The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people 1 , 2 . We report genome-wide data from 166 East Asians dating to 6000 BCE – 1000 CE and 46 present-day groups. Hunter-gatherers from Japan, the Amur River Basin, and people of Neolithic and Iron Age Taiwan and the Tibetan plateau are linked by a deeply-splitting lineage likely reflecting a Late Pleistocene coastal migration. We follow Holocene expansions from four regions. First, hunter-gatherers of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin have ancestry shared by Mongolic and Tungusic language speakers but do not carry West Liao River farmer ancestry contradicting theories that their expansion spread these proto-languages. Second, Yellow River Basin farmers at ~3000 BCE likely spread Sino-Tibetan languages as their ancestry dispersed both to Tibet where it forms up ~84% to some groups and to the Central Plain where it contributed ~59–84% to Han Chinese. Third, people from Taiwan ~1300 BCE to 800 CE derived ~75% ancestry from a lineage also common in modern Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic speakers likely deriving from Yangtze River Valley farmers; ancient Taiwan people also derived ~25% ancestry from a northern lineage related to but different from Yellow River farmers implying an additional north-to-south expansion. Fourth, Yamnaya Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived in western Mongolia after ~3000 BCE but was displaced by previously established lineages even while it persisted in western China as expected if it spread the ancestor of Tocharian Indo-European languages. Two later gene flows affected western Mongolia: after ~2000 BCE migrants with Yamnaya and European farmer ancestry, and episodic impacts of later groups with ancestry from Turan.

The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people. We report genome-wide data from 191 individuals from Mongolia, northern China, Taiwan, the Amur River Basin and Japan dating to 6000 BCE – 1000 CE, many from contexts never previously analyzed with ancient DNA. We also report 383 present-day individuals from 46 groups mostly from the Tibetan Plateau and southern China. We document how 6000-3600 BCE people of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin were from populations that expanded over Northeast Asia, likely dispersing the ancestors of Mongolic and Tungusic languages. In a time transect of 89 Mongolians, we reveal how Yamnaya steppe pastoralist spread from the west by 3300-2900 BCE in association with the Afanasievo culture, although we also document a boy buried in an Afanasievo barrow with ancestry entirely from local Mongolian hunter-gatherers, representing a unique case of someone of entirely non-Yamnaya ancestry interred in this way. The second spread of Yamnaya-derived ancestry came via groups that harbored about a third of their ancestry from European farmers, which nearly completely displaced unmixed Yamnaya-related lineages in Mongolia in the second millennium BCE, but did not replace Afanasievo lineages in western China where Afanasievo ancestry persisted, plausibly acting as the source of the early-splitting Tocharian branch of Indo-European languages. Analyzing 20 Yellow River Basin farmers dating to ∼3000 BCE, we document a population that was a plausible vector for the spread of Sino-Tibetan languages both to the Tibetan Plateau and to the central plain where they mixed with southern agriculturalists to form the ancestors of Han Chinese. We show that the individuals in a time transect of 52 ancient Taiwan individuals spanning at least 1400 BCE to 600 CE were consistent with being nearly direct descendants of Yangtze Valley first farmers who likely spread Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic languages across Southeast and South Asia and mixing with the people they encountered, contributing to a four-fold reduction of genetic differentiation during the emergence of complex societies. We finally report data from Jomon hunter-gatherers from Japan who harbored one of the earliest splitting branches of East Eurasian variation, and show an affinity among Jomon, Amur River Basin, ancient Taiwan, and Austronesian-speakers, as expected for ancestry if they all had contributions from a Late Pleistocene coastal route migration to East Asia.

China has repeatedly been the subject of genetic studies to elucidate its prehistoric and historic demography. While some studies reported a genetic distinction between Northern and Southern Han Chinese, others showed a more clinal picture of small differences within China. Here, we investigated the distribution of Y chromosome variation along administrative as well as ethnic divisions in the mainland territory of the People's Republic of China, including 28 administrative regions and 19 recognized Chinese nationalities, to assess the impact of recent demographic processes. To this end, we analyzed 37,994 Y chromosomal 17-marker haplotype profiles from the YHRD database with respect to forensic diversity measures and genetic distance between groups defined by administrative boundaries and ethnic origin. We observed high diversity throughout all Chinese provinces and ethnicities. Some ethnicities, including most prominently Kazakhs and Tibetans, showed significant genetic differentiation from the Han and other groups. However, differences between provinces were, except for those located on the Tibetan plateau, less pronounced. This discrepancy is explicable by the sizeable presence of Han speakers, who showed high genetic homogeneity all across China, in nearly all studied provinces. Furthermore, we observed a continuous genetic North-South gradient in the Han, confirming previous reports of a clinal distribution of Y chromosome variation and being in notable concordance with the previously observed spatial distribution of autosomal variation. Our findings shed light on the demographic changes in China accrued by a fast-growing and increasingly mobile population.

There is a long-going debate on the genetic origin of Chinese Muslim populations, such as Uygur, Dongxiang, and Hui. However, genetic information for those Muslim populations except Uygur is extremely limited. In this study, we investigated the genetic structure and ancestry of Chinese Muslims by analyzing 15 autosomal short tandem repeats in 652 individuals from Dongxiang, Hui, and Han Chinese populations in Gansu province. Both genetic distance and Bayesian-clustering methods showed significant genetic homogeneity between the two Muslim populations and East Asian populations, suggesting a common genetic ancestry. Our analysis found no evidence of substantial gene flow from Middle East or Europe into Dongxiang and Hui people during their Islamization. The dataset generated in present study are also valuable for forensic identification and paternity tests in China.

We conclude that there have been huge population migrations from surrounding lowland onto the Tibetan Plateau via the Tibetan-Yi Corridor since the initial formation of Tibetans probably in Neolithic Time, which leads to the current genetic structure of Tibeto-Burman speaking populations.

Objectives Haplogroup C2a‐M48 is the predominant paternal lineage of Tungusic‐speaking populations, one of the largest population groups in Siberia. Up until now, the origins and dispersal of Tungusic‐speaking populations have remained unclear. In this study, the demographic history of Tungusic‐speaking populations was explored using the phylogenetic analysis of haplogroup C2a‐M86, the major subbranch of C2a‐M48. Materials and methods In total, 18 newly generated Y chromosome sequences from C2a‐M48 males and 20 previously available Y‐chromosome sequences from this haplogroup were analyzed. A highly revised phylogenetic tree of haplogroup C2a‐M86 with age estimates was reconstructed. Frequencies of this lineage in the literature were collected and a comprehensive analysis of this lineage in 13 022 individuals from 245 populations in Eurasia was performed. Results The distribution map of C2a‐M48 indicated the most probable area of origin and diffusion route of this paternal lineage in North Eurasia. Most C2a‐M86 samples from Tungusic‐speaking populations belonged to the sublineage C2a‐F5484, which emerged about 3300 years ago. We identified six unique sublineages corresponding to the Manchu, Evenks, Evens, Oroqen, and Daurpopulations; these sublineages diverged gradually over the past 1900 years. Notably, we observed a clear north‐south dichotomous structure for sublineages derived from C2a‐F5484, consistent with the internal north‐south divergence of Tungusic languages and ethnic groups. Conclusions We identified the important founding paternal haplogroup, C2a‐F5484, for Tungusic‐speaking populations as well as numerous unique subgroups of this haplogroup. We propose that the timeframe for the divergence of C2a‐F5484 corresponds with the early differentiation of ancestral Tungusic‐speaking populations.

No abstract

The origin and diversification of Sino-Tibetan speaking populations have been long-standing hot debates. However, the limited genetic information of Tibetan populations keeps this topic far from clear. In the present study, we genotyped 15 forensic autosomal short tandem repeats (STRs) from 803 unrelated Tibetan individuals from Gansu Province (635 from Gannan and 168 from Tianzhu) in northwest China. We combined these data with published dataset to infer a detailed population affinities and genetic substructure of Sino-Tibetan populations. Our results revealed Tibetan populations in Gannan and Tianzhu are genetically very similar with Tibetans from other regions. The Tibetans in Tianzhu have received more genetic influence from surrounding lowland populations. The genetic structure of Sino-Tibetan populations was strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations. Although the among-population variances are relatively small, the genetic components for Tibetan, Lolo-Burmese, and Han Chinese were quite distinctive, especially for the Deng, Nu, and Derung of Lolo-Burmese. Han Chinese but not Tibetans are suggested to share substantial genetic component with southern natives, such as Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien speaking populations, and with other lowland East Asian populations, which implies there might be extensive gene flow between those lowland groups and Han Chinese after Han Chinese were separated from Tibetans. The dataset generated in present study is also valuable for forensic identification and paternity tests in China.