| Literature DB >> 17767728 |
Davide Besaggio1, Silvia Fuselli, Metawee Srikummool, Jatupol Kampuansai, Loredana Castrì, Chris Tyler-Smith, Mark Seielstad, Daoroong Kangwanpong, Giorgio Bertorelle.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethnic minorities in Northern Thailand, often referred to as Hill Tribes, are considered an ideal model to study the different genetic impact of sex-specific migration rates expected in matrilocal (women remain in their natal villages after the marriage and men move to their wife's village) and patrilocal societies (the opposite is true). Previous studies identified such differences, but little is known about the possible interaction with another cultural factor that may potentially affect genetic diversity, i.e. linguistic differences. In addition, Hill Tribes started to migrate to Thailand in the last centuries from different Northern areas, but the history of these migrations, the level of genetic legacy with their places of origin, and the possible confounding effects related to this migration history in the patterns of genetic diversity, have not been analysed yet. Using both original and published data on the Hill Tribes and several other Asian populations, we focused on all these aspects.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17767728 PMCID: PMC1963483 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-S2-S12
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Geographic location in Thailand of the samples typed in this study. White Karen (Ka), Hmong (Hm), Iu-Mien (Iu), Lisu (Li), Lahu (La), Akha (Ak). Filled squares: Hmong-Mien speaking tribes; filled circles: Sino-Tibetan speaking tribes.
Social structure, linguistic family and genetic diversity in the Hill Tribes
| Social structure | Population | Language familya | mtDNA (n) | k | h | π | Y-STRs (n) | k | h | π |
| 380 bp | 15 loci | |||||||||
| White Karen | ST | 31 | 8 | 0.735 | 6.09 | 19 | 16 | 0.983 | 6.91 | |
| Lahu | ST | 25 | 20 | 0.980 | 7.73 | 15 | 15 | 1.000 | 9.25 | |
| Akha | ST | 26 | 16 | 0.920 | 6.34 | 14 | 7 | 0.868 | 4.40 | |
| Lisu | ST | 20 | 11 | 0.920 | 6.94 | 11 | 7 | 0.891 | 6.18 | |
| Hmong | HM | 14 | 9 | 0.934 | 7.42 | 7 | 7 | 1.000 | 6.52 | |
| Iu-Mien | HM | 21 | 15 | 0.938 | 7.38 | 13 | 12 | 0.987 | 8.70 | |
| 304 bp | 6 loci | |||||||||
| Red Karenb | ST | 39 | 11 | 0.831 | 3.88 | 30 | 14 | 0.931 | 3.57 | |
| White Karenc | ST | 71 | 16 | 0.808 | 4.37 | 39 | 20 | 0.919 | 3.10 | |
| Lahuc | ST | 64 | 26 | 0.918 | 6.01 | 32 | 25 | 0.972 | 3.89 | |
| Akha | ST | 26 | 16 | 0.920 | 5.55 | 14 | 4 | 0.571 | 1.38 | |
| Akhab | ST | 91 | 24 | 0.932 | 5.12 | 21 | 5 | 0.352 | 0.55 | |
| Lisu | ST | 20 | 11 | 0.916 | 6.36 | 11 | 7 | 0.891 | 2.78 | |
| Lisu CRb | ST | 53 | 26 | 0.923 | 5.12 | 9 | 7 | 0.944 | 3.22 | |
| Lisu MHSb | ST | 42 | 19 | 0.955 | 5.73 | 22 | 9 | 0.883 | 3.19 | |
| Hmong | HM | 14 | 9 | 0.934 | 6.31 | 7 | 6 | 0.952 | 3.09 | |
| Iu-Mien | HM | 21 | 15 | 0.938 | 5.97 | 13 | 12 | 0.987 | 3.85 | |
Samples description, number of individuals typed for mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal DNA, and standard indices of within-population genetic diversity. The first half of the table refers to the original data typed in this study. The second half of the table refers to the joint dataset (original + published data) used in most analyses.
k: number of haplotypes; h: gene or haplotype diversity; π: mean number of pairwise differences aST = Sino-Tibetan, HM Hmong-Mien; b data only from Oota et al. [5]; c data from Oota et al. [5] and present work.
Figure 2Histograms of genetic diversity within the Hill Tribes. Standard indices of genetic diversity within Hill Tribes populations. Average values of gene diversity (a) and average mean number of pairwise differences (b) for mtDNA and Y-chromosome STRs in samples grouped by social and linguistic criteria.
Results obtained using 8 different AMOVA (Analysis of Molecular Variance) schemes
| mtDNA | Y STRs | |||||
| n. of populations | n. of groups | Φst | Φct | Φst | Φct | |
| 1. Matrilocal tribes | 3 | 1 | 0.14*** | - | 0.05*** | - |
| 2. Patrilocal tribes | 7 | 1 | 0.06*** | - | 0.36*** | - |
| 3. Sino-Tibetan patrilocal tribes | 5 | 1 | 0.06*** | - | 0.33*** | - |
| 4. Hmong-Mien patrilocal tribes | 2 | 1 | 0.05* | - | 0.13* | - |
| 5. Patrilocal tribes, Sino-Tibetan vs. Hmong-Mien | 7 | 2 | 0.06*** | 0.0 | 0.34*** | -0.05 |
| 6. All tribes, Sino-Tibetan vs. Hmong-Mien | 10 | 2 | 0.09*** | 0.0 | 0.17*** | -0.01 |
| 7. Sino-Tibetan tribes, matrilocal vs. patrilocal | 8 | 2 | 0.09*** | -0.01 | 0.18*** | -0.03 |
| 8. All tribes, matrilocal vs. patrilocal | 10 | 2 | 0.09*** | 0.0 | 0.17*** | -0.04 |
The results obtained with AMOVA assuming different groups of populations, or different hierarchical levels, are provided as Φ(index of divergence between populations) and Φ(index of divergence between groups) statistics. ***p < 0.001; *p < 0.05.
Migration rates estimated by MIGRATE
| mtDNA | Y-Chrom | |
| 1. Between two populations belonging to the same Sino-Tibetan matrilocal tribe | 2.4 | 4.1 |
| 2. Between two populations belonging to different Sino-Tibetan matrilocal tribes | 6.1 | 4.2 |
| Average | 4.25 (0.98) | 4.05 (0.45) |
| 3. Between two populations belonging to the same Sino-Tibetan patrilocal tribe | 19.0 | 2.2 |
| 4. Between two populations belonging to different Sino-Tibetan patrilocal tribes | 8.2 | 0.7 |
| 5. Between two populations belonging to different Hmong-Mien patrilocal tribes | 14.2 | 2.4 |
| Average | 13.80 (1.52) | 1.76 (0.23) |
Estimates of the rate of gene flow (θ = Nm,) obtained in different population comparisons. Comparisons 1–2 refer to matrilocal tribes, from the same (1: White Karen vs. Red Karen) or different (2: pooled Karen vs. Lahu) ethnic groups. Comparisons 3–5 refer to patrilocal tribes, from the same (3: average between Akha vs. Akha and Lisu vs. Lisu) or different (4: pooled Akha vs. pooled Lisu) ethnic groups within the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family, and from different ethic groups within the Hmong-Mien linguistic family (5: Hmong vs. Iu Mien). Standard errors based on different runs and different pairwise estimates within the same group of comparisons are reported in parentheses.
Figure 3Results provided by the BAPS analysis: mtDNA. Five clusters of populations are indicated with different colours.
Figure 4Results provided by the BAPS analysis: Y chromosome. Six clusters of populations (the most likely partition identified by BAPS) are indicated with different colours.