gusl: (Default)
This plot of European genomes is an almost perfect match with the map of Europe.
plot, with map )

Interestingly, PC1 is pretty well aligned with North<->South. This suggests that: (a) most migrations happened East<->West (b) there has been less evolutionary pressure in East<->West migrations(?). It would be good to see the statistical significance of this directionality, e.g. by running a bootstrap. And of course, to see whether this holds in other parts of the world... e.g. how about diagonally-aligned landmasses, such as Sumatra?

You can also see that some national borders are sharper than others, e.g. the Iberian peninsula and Italy seem to be fairly isolated from the rest (probably due to the Pyrenees, Alps)

Looking at the "residuals", Romania appears a lot further South than its geographical location. Bulgaria doesn't as much, despite having more Romani per capita. (Is there software to draw cartograms from this type of data?)

Italy looks like the most diverse country (at least, in the first two PCs), since it has the most spread-out cloud. (Also note the 5 individuals who look like they're from Sardinia!)

Placing Slovakia in Southern Italy is probably an artifact of a very small sample size.

See also: manifold learning, the fascinating idea of discovering topological structure from data, which can be interpreted as things like phylogenetic trees or developmental paths (e.g. in the face dataset).
gusl: (Default)
This Saturday I skipped Grisman to see Louis Lefebvre talk about epigenetics. Being a total layman, I found it very accessible and enjoyable, even if I was somewhat puzzled about the basic facts.

Rough summary / questions:

* epigenetics can mean many different things. Etymologically, "epi-" is like "beyond".

* one kind is CG-methylation (aka "Ç" if you think of methyl as cedille) which renders genes inactive.
It is a kind of statefulness that can get passed on during transcription (due to methyl's tendency to cross the DNA), but apparently not meiosis(?), related to inactivation of genes (IIRC, also X-inactivation in females)

* in the zygote, the methylation state gets reset (methyl goes away?); human cloning is a bad idea because this resetting doesn't happen, leading to severe malformations. Of course, this raises the question of how methylation state could possibly be inheritable.

* diseased genes can be passed for many generations, e.g. down a paternal line, and only manifest themselves once they pass this gene on to a daughter, who passes it on to a child, who shows the diseased phenotype (or vice-versa: invisible down a maternal line until they have a son who has a child). I wonder what kind of mechanism could explain this.

* I found it a bit surprising that the zygote is formed before the two gametes' DNA get together (duh!), meaning there's no attempt to check how well this individual sperm matches this individual egg. This lack of selection implies that the zygotes formed are "really" "random". Though I wonder if sperm DNA is related to sperm phenotype, leading to a selection there.

* You can observe methylation state as a green light, using rats bred with genes for bioluminescence! There were two types of females (presumably, due to them having two Xs), one showing no light, one showing a dim green light. All males showed a bright green light. I don't understand this.

* The presenter himself was colorblind. So was his father. But of a very different type, inherited from his mother.

* Someone asked if epigenetics was bringing back the idea of Lamarckian inheritance. I didn't understand his answer.

Sigal and her former evolutionary psych professor (Cauffrey?) were there, and we had an interesting geeky conversation (even if largely beyond me, due to my lack of background).
gusl: (Default)
Why is red hair and brown eyes so uncommon? Genetic linkage is the answer.

Evolution of Racial Differences

Where Did White Folks Come From? argues that the "white mutation" happened about 5000 years ago.

Good information on this topic seems awfully hard to find. For example, "what percentage of the Dutch have blue eyes?", and similarly innocent questions seem to yield a high proportion of white supremacists (perhaps because they find it so important?), as well as politically-correct writers who argue (or rather "state without argument") that there exists no biologically meaningful concept of "race". This is a bad sign, and it's why scientists should be able to write about the subject without fear of political reprisal. Pinker makes a similar point at "The Blank Slate".

If you're too eager to deny biology, you must be afraid of the truth...

February 2020

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags