| Literature DB >> 28915619 |
Tingting Kong1,2,3, Yahao Chen4, Yuxin Guo1,2,5, Yuanyuan Wei1,2, Xiaoye Jin1,2,5, Tong Xie3, Yuling Mu5, Qian Dong5, Shaoqing Wen6, Boyan Zhou6,7, Li Zhang8, Chunmei Shen9, Bofeng Zhu1,2,3.
Abstract
In the present study, we assessed the genetic diversities of the Chinese Kazak ethnic group on the basis of 30 well-chosen autosomal insertion and deletion loci and explored the genetic relationships between Kazak and 23 reference groups. We detected the level of the expected heterozygosity ranging from 0.3605 at HLD39 locus to 0.5000 at HLD136 locus and the observed heterozygosity ranging from 0.3548 at HLD39 locus to 0.5283 at HLD136 locus. The combined power of discrimination and the combined power of exclusion for all 30 loci in the studied Kazak group were 0.999999999999128 and 0.9945, respectively. The dataset generated in this study indicated the panel of 30 InDels was highly efficient in forensic individual identifcation but may not have enough power in paternity cases. The results of the interpopulation differentiations, PCA plots, phylogenetic trees and STRUCTURE analyses showed a close genetic affiliation between the Kazak and Uigur group.Entities:
Keywords: InDel; Kazak group; interpopulation differentiation; phylogenetic tree; population genetics
Year: 2017 PMID: 28915619 PMCID: PMC5593590 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17838
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Plots graphs of allele frequency (A) and forensic parameters (B) of Kazak group on 30 InDel loci. The frequencies of insertion alleles were presented on the top of (A).
Figure 2Plots of pairwise Fst of Kazak and other 23 reference populations
Figure 3PCA analyses based on 30 InDel loci
(A) Kazak, East Asian, Central Asian, Mexican and European populations were analyzed at individual level. (Here, European populations included Basque, Central Spanish, Dane, Hungarian as well as Uruguayan populations.) (B) The studied Kazak group and other 23 published populations.
Figure 4(A) Admixture analysis of 24 populations at K=2, 3, 4 using ADMIXTURE program. (B) STRUCTURE analysis conducted with STRUCTURE program v2.2.
The values of D of pairwise populations among Chinese Kazak group and referenced populations
| Populations | BeijingHan | Guangdong Han | ShanghaiHan | Yi | Xibe | SouthKorean | TibetTibetan | QinghaiTibetan | She | Kazak1 | Uigur | Dane | Hungarian | Basque | CentralSpanish | Uruguayan | ChihuahuaMexican | JaliscoMexican | MexicoMexican | VeracruzMexican | YucatanMexican | MexicanAmerindian | Kazak |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangdong-Han | 0.0019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shanghai-Han | 0.0011 | 0.0006 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Yi | 0.0054 | 0.0038 | 0.0040 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Xibe | 0.0022 | 0.0023 | 0.0015 | 0.0052 | |||||||||||||||||||
| South-Korean | 0.0024 | 0.0017 | 0.0008 | 0.0042 | 0.0016 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Tibet-Tibetan | 0.0029 | 0.0050 | 0.0036 | 0.0066 | 0.0034 | 0.0037 | |||||||||||||||||
| Qinghai-Tibetan | 0.0022 | 0.0034 | 0.0021 | 0.0056 | 0.0019 | 0.0023 | 0.0012 | ||||||||||||||||
| She | 0.0023 | 0.0015 | 0.0019 | 0.0051 | 0.0032 | 0.0028 | 0.0059 | 0.0041 | |||||||||||||||
| Kazak1 | 0.0083 | 0.0100 | 0.0096 | 0.0133 | 0.0068 | 0.0115 | 0.0072 | 0.0075 | 0.0112 | ||||||||||||||
| Uigur | 0.0100 | 0.0118 | 0.0114 | 0.0163 | 0.0092 | 0.0135 | 0.0091 | 0.0089 | 0.0133 | 0.0013 | |||||||||||||
| Dane | 0.0251 | 0.0265 | 0.0264 | 0.0315 | 0.0227 | 0.0288 | 0.0242 | 0.0235 | 0.0275 | 0.0093 | 0.0083 | ||||||||||||
| Hungarian | 0.0255 | 0.0275 | 0.0271 | 0.0325 | 0.0231 | 0.0295 | 0.0237 | 0.0232 | 0.0289 | 0.0084 | 0.0068 | 0.0026 | |||||||||||
| Basque | 0.0270 | 0.0268 | 0.0270 | 0.0328 | 0.0236 | 0.0287 | 0.0261 | 0.0256 | 0.0288 | 0.0111 | 0.0096 | 0.0048 | 0.0045 | ||||||||||
| Central-Spanish | 0.0262 | 0.0269 | 0.0268 | 0.0323 | 0.0226 | 0.0288 | 0.0236 | 0.0235 | 0.0285 | 0.0085 | 0.0069 | 0.0030 | 0.0022 | 0.0033 | |||||||||
| Uruguayan | 0.0230 | 0.0244 | 0.0240 | 0.0286 | 0.0203 | 0.0258 | 0.0207 | 0.0201 | 0.0255 | 0.0067 | 0.0057 | 0.0039 | 0.0021 | 0.0043 | 0.0023 | ||||||||
| Chihuahua-Mexican | 0.0445 | 0.0471 | 0.0465 | 0.0522 | 0.0441 | 0.0500 | 0.0460 | 0.0442 | 0.0525 | 0.0278 | 0.0241 | 0.0183 | 0.0156 | 0.0212 | 0.0200 | 0.0207 | |||||||
| Jalisco-Mexican | 0.0437 | 0.0450 | 0.0448 | 0.0512 | 0.0420 | 0.0484 | 0.0452 | 0.0430 | 0.0502 | 0.0260 | 0.0225 | 0.0170 | 0.0137 | 0.0197 | 0.0181 | 0.0189 | 0.0017 | ||||||
| Mexico-Mexican | 0.0534 | 0.0548 | 0.0544 | 0.0602 | 0.0517 | 0.0576 | 0.0545 | 0.0528 | 0.0606 | 0.0345 | 0.0313 | 0.0222 | 0.0210 | 0.0256 | 0.0258 | 0.0274 | 0.0048 | 0.0041 | |||||
| Veracruz-Mexican | 0.0498 | 0.0500 | 0.0502 | 0.0566 | 0.0473 | 0.0535 | 0.0501 | 0.0483 | 0.0555 | 0.0301 | 0.0263 | 0.0192 | 0.0160 | 0.0209 | 0.0197 | 0.0223 | 0.0040 | 0.0024 | 0.0030 | ||||
| Yucatan-Mexican | 0.0588 | 0.0599 | 0.0598 | 0.0675 | 0.0569 | 0.0633 | 0.0613 | 0.0587 | 0.0655 | 0.0391 | 0.0351 | 0.0267 | 0.0230 | 0.0277 | 0.0279 | 0.0300 | 0.0048 | 0.0046 | 0.0041 | 0.0031 | |||
| Mexicann-Amerindian | 0.0718 | 0.0724 | 0.0732 | 0.0798 | 0.0698 | 0.0770 | 0.0752 | 0.0718 | 0.0796 | 0.0519 | 0.0477 | 0.0365 | 0.0317 | 0.0389 | 0.0393 | 0.0427 | 0.0093 | 0.0090 | 0.0087 | 0.0064 | 0.0053 | ||
| Kazak | 0.0064 | 0.0079 | 0.0073 | 0.0115 | 0.0048 | 0.0087 | 0.0060 | 0.0057 | 0.0093 | 0.0007 | 0.0016 | 0.0100 | 0.0092 | 0.0115 | 0.0092 | 0.0073 | 0.0285 | 0.0267 | 0.0355 | 0.0309 | 0.0404 | 0.0526 | |
| Tujia | 0.0013 | 0.0007 | 0.0004 | 0.0040 | 0.0015 | 0.0009 | 0.0035 | 0.0023 | 0.0019 | 0.0104 | 0.0125 | 0.0272 | 0.0281 | 0.0281 | 0.0277 | 0.0250 | 0.0495 | 0.0480 | 0.0576 | 0.0534 | 0.0632 | 0.0764 | 0.0079 |
Figure 5Phylogenetic trees constructed to analyze phylogenetic relationships between Kazak group and 23 reference populations
(A) On the basis of allele frequencies of 30 InDels conducted by PHYLIP software. (B) With the method of MAGA software (version5.0) based on D values calculated by DISPAN program.