Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale.
Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040059
复制
发表时间：
1993-09
影响因子：
10.7
通讯作者：
M. Nei;Arun K. Roychoudhury
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Nei;Arun K. Roychoudhury
利用29个多态位点（121个等位基因）的基因频率数据，我们进行了系统发育分析，26个代表性的群体来自世界各地的邻居连接（NJ）的方法。我们还进行了单独的分析，15个群体的33个多态位点的数据。这些分析表明，系统发育树的第一个主要分裂将非洲人与非非洲人分开，并且这种分裂发生的概率为100%。第二个分裂将高加索人群与所有其他非非洲人群分开，这种分裂也得到了自助检验的支持。第三个主要的分裂发生在美洲原住民和大亚洲人之间，包括东亚人（蒙古人），太平洋岛民和南方古猿人（澳大利亚土著人和巴布亚新几内亚人），但南方古猿人在遗传上与其他大亚洲人有很大的不同。第二和第三层次的种群分裂与Cavalli-Sforza等人（1988）的系统发育树有很大的不同，后者认为高加索人、东北亚人和美洲人来自东北亚超星系团，而其他非非洲人则组成东南亚超星系团。造成这两种进化树差异的主要原因之一是Cavalli-Sforza等人在系统发育推断中采用了UPGMA方法，而我们采用了NJ方法，该方法允许不同种群间的进化速率不同。Bootstrap测试表明，UPGMA树得到较差的统计支持，而NJ树得到很好的支持。所获得的系统发育树的影响，对目前的争议出非洲和多区域的理论，人类起源进行了讨论。
Using gene frequency data for 29 polymorphic loci (121 alleles), we conducted a phylogenetic analysis of 26 representative populations from around the world by using the neighbor-joining (NJ) method. We also conducted a separate analysis of 15 populations by using data for 33 polymorphic loci. These analyses have shown that the first major split of the phylogenetic tree separates Africans from non-Africans and that this split occurs with a 100% bootstrap probability. The second split separates Caucasian populations from all other non-African populations, and this split is also supported by bootstrap tests. The third major split occurs between Native American populations and the Greater Asians that include East Asians (mongoloids), Pacific Islanders, and Australopapuans (native Australians and Papua New Guineans), but Australopapuans are genetically quite different from the rest of the Greater Asians. The second and third levels of population splitting are quite different from those of the phylogenetic tree obtained by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1988), where Caucasians, Northeast Asians, and Ameridians from the Northeurasian supercluster and the rest of non-Africans form the Southeast Asian supercluster. One of the major factors that caused the difference between the two trees is that Cavalli-Sforza et al. used unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) in phylogenetic inference, whereas we used the NJ method in which evolutionary rate is allowed to vary among different populations. Bootstrap tests have shown that the UPGMA tree receives poor statistical support whereas the NJ tree is well supported. Implications that the phylogenetic tree obtained has on the current controversy over the out-of-Africa and the multiregional theories of human origins are discussed.