Do Nuclear DNA and Dental Nonmetric Data Produce Similar Reconstructions of Regional Population History? an Example from Modern Coastal Kenya

American Journal of Physical Anthropology View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LJMU Research Online Do nuclear DNA and dental nonmetric data produce similar reconstructions of regional population history? An example from modern coastal Kenya Journal: American Journal of Physical Anthropology Manuscript ID: AJPA-2014-00343.R1 Wiley - Manuscript type: Research Article Date Submitted by the Author: 12-Dec-2014 Complete List oF Authors: Hubbard, Amelia; Wright State University, Anthropology and Sociology Guatelli-Steinberg, Debbie; The Ohio State University, Anthropology; Irish, Joel; Liverpool John Moores University, Research Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology nuclear microsatellite, dental morphology, coastal Kenya, East AFrica, Key Words: biological distance SubField: Please select your Bioarchaeology [including Forensics], Genetics [primate and human] first choice in the first field.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Page 1 of 35 American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1 2 3 4 5 Do nuclear DNA and dental nonmetric data produce similar reconstructions of regional 6 population history? An example from modern coastal Kenya 7 8 Amelia R. Hubbard1, Debbie Guatelli-Steinberg2, Joel D. Irish3 9 10 1Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA 11 2 12 Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA 3 13 Research Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology, Liverpool John Moores 14 University, Liverpool, UK 15 16 INSTITUTION: Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA 45435 17 18 19 TEXT: 28 pages 20 21 FIGURES: 2 22 23 24 TABLES: 4 25 26 ABBREVIATED TITLE: Biological distance among regional populations 27 28 KEY WORDS: nuclear microsatellites, dental morphology, coastal East Africa 29 30 31 CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: 32 33 Amelia R. Hubbard 34 Department of Sociology and Anthropology 35 Wright State University 36 37 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway 38 Millett Hall 226 39 Dayton, OH 45435 40 [email protected] 41 Tel: 614-565-2043 42 Fax: 937-775-4228 43 44 45 FUNDING STATEMENT: This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Education 46 47 through a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Grant (P022A090029), a 48 49 50 Wenner-Gren Foundation Dissertation Fieldwork Grant (7962), and the Ohio State University 51 52 Graduate School. 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1" " John Wiley & Sons, Inc. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Page 2 of 35 1 2 3 ABSTRACT 4 5 6 This study investigates whether variants in dental morphology and nuclear DNA provide 7 8 similar patterns of intergroup affinity among regional populations using biological distance 9 10 11 (biodistance) estimates. Many biodistance studies of archaeological populations use skeletal 12 13 variants in lieu of ancient DNA, based on the widely accepted assumption of a strong correlation 14 15 between phenetic- and genetic-based affinities. Within studies of dental morphology, this 16 17 18 assumption has been well supported by research on a global scale but remains unconfirmed at a 19 20 more geographically restricted scale. 21 22 Paired genetic (42 microsatellite loci) and dental (nine crown morphology traits) data 23 24 25 were collected from 295 individuals among four contemporary Kenyan populations, two of 26 27 which are known ethnically as “Swahili” and two as “Taita;” all have well-documented 28 29 population histories. The results indicate that biodistances based on genetic data are correlated 30 31 32 with those obtained from dental morphology. Specifically, both distance matrices indicate that 33 34 the closest affinities are between population samples within each ethnic group. Both also identify 35 36 37 greater divergence among samples from the different ethnic groups. However, for this particular 38 39 study the genetic data may provide finer resolution at detecting overall among-population 40 41 relationships. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 2" " John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Page 3 of 35 American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1 2 3 INTRODUCTION 4 5 6 For more than two centuries, biological anthropologists have used biodistance analysis to 7 8 evaluate biological affinity among past human populations (Konigsberg, 2006). A cursory 9 10 11 review of the current literature suggests that, while some biodistance studies use both skeletal 12 13 and ancient DNA data (e.g., Corruccini et al., 2002), a proportionally higher number rely on 14 15 skeletal variants alone (for a review see Buikstra et al., 1990). In recent years, variants in dental 16 17 18 morphology have become a favored dataset because (Scott and Turner, 1997): 1) crown 19 20 morphology is not altered, except by wear or pathology, after the period of crown formation, 2) 21 22 dental variants are highly heritable (60 to 80%), and 3) dental variants vary widely in frequency 23 24 25 across populations. 26 27 This study had two goals. The first was to determine the strength of the correlation 28 29 between biodistance estimates based on dental morphology and those based on genetic, i.e., 30 31 32 nuclear microsatellite, variants. As reviewed below, biodistance studies based on dental 33 34 morphology have long been used effectively to differentiate among populations on a global 35 36 37 scale. However, more specific (i.e., regional comparisons) are also common in bioarchaeological 38 39 research based on dental morphology (e.g., Willermet et al., 2013; Ragsdale and Edgar, 2014; 40 41 Irish et al., 2014). It is at this level that the present study provides a direct test of consistency 42 43 44 between dental morphological and genetic data in estimating biodistance using paired biological 45 46 data. The second goal was to determine how closely biodistance estimates from these two 47 48 datasets match population histories established through historic, linguistic, and archaeological 49 50 51 research within coastal Kenya. To accomplish the second goal, paired genetic and dental 52 53 morphology data were collected from living populations whose histories have been widely 54 55 studied (as detailed below). 56 57 58 59 60 3" " John Wiley & Sons, Inc. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Page 4 of 35 1 2 3 Previous studies comparing dental and genetic biodistance estimates 4 5 6 Biodistance studies use dental morphology to examine patterns of population history at a 7 8 variety of geographic scales. Scott and Turner (1997) identify six geographic scales that, from 9 10 11 specific to general, are: 1) individual, 2) family, 3) local (i.e., subsets of a single population), 4) 12 13 regional (i.e., multiple populations spatially proximate to one another), 5) continental (i.e., 14 15 among populations widely distributed across a particular continent), and 6) global (i.e., where 16 17 18 populations across continents are compared to one another). It has long been assumed among 19 20 dental morphologists studying biodistance that phenotypic variation reflects genetic variation 21 22 (and vice versa), so that either dataset can be used to reconstruct a similar overall pattern of 23 24 25 population history at all geographic scales (Scott and Turner, 1997). To a large extent this 26 27 assumption has been supported at a global scale; Scott and Turner (1997) comprehensively 28 29 reviewed studies from populations on nearly every continent showing a general agreement 30 31 32 between biodistance measures based on genetic data and dental morphology. Their review built 33 34 on the work of various researchers who defined many of the major dental complexes (e.g., 35 36 37 Sundadont vs. Sinodont), cementing the notion that dental morphology or genetic variants, can 38 39 be used to differentiate among global populations (e.g., Hanihara, 1968; Mayhall et al., 1982; 40 41 Turner, 1983, 1986, 1990; Townsend et al., 1990; Irish, 1993, 2013; Hawkey 2004; Scott et al. 42 43 44 2013). 45 46 However, bioarchaeologists are more often interested in investigating relationships 47 48 among past groups at more geographically limited scales than continental and global. Many 49 50 51 regional studies examine populations within a single country (e.g., Guatelli-Steinberg et al., 52 53 2001), region of a country (e.g., Hubbard, 2012), or bordering countries (e.g., Ullinger et al., 54 55 2005). As noted by Buikstra et al. (1990), this more refined focus is common in the 56 57 58 59 60 4" " John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Page 5 of 35 American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1 2 3 bioarchaeological literature and is reflected in an array of more recent publications (e.g., see 4 5 6 Blom et al., 1998; Irish, 2006; Coppa et al., 2007; Sołtysiak and Bialon., 2013; Willermet et al., 7 8 2013; Irish et al., 2014). Such regional studies often focus on understanding mobility patterns 9 10 11 (e.g., McIlvaine et al., 2014), trading networks (Ragsdale and Edgar, 2014), and other social 12 13 phenomena (e.g., see Knudson and Stojanowski, 2008). Though not systematically tested, it is 14 15 has long-been assumed that there is also a general agreement between biodistance measures 16 17 18 based on genetic data and dental morphology when examining these regional scale networks 19 20 (Scott and Turner, 1997). 21 22 Three early studies that examined the degree of concordance between biodistance 23 24 25 estimates based on both genetic and dental morphology data produced conflicting results. Sofaer 26 27 et al. (1972) and Brewer-Carias et al. (1976) found a generally strong agreement, while Harris 28 29 (1977) found that genetic and dental distances produced fundamentally different patterns of 30 31 32 relationships among regional populations. Several patterns appear when the study design and 33 34 sample composition of these three projects are compared; these differences could account for the 35 36 37 disagreement between results.

Load more