![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2003 Maca-Meyer et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography 1Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, SPAIN 2Laboratorio de Genética, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria, SPAIN Corresponding author.Nicole Maca-Meyer: nmacame/at/ull.es; Ana M González: amglez/at/ull.es; José Pestano: jpestano/at/dbbf.ulpgc.es; Carlos Flores: cflores/at/ull.es; José M Larruga: jlarruga/at/ull.es; Vicente M Cabrera: vcabrera/at/ull.es Received July 8, 2003; Accepted October 16, 2003. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Background World-wide phylogeographic distribution of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6. We report here a more detailed analysis of this lineage, unraveling successive expansions that affected not only Africa but neighboring regions such as the Near East, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands. Results Divergence times, geographic origin and expansions of the U6 mitochondrial DNA clade, have been deduced from the analysis of 14 complete U6 sequences, and 56 different haplotypes, characterized by hypervariable segment sequences and RFLPs. Conclusions The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent. Background Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times. From the archaeological record it has been proposed that, as early as 45,000 years ago (ya), anatomically modern humans, most probably expanded the Aterian stone industry from the Maghrib into most of the Sahara [1]. More evolved skeletal remains indicate that 20,000 years later the Iberomaurusian makers, replaced the Aterian culture in the coastal Maghrib. Several hypothesis have been forwarded concerning the Iberomaurusian origin. They can be resumed in those which propose an arrival, from the East, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa, and those which point to west Mediterranean Europe, either from the Iberian Peninsula, across the Gibraltar Strait, or from Italy, via Sicily, as their most probable homeland [2]. Between 10,000 and 6,000 ya the Neolithic Capsian industry flourished farther inland. The historic penetration in the area of classical Mediterranean cultures, ending with the Islamic domination, supposed a strong cultural influx. However, it seems that the demic impact was not strong enough to modify the prehistoric genetic pool. Linguistic research suggests that the Afroasiatic phylum of languages could have originated and extended with these Caucasians, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa and that posterior developments of the Capsian Neolithic in the Maghrib might be related to the origin and dispersal of proto-Berber speaking people into the area [3]. Nowadays, the Berber speakers, scattered throughout Northwest Africa from the Atlantic to the Lybic desert and from the Mediterranean shores to the south of the Sahel, are considered the genuine descendants of those prehistoric colonizers. Some important issues are pending of resolution to clarify the past and present of the North African Caucasians: To which extent the Neolithic waves substituted the Paleolithic recipients? Which is the most probable origin of these prehistoric occupants? Did they come from Europe, East Africa, Southwest Asia or are they a result of an "in situ" evolution? Is there a correspondence between the Afroasiatic diversification and the spread of Caucasians? Recently, molecular genetic research on North African populations has contributed new data to test the major issues proposed on archaeological, anthropological and linguistic grounds. The studies based on uniparental genetic markers have been particularly informative. Both, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences [4,5], and Y-chromosome binary markers [6,7] detected specific North African haplotypes that confirm an ancient human colonization for this area and a sharp discontinuity between Northwest Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. From a mtDNA point of view, the most informative of these genetic markers is the North African clade U6. On the basis of complete mtDNA sequences, it has been proposed that U6 lineages, mainly found in North Africa, are the signatures of a return to Africa around 39,000–52,000 ya [8]. This stresses the importance of its detailed study in order to trace one of the earliest Caucasian arrivals to Africa. Although in moderate frequencies, the geographic range of this clade extends from the Near East to the Canary Islands, along the Atlantic shores of Northwest Africa and from the Sahel belt, including Ethiopia, to the southern Mediterranean rim. Out of this area, U6 has only been spotted in the Iberian Peninsula [9-12], Sicily [13], in the north European Ashkenazic Jews [14], and in Ibero-America. The presence in the latter is, most probably, the result of the Spanish and Portuguese colonization [15,16]. In order to construct an unambiguous phylogeny for this clade and infer precise ages for the whole group and for its derivatives, we have fully sequenced eleven mitochondrial lineages representing the main branches of U6. Subsequently, we analyzed the geographic distribution range and relative diversity of these subclades, to deduce their most probable expansion origins based on sequence information of the first hypervariable segment (HVSI) of the mitochondrial control region and on new RFLPs, discovered to be diagnostic for them. Results A new sublineage for U6 Haplogroup U splits from R by mutations 11467, 12308 and 12372. Three branches sprout from this root: U5 (3197, 9477, 13617 and 16270), U6 (3348 and 16172) and the rest of the U clade defined by mutation 1811 [8,17,18]. For this reason, a representative of U5 was chosen as an outgroup. The phylogenetic tree based on complete mtDNA U6 sequences, confirms that this clade is defined by mutations 3348 and 16172 (Fig. (Fig.1).1
From Fig. Fig.1,1
Geographic distribution of U6 lineages Fig. Fig.22
Relationships between areas Linearized FST values distinguished three significantly differentiated geographical areas: Continental Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands (Table 3). Nucleotide diversities within areas (Table 3) ranged from 3.253 in the Iberian Peninsula to 2.059 in East Africa. At first sight, it is striking that diversities are larger in the Canary Islands and Iberia than in Africa. We think that demographic processes are responsible of this situation. In Africa, the geographic and social isolation of the different Berber groups [23], could have promoted a loss of diversity by genetic drift. On the contrary, the presence in the Canary Islands and Iberia of representatives of all, or nearly all, U6 subclades, some of them not detected nowadays in the Continent, strongly point to the existence of several migratory waves from Africa, possibly at different times, which have increased their variability. This explanation is reinforced when the number of segregating sites (S) are taken into account. This value is larger in West Africa (5.10 ± 1.5) than in the Canaries (2.60 ± 1.0) and the Iberian Peninsula (3.90 ± 1.4), but East Africa presents a lower value (3.2 ± 1.4). The fact that U6b and U6c have a restricted western distribution undoubtedly contributes to this Continental difference. However, the younger U6a1 branch contradicts this general trend. For this subclade, East and West Africa are statistically differentiated (P = 0.016), and the former presents a higher nucleotide diversity (1.55 ± 1.11) than the latter (0.98 ± 0.75). Geographic distributions and diversity values of U6 are congruent with a western origin and radiation for all subclades excepting U6a1 that, most probably, had an eastern origin.
Radiation ages Radiation ages for U6 and its subclades have been estimated on the basis of complete coding and HVSI sequences (Table 4). In general, ages obtained from HVSI are larger than those deduced from the coding region. Both approaches present inconveniences for the time estimates. It has been demonstrated that the coding region has evolved at a roughly constant rate [24]. However, as relatively few clades are fully sequenced, stochastic and/or intentional sampling may bias the representation of the chosen lineages. On the other hand, HVSI estimations are based on a large number of individuals minimizing sampling errors. However, we deal with a short sequence that has not evolved at a constant rate across all human lineages [24]. Furthermore, from the phylogeny of complete U6 sequences (Fig. (Fig.1),1
Discussion African U6 origin and expansions Discarding the Canary Islands, because the most ancient human settlement seems to be no earlier than 2,500 ya [25], and the Iberian Peninsula, because there are no consistent traces of U6 lineages in Europe, Northwest Africa is left as the most probable place from where the African U6 subclades radiated. Another point is to decide whether the proto-U6 ancestor was also of African origin. Although it cannot be completely excluded, this hypothesis seems highly improbable even invoking strong bottlenecks in African populations. It is clear that the whole haplogroup U is an offshoot of macrohaplogroup N. This lineage, together with macrohaplogroup M, were the only ones that, belonging to the star radiation of L3 in Africa, left this continent to colonize Eurasia. Five mutations separate N from the root of the African L3 [8], and there are only late evolved N lineages in Africa, whereas representatives of the full N radiation are present in Eurasia. Thus, this continent would be the logical homeland of the proto-U6 that came back to Africa and spread in its northwest area around 30,000 ya (Table 4). Its most probable route had to be through East Africa. So, the loss of variability in this area is puzzling, although posterior demic expansions affecting East Africa might be the cause. This date roughly corresponds to the Paleolithic occupation of the Maghrib by the Iberomaurusian culture and to the age of the evolved Homo sapiens sapiens skeletons found in this area. Only one of the three U6 subclades, U6a, experienced a great geographic radiation spreading west to the Atlantic shores and east, crossing Africa, to the Near East. A posterior offshoot of this clade, U6a1, has a similar distribution. The upper bound for these expansions are around 28,000 and 17,000 ya, respectively (Table 4). Genetic diversities are congruent with a west to east expansion for U6a and a more probable east to west expansion for U6a1. Furthermore, the absence of U6b and U6c lineages in the East suggests that the population from which the U6a colonizers originated also lacked these lineages or presented them in very low frequencies. The fact that 5 of the 8 U6a haplotypes detected in the Near East are unique of this area (Fig. (Fig.2),2 Iberian U6 origin and expansions In Europe, U6 lineages have been consistently sampled only in the Iberian Peninsula. It has been mentioned that U6 nucleotide diversity is higher in Iberia than in Africa [12]. This has been confirmed here (Table 3). However, S is greater in West Africa. Considering the isolation of the different Berber groups we think that, in this case, the latter is a better diversity measure. The absence of U6 representatives in the rest of Europe, is also an argument against the hypothesis that these lineages could have migrated to North Africa from Europe. Naturally, this does not exclude that other mitochondrial lineages could have followed this route. Most probably, the presence of these African lineages in Iberia is the result of northward expansions from Africa. The time of this expansion has been predominantly attributed to either the Arab/Berber occupation that lasted seven centuries [10] or to prehistoric immigrations of North Africans to Iberia [12]. Both processes could have contributed to model the U6 landscape in Iberia. First, haplotype matches show that 10 of the 19 U6 lineages detected in Iberia are not present in Africa (Fig. (Fig.2),2 Canary Islands U6 origin and expansions At a genetic level, the Berber origin of the Guanches, the aboriginal population of the Canary Islands, and their survival after the Spanish occupation, has been inferred from the high frequency of U6 lineages in its modern population (Table 2), similar to that of North Africa [19,32]. This fact has been recently confirmed in a mtDNA sequence study on aboriginal remains [33]. It was found that in the Guanche maternal gene pool, U6b1 and U6a were present at frequencies of 8.22% and 1.37%, respectively. U6c was probably also present in the aboriginal pool as a haplotype (16129 16169 16172 16189), now known to belong to subhaplogroup U6c, was proposed as a probable Canarian founder type [19]. As in Northwest Iberia, U6b was the dominant U6 subclade carried by the North African settlers of the islands. All three subclades are present in the modern Canarian population at frequencies of 1.3%, 13.0% and 3.3% for U6a, U6b and U6c, respectively, which is indicative of a broad aboriginal component in the present maternal pool. Perhaps, the comparatively higher frequency of U6a lineages might be attributed to an additional Berber input as result of the slave trade after the Spanish conquest [34,35]. What remains enigmatic of the indubitable North African prehistoric colonization of the Archipelago is that it was carried out by people whose U6 lineages mainly belonged to the U6b subclade that has only been spotted in very low frequencies in the modern African populations of Morocco, Algeria, Senegal and Nigeria (Table 2). Moreover, the U6b and U6c insular haplotypes belong to the autochthonous U6b1 and U6c1 branches differing by substitutions 16163 and 16129, respectively, from all their African counterparts. As the most probable arrival of the first prehistoric Canarian settlers was around 2,500 ya, it is highly improbable that these mutations occurred on the islands. Therefore, we expected to find these Canarian lineages in some place of Africa. However, after extensive sampling they have still not been detected. It is possible that they are present somewhere in low frequencies but, in any case, this phylogeographic distribution suggests that Northwest Africa suffered important demic displacements in the past. Besides U6, other genetic markers such as 110(-) haplotype of the CD4/Alu system [36], and the M81 Y-chromosome binary marker [6,7], point to an ancient and autochthonous human presence in Northwest Africa. An eastward decline in M81 frequencies has been detected, regrettably the lack of extensive intra-M81 microsatellite diversity studies in Africa precludes phylogeographic comparisons as those done with mtDNA. There are other coincidences between mtDNA data and other systems. For instance, using classical genetic markers, it was found that the Iberian Peninsula showed smaller genetic distances with East Africa than with West Africa [37]. The same pattern was observed for Y-chromosome studies [7], both in line with our results (Table 3). More studies with other genetic markers are necessary to corroborate, complement or even contradict the proposed U6 landscape. In summary, the phylogeography, nucleotide diversity, and coalescence ages of U6 lineages show that this clade came back to Africa in Paleolithic times. Its most probable origin was the Near East and not Europe, and since then, its presence in North Africa has been permanent. The focus of the first African expansion, detected by the spread of U6a, was Northwest Africa reaching the Near East also in the Paleolithic. The posterior U6a1 radiation most probably occurred in Northeast Africa again extending to the Near East. This movement is correlated in time with the attributed origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages. This U6a1 wave also arrived to the Maghrib, the Northwest African margin, where the more localized U6b and U6c lineages were spreading. This movement is in time frame with the Capsian culture. Based on archaeological and anthropological grounds, it has been speculated that these incomers slowly pushed away the aboriginal residents [2]. It could be in that time when U6b reached the south of the Iberian Peninsula from where it was displaced to the north where it persists today. The U6b and U6c diaspora also reached the Atlantic fringe from where they sailed to the Canary Islands. Two autochthonous U6 lineages (U6b1 and U6c1), present today in the islands, attest the survival of those aboriginal North Africans until nowadays. The fact that these Canarian lineages have not been detected in Africa and that, in contrast to the ubiquitous U6a and U6a1, the U6b and U6c lineages are scarcely spotted in present African populations, may be clues of past important demographic movements in this western area. Methods Complete mtDNA lineages We have fully sequenced eleven mitochondrial lineages belonging to different subclades of the North African subhaplogroup U6. DNA extraction, amplification and manual sequencing methods have already been described [8]. HVSI and RFLPs A sample of 332 Andalusians, 1 Algerian Berber, 89 Moroccan Berbers, 23 individuals from Cape Verde, 96 from Madeira, 34 Mauritanians, 24 Moroccans and 12 Saharans were sequenced for the HVSI region from 16000 to 16390, and RFLP characterized as detailed [11,12]. In order to distinguish putative U6 members, all these subjects and the U individuals from a sample of 1059 previously published [4,11,12,19,38], were amplified with primers L3073/H3670 [8], and tested for the presence of the 3348 MboI site [15], that characterizes all U6 members. Phylogenetic analyses Phylogenetic relationships among complete mtDNA sequences were established using the reduced median network algorithm [39]. In addition to our eleven sequences, four lineages were added: U6 and U5b [8] (Accession numbers: AF382008 and AF381980, respectively) and for the coding region, H84 and H229 [18]. U6 phylogeographic analyses In addition to our 611 samples, 41 populations where U6 haplotypes have been detected were included in our phylogeographic analysis (Table 2). Relationships among the different U6 haplotypes were inferred using the reduced median network algorithm [39]. To resolve reticulations, the highly recurrent mutations 16129, 16189, 16311 and 16362 were less weighted. Differences in accumulated mutations among U6 branches The non-parametric test, resampling probability estimates for the difference between the means of two independent samples (http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/VassarStats.html), was used to calculate the significance level of accumulated mutations between the different U6 subclades. The likelihood-ratio test, as implemented in TREE-PUZZLE [21], was used to check between a uniform clock or variable site model in the U6 tree. U6 diversity and differentiation within and between areas Time estimates For HVSI, the age of clusters or expansions was calculated as the mean divergence ρ from inferred ancestral sequence types [42] and converted into time by assuming that one transition within np 16090–16365 corresponds to 20,180 years [43]. The standard deviation of the ρ estimator was calculated as previously described [44]. For the complete sequences only substitutions in the coding region (15,447 nucleotides), excluding indels, were taken into account. The mean number of substitutions per site to the most recent common ancestor of each clade (ρ) was estimated, and converted into time using two substitution rates: 1.7 × 10-8 [24] and 1.26 × 10-8 [45]. Supplementary material The eleven complete mitochondrial DNA sequences are registered under GenBank accession numbers: AY275527 to AY275537. Acknowledgements This research was supported by grants of Ministry of Science and Technology (BMC2001-3511) and Gobierno de Canarias (COF2002/015) to V.M. Cabrera. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
Ann Hum Genet. 1998 Nov; 62(Pt 6):531-50.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1998]Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Jan; 64(1):232-49.
[Am J Hum Genet. 1999]Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Apr; 68(4):1019-29.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2001]Hum Biol. 2001 Aug; 73(4):513-24.
[Hum Biol. 2001]BMC Genet. 2001; 2():13.
[BMC Genet. 2001]BMC Genet. 2001; 2():13.
[BMC Genet. 2001]Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Jun; 68(6):1475-84.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2001]Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Nov; 65(5):1349-58.
[Am J Hum Genet. 1999]Ann Hum Genet. 1998 Nov; 62(Pt 6):531-50.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1998]Ann Hum Genet. 1999 Sep; 63(Pt 5):413-28.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1999]Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Dec; 69(6):1348-56.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2001]Ann Hum Genet. 1996 Jul; 60(Pt 4):331-50.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1996]Ann Hum Genet. 1998 Nov; 62(Pt 6):531-50.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Mar 1; 88(5):1597-601.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991]Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Jan; 64(1):232-49.
[Am J Hum Genet. 1999]Nature. 1981 Apr 9; 290(5806):457-65.
[Nature. 1981]Nat Genet. 1999 Oct; 23(2):147.
[Nat Genet. 1999]Nature. 2000 Dec 7; 408(6813):708-13.
[Nature. 2000]BMC Genet. 2001; 2():13.
[BMC Genet. 2001]Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994 Oct; 95(2):137-54.
[Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994]Am J Phys Anthropol. 2003 Apr; 120(4):391-404.
[Am J Phys Anthropol. 2003]Ann Hum Genet. 2000 Nov; 64(Pt 6):491-506.
[Ann Hum Genet. 2000]Ann Hum Genet. 1999 Sep; 63(Pt 5):413-28.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1999]Ann Hum Genet. 1996 Jul; 60(Pt 4):321-30.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1996]Ann Hum Genet. 2000 Jul; 64(Pt 4):321-7.
[Ann Hum Genet. 2000]Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Apr; 68(4):1019-29.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2001]Hum Biol. 2001 Aug; 73(4):513-24.
[Hum Biol. 2001]Hum Biol. 1997 Jun; 69(3):295-311.
[Hum Biol. 1997]BMC Genet. 2001; 2():13.
[BMC Genet. 2001]Eur J Hum Genet. 2001 Sep; 9(9):708-16.
[Eur J Hum Genet. 2001]Am J Phys Anthropol. 2003 Apr; 120(4):391-404.
[Am J Phys Anthropol. 2003]Ann Hum Genet. 1998 Nov; 62(Pt 6):531-50.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1998]Ann Hum Genet. 1999 Sep; 63(Pt 5):413-28.
[Ann Hum Genet. 1999]Ann Hum Genet. 2003 Jul; 67(Pt 4):329-39.
[Ann Hum Genet. 2003]Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Jan; 16(1):37-48.
[Mol Biol Evol. 1999]BMC Genet. 2001; 2():13.
[BMC Genet. 2001]Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Jan; 16(1):37-48.
[Mol Biol Evol. 1999]Genetics. 1995 Jan; 139(1):457-62.
[Genetics. 1995]Nat Genet. 1994 Jun; 7(2):169-75.
[Nat Genet. 1994]Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Oct; 59(4):935-45.
[Am J Hum Genet. 1996]Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Sep; 67(3):718-26.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2000]Nature. 2000 Dec 7; 408(6813):708-13.
[Nature. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jan 7; 100(1):171-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]