Talk:Ust'-Ishim man

[Untitled]

The last paragraph in the Out of Africa section appears to have been written by someone who is not fluent in English, or at least the form of English used in Wikipedia. I wanted to edit it to make it easier to read, but found that I did not know exactly what it was saying at several points. Could someone familiar with this topic rewrite that paragraph?74.109.187.131 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Y haplogroup

Ust' Ishim man in fact shares 2 mutations with the NO (K2a) branch of K2, which makes him pre-NO/K2a*. A few modern pre-NO sequences are known from India and Singapore but these share some additional mutations with NO and hence are not more closely related to Ust' Ishim man than N or O are. See Poznik et al (2016), "Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences".

When Australian Aboriginal K2* has been subjected to more detailed analysis it falls under the MSP/K2b clade, not NO/K2a, and specifically is related to haplogroup S-M230, or is classified within haplogroup S-B254 as redefined by Karmin et al (2015), "A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture". See Bergstrom et al (2016), "Deep roots for Aboriginal Australian Y chromosomes". Hence Ust Ishim's K2 cannot be connected to Australian Aboriginal K2 on present information. Furthermore, K2* (as identified either by Nagle et al 2015 or Karafet et al 2014) is not restricted to Australia. Megalophias (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

38 percent ancestry with East Asians

"According to a 2017 study, "Siberian and East Asian populations shared 38% of their ancestry" with Ust’-Ishim man." But after this on this Wikipedia article it is claimed that Ust Ishi man has no modern descendants so should this be removed since this debunks that modern Asians have 38 percent Uds Ishim DNA? Unless I am misinterpreting this and it means that Asians and Ust Ishim admixed and the Ust Ishim has 38 percent East Asian DNA. Also the claim that East Asians have 38 percent Ust Ishim DNA seems highly unlikely and does not make sense. That would mean that most Asian groups have 38 percent non East Asian DNA. And Ust Ishim was similar to Australo Melesnesians. And most East Asians do not look like they have that degree of Australo Melenesian influence. 2601:247:4482:9BA0:D161:11F9:76C8:A8DA (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ust Ishim was similar to Australo Melesnesians. No, not quite. The main problem with the 2017 study is that it is essentially outdated. At that time and given the set of their comparanda, their result made sense. But they didn't sufficiently take into account early West Eurasian populations (like Kostenki14 or Western Hunter-gatherers) that were not affected by Basal Eurasian admixture. This admixture bleached out affinity to Ust’-Ishim in modern western Eurasian populations.

The state of the art is that Ust’-Ishim, ancient West Eurasians and East Eurasians (= East Asians and Australopapuans) nearly trifurcated, as the 2022 source suggests. It further states that Ust’-Ishim and East Eurasians might have shared minimal drift, i.e. they might have parted ways a bit later after the split of ancient West Eurasians.

I'll try to rewrite this at some time. The current presentation (A said this then B said that then C said something else...) leaves the reader a bit in the dark about what's the current consensus about Ust’-Ishim. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)