| Literature DB >> 32747648 |
Nathan Nakatsuka1,2, Pierre Luisi3, Rodrigo Nores4,5, David Reich6,7,8,9, Josefina M B Motti10, Mónica Salemme11,12, Fernando Santiago11, Manuel D D'Angelo Del Campo10,13, Rodrigo J Vecchi14, Yolanda Espinosa-Parrilla15,16, Alfredo Prieto17, Nicole Adamski18,19, Ann Marie Lawson18,19, Thomas K Harper20, Brendan J Culleton21, Douglas J Kennett22, Carles Lalueza-Fox15, Swapan Mallick18,19,23, Nadin Rohland18, Ricardo A Guichón10, Graciela S Cabana24.
Abstract
Archaeological research documents major technological shifts among people who have lived in the southern tip of South America (South Patagonia) during the last thirteen millennia, including the development of marine-based economies and changes in tools and raw materials. It has been proposed that movements of people spreading culture and technology propelled some of these shifts, but these hypotheses have not been tested with ancient DNA. Here we report genome-wide data from 20 ancient individuals, and co-analyze it with previously reported data. We reveal that immigration does not explain the appearance of marine adaptations in South Patagonia. We describe partial genetic continuity since ~6600 BP and two later gene flows correlated with technological changes: one between 4700-2000 BP that affected primarily marine-based groups, and a later one impacting all <2000 BP groups. From ~2200-1200 BP, mixture among neighbors resulted in a cline correlated to geographic ordering along the coast.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32747648 PMCID: PMC7400565 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17656-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Fig. 1Geographic and temporal distribution.
Newly and previously reported data are in bold and italics, respectively; color coding is in the legend. a Geography: we used site coordinates or reported location, except for Raghavan et al.[24] samples that were geographically reassigned according to historical evidence. The dashed lines represent routes of movement used to calculate plausible migration distances. The continuous line marks the border between Argentina in the east and Chile in the west. Inset: location of South Patagonia (rectangle) and the broader Patagonia region (following McCulloch et al.’s[76] definition; gray), along with the locations of ancient individuals mentioned in the main text but falling outside the range of the main map. The historical ranges of groups were adapted from Borrero[7]. The map was generated in R using the maps, ggplot2, ggrepel, and dplyr packages to get the map, plot it, label it, and provide accents, respectively. b Time ranges (number of individuals per site in parentheses). Sites for which radiocarbon dates were not available are labeled with an asterisk. Dates were calibrated for the Southern hemisphere and corrected for maritime reservoir effect (see “Methods”).
Fig. 2Population structure in South Patagonia.
a Neighbor-joining tree created using the matrix of inverted statistics (f3(Mbuti; Ind1, Ind2))−1, with an ancient Beringian[77] as an outgroup[72, 73]. b Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot of the matrix of statistics 1-f3(Mbuti; Ind1, Ind2). The matrix of the first two dimensions of MDS was rotated 30 degrees to emphasize the striking geographic correlation of the genetic cline of Late Holocene samples to the coastline. Only individuals with >100,000 SNPs were included; newly and previously reported data are in bold and italics, respectively.
Correlation of genetic distances with relevant variables.
| Variable | Simple Mantel test: | Partial Mantel test: |
|---|---|---|
| Geography | 1.90E – 01 (2.00E – 04) | 1.83E – 02 |
| Diet/technology | 6.62E – 02 (4.00E – 04) | 9.75E – 01 |
| Language | 2.32E – 01 (<1E – 4) | 4.00E – 04 |
| Time | 2.31E – 02 (<1E – 4) | 2.58E – 01 |
P values are based on 10,000 permutations. Multiple R2 for partial Mantel test: R2 = 0.30931.
Fig. 3Admixture graph model summarizing key findings.
Maximum |Z-score| = 2.6 for a difference between observed and expected f-statistics (|Z| = 2.7 restricting the analysis to transversions). The model presented fits only after adding small proportions of deeply diverging ancestry into PuntaSantaAna_6600BP and Kawéskar_800BP (splitting before the radiation of Native Americans), which we hypothesize reflects not real ancestry but rather technical artifacts due to these samples being shotgun sequenced and not UDG treated, causing them to be attracted to the outgroup (without modeling these edges, shown in Supplementary Fig. 6, the maximum |Z-score| is 5.1, but this drops to 3.3 with only transversions). Dashed lines indicate admixture between two different lineages with percentages being the admixture proportions. Numbers on solid lines are genetic drift with units of FST × 1000. Z-scores were determined from standard errors obtained from jackknife resampling.