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 origin of Tibetans remains one of the most contentious puzzles in history, anthropology, and genetics. Analyses of deeply sequenced (30×-60×) genomes of 38 Tibetan highlanders and 39 Han Chinese lowlanders, together with available data on archaic and modern humans, allow us to comprehensively characterize the ancestral makeup of Tibetans and uncover their origins. Non-modern human sequences compose ∼6% of the Tibetan gene pool and form unique haplotypes in some genomic regions, where Denisovan-like, Neanderthal-like, ancient-Siberian-like, and unknown ancestries are entangled and elevated. The shared ancestry of Tibetan-enriched sequences dates back to ∼62,000-38,000 years ago, predating the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and representing early colonization of the plateau. Nonetheless, most of the Tibetan gene pool is of modern human origin and diverged from that of Han Chinese ∼15,000 to ∼9,000 years ago, which can be largely attributed to post-LGM arrivals. Analysis of ∼200 contemporary populations showed that Tibetans share ancestry with populations from East Asia (∼82%), Central Asia and Siberia (∼11%), South Asia (∼6%), and western Eurasia and Oceania (∼1%). Our results support that Tibetans arose from a mixture of multiple ancestral gene pools but that their origins are much more complicated and ancient than previously suspected. We provide compelling evidence of the co-existence of Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestries in the Tibetan gene pool, indicating a genetic continuity between pre-historical highland-foragers and present-day Tibetans. In particular, highly differentiated sequences harbored in highlanders' genomes were most likely inherited from pre-LGM settlers of multiple ancestral origins (SUNDer) and maintained in high frequency by natural selection.

No abstract

As the highest plateau surrounded by towering mountain ranges, the Tibetan Plateau was once considered to be one of the last populated areas of modern humans. However, this view has been tremendously changed by archeological, linguistic, and genetic findings in the past 60 years. Nevertheless, the timing and routes of entry of modern humans into the Tibetan Plateau is still unclear. To make these problems clear, we carried out high-resolution mitochondrial-DNA (mtDNA) analyses on 562 Tibeto-Burman inhabitants from nine different regions across the plateau. By examining the mtDNA haplogroup distributions and their principal components, we demonstrated that maternal diversity on the plateau reflects mostly a northern East Asian ancestry. Furthermore, phylogeographic analysis of plateau-specific sublineages based on 31 complete mtDNA sequences revealed two primary components: pre-last glacial maximum (LGM) inhabitants and post-LGM immigrants. Also, the analysis of one major pre-LGM sublineage A10 showed a strong signal of post-LGM population expansion (about 15,000 years ago) and greater diversity in the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau, indicating the southern plateau as a refuge place when climate dramatically changed during LGM.

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.

Many ancestry informative SNP (AISNP) panels have been published. Ancestry resolution in them varies from three to eight continental clusters of populations depending on the panel used. However, none of these panels differentiates well among East Asian populations. To meet this need, we have developed a 74 AISNP panel after analyzing a much larger number of SNPs for Fst and allele frequency differences between two geographically close population groups within East Asia. The 74 AISNP panel can now distinguish at least 10 biogeographic groups of populations globally: Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, Southwest Asia, South Asia, North Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Pacific and Americas. Compared with our previous 55-AISNP panel, Southeast Asia and North Asia are two newly assignable clusters. For individual ancestry assignment, the likelihood ratio and ancestry components were analyzed on a different set of 500 test individuals from 11 populations. All individuals from five of the test populations - Yoruba (YRI), European (CEU), Han Chinese in Henan (CHNH), Rondonian Surui (SUR) and Ticuna (TIC) - were assigned to their appropriate geographical regions unambiguously. For the other test populations, most of the individuals were assigned to their self-identified geographical regions with a certain degree of overlap with adjacent populations. These alternative ancestry components for each individual thus help give a clearer picture of the possible group origins of the individual. We have demonstrated that the new AISNP panel can achieve a deeper resolution of global ancestry.

BackgroundThe genetic relationships reported by recent studies between Sherpas and Tibetans are controversial. To gain insights into the population history and the genetic basis of high-altitude adaptation of the two groups, we analyzed genome-wide data in 111 Sherpas (Tibet and Nepal) and 177 Tibetans (Tibet and Qinghai), together with available data from present-day human populations.ResultsSherpas and Tibetans show considerable genetic differences and can be distinguished as two distinct groups, even though the divergence between them (~3200–11,300 years ago) is much later than that between Han Chinese and either of the two groups (~6200–16,000 years ago). Sub-population structures exist in both Sherpas and Tibetans, corresponding to geographical or linguistic groups. Differentiation of genetic variants between Sherpas and Tibetans associated with adaptation to either high-altitude or ultraviolet radiation were identified and validated by genotyping additional Sherpa and Tibetan samples.ConclusionsOur analyses indicate that both Sherpas and Tibetans are admixed populations, but the findings do not support the previous hypothesis that Tibetans derive their ancestry from Sherpas and Han Chinese. Compared to Tibetans, Sherpas show higher levels of South Asian ancestry, while Tibetans show higher levels of East Asian and Central Asian/Siberian ancestry. We propose a new model to elucidate the differentiated demographic histories and local adaptations of Sherpas and Tibetans.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1242-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tibetan high-altitude adaptation (HAA) has been studied extensively, and many candidate genes have been reported. Subsequent efforts targeting HAA functional variants, however, have not been that successful (e.g., no functional variant has been suggested for the top candidate HAA gene, EPAS1). With WinXPCNVer, a method developed in this study, we detected in microarray data a Tibetan-enriched deletion (TED) carried by 90% of Tibetans; 50% were homozygous for the deletion, whereas only 3% carried the TED and 0% carried the homozygous deletion in 2,792 worldwide samples (p < 10(-15)). We employed long PCR and Sanger sequencing technologies to determine the exact copy number and breakpoints of the TED in 70 additional Tibetan and 182 diverse samples. The TED had identical boundaries (chr2: 46,694,276-46,697,683; hg19) and was 80 kb downstream of EPAS1. Notably, the TED was in strong linkage disequilibrium (LD; r(2) = 0.8) with EPAS1 variants associated with reduced blood concentrations of hemoglobin. It was also in complete LD with the 5-SNP motif, which was suspected to be introgressed from Denisovans, but the deletion itself was absent from the Denisovan sequence. Correspondingly, we detected that footprints of positive selection for the TED occurred 12,803 (95% confidence interval = 12,075-14,725) years ago. We further whole-genome deep sequenced (>60×) seven Tibetans and verified the TED but failed to identify any other copy-number variations with comparable patterns, giving this TED top priority for further study. We speculate that the specific patterns of the TED resulted from its own functionality in HAA of Tibetans or LD with a functional variant of EPAS1.