01-07-2007, 12:16 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Dec 23 2006, 06:02 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Dec 23 2006, 06:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Somebody please translate this for aam-aadmi.
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...n-0020215-st002
[right][snapback]62384[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ANALYSIS?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent article.
Add this ARTICLE to the list as well for a better grasp of the subject.
The key points of interest:
1) Consistent with geography and with the analysis in Figure 2A, among the Indian populations, populations from the northwest part of India, including the Kashmiri and Punjabi groups, had the greatest similarity to the populations from Europe and the Middle East. Populations from eastern India, including the Assamese and Bengalis, had the greatest similarity to the populations from East Asia. The only population whose Fst values within India substantially overlapped those of either Europe/Middle East or East Asia was the Parsi population.
2) Although different studies have sometimes reached divergent conclusions about the magnitude of Indian differentiation and its determinants [15â17,30â38], it is possible that in India, differentiation across groups is larger than was seen here, but is based not on language, but on other variables, such as geography or caste [15,16,27,39].
3) For example, a recent study of 15 microsatellite loci in 54 groups [17], including tribal populations, identified population subclusters within India and obtained Fst = 0.018, considerably greater than the value seen here.
4) By necessity, however, our study required sampling in the United States in order to allow high-throughput genotyping of the large number of markers that we investigated, and it was not possible to include groups without an appreciable presence in the United States. Although our sample is likely to be reasonably representative of first-generation individuals of Indian descent currently located in the United States, such individuals likely do not provide a random sample of the source populations in India, as urban and relatively mobile populations and populations of higher caste and socioeconomic status are overrepresented among immigrants.
5) Thus, if variables such as caste and socioeconomic status do play important roles in producing genetic structure, more genetic differentiation would certainly be expected for a sample of the same linguistic groups in India compared to what we have seen in the United States.
Please note that this study was only done with Indian immigrants to the US, and hence does not constitute a true random sample of Indian population.
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...n-0020215-st002
[right][snapback]62384[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ANALYSIS?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent article.
Add this ARTICLE to the list as well for a better grasp of the subject.
The key points of interest:
1) Consistent with geography and with the analysis in Figure 2A, among the Indian populations, populations from the northwest part of India, including the Kashmiri and Punjabi groups, had the greatest similarity to the populations from Europe and the Middle East. Populations from eastern India, including the Assamese and Bengalis, had the greatest similarity to the populations from East Asia. The only population whose Fst values within India substantially overlapped those of either Europe/Middle East or East Asia was the Parsi population.
2) Although different studies have sometimes reached divergent conclusions about the magnitude of Indian differentiation and its determinants [15â17,30â38], it is possible that in India, differentiation across groups is larger than was seen here, but is based not on language, but on other variables, such as geography or caste [15,16,27,39].
3) For example, a recent study of 15 microsatellite loci in 54 groups [17], including tribal populations, identified population subclusters within India and obtained Fst = 0.018, considerably greater than the value seen here.
4) By necessity, however, our study required sampling in the United States in order to allow high-throughput genotyping of the large number of markers that we investigated, and it was not possible to include groups without an appreciable presence in the United States. Although our sample is likely to be reasonably representative of first-generation individuals of Indian descent currently located in the United States, such individuals likely do not provide a random sample of the source populations in India, as urban and relatively mobile populations and populations of higher caste and socioeconomic status are overrepresented among immigrants.
5) Thus, if variables such as caste and socioeconomic status do play important roles in producing genetic structure, more genetic differentiation would certainly be expected for a sample of the same linguistic groups in India compared to what we have seen in the United States.
Please note that this study was only done with Indian immigrants to the US, and hence does not constitute a true random sample of Indian population.