transitions (perhaps raping and pillaging), female migration (back to the OP), or perhaps other factors not explored. There is not much written on this – only a paragraph.

A nice bit of observation, but certainly not an earth-shattering result. Pretty cool what they can do with the genetics nowadays, though. There is a bunch published on this field, including some American Journal of Human Genetics papers that came out after this paper. I’ll try to read them in the next few days.