Kazakh DNA

[Kaspias]

Turk_Medieval: Gokturk DA89, Karluk, Kimak, Kipchak DA23, Kirgiz DA86.
Mongol_Medieval: I13176 and all other LM samples.


https://i.ibb.co/7XKV6Qh/kazaklar.png


Distance to: Kazakh
0.01581083 60.00% MNG_Late_Med + 40.00% RUS_Late_Xiongnu_Sarmatian
0.01657276 33.60% KAZ_Kangju + 66.40% MNG_Late_Med
0.01659217 60.00% KAZ_Kipchak + 40.00% MNG_Late_Med
0.01730870 21.80% ARM_MBA + 78.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.01785308 29.00% IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA + 71.00% MNG_Late_Med
0.01786186 70.00% MNG_Late_Med + 30.00% Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
0.01786507 51.20% KAZ_Turk + 48.80% MNG_Late_Med
0.01792495 62.20% MNG_Mongol + 37.80% RUS_Nomad_MA
0.01797143 64.80% KAZ_Turk + 35.20% RUS_Amur_IA
0.01800692 30.60% KAZ_Katon_Karagay_LBA + 69.40% MNG_Late_Med
0.01810822 39.20% MDA_Cimmerian + 60.80% MNG_Late_Med
0.01815124 66.80% MNG_Late_Med + 33.20% Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2
0.01837487 62.20% KAZ_Turk + 37.80% MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave
0.01845440 49.00% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 51.00% KAZ_Kipchak
0.01856670 48.00% KAZ_Turk + 52.00% KGZ_Nomad_MA
0.01861255 21.80% ARM_LBA + 78.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.01864869 49.20% MNG_Late_Med + 50.80% RUS_Nomad_MA
0.01866048 60.00% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 40.00% TUR_Ottoman
0.01871880 53.80% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 46.20% MNG_Early_Med_Uigur
0.01877114 77.40% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 22.60% RUS_Alan_MA
0.01882057 36.20% KAZ_Wusun + 63.80% MNG_Late_Med
0.01883711 78.60% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 21.40% RUS_Maykop
0.01902194 21.40% ARM_Areni_C + 78.60% Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.01903656 47.00% KAZ_Kipchak + 53.00% MNG_Mongol
0.01904052 22.20% ARM_Lchashen_MBA + 77.80% Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.01913961 66.60% MNG_Late_Med + 33.40% Sarmatian_RUS_Urals
0.01914439 57.00% KAZ_Turk + 43.00% MNG_Xianbei_IA
0.01925448 31.40% HUN_Prescythian_IA + 68.60% MNG_Late_Med
0.01926804 43.40% KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian + 56.60% KAZ_Turk
0.01934201 51.80% KAZ_Turk + 48.20% RUS_Late_Xiongnu
0.01950924 77.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 22.80% UZB_Dzharkutan2_BA
0.01961079 69.20% MNG_Late_Med + 30.80% Scythian_UKR
0.01966605 33.00% KAZ_Turk_o + 67.00% MNG_Late_Med
0.01978434 74.40% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 25.60% TUR_IA
0.01979970 71.20% MNG_Late_Med + 28.80% Yamnaya_BGR
0.01984781 79.00% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 21.00% RUS_Maykop_Late
0.01989544 66.80% MNG_Late_Med + 33.20% Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
0.01993108 78.00% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 22.00% IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Historic
0.02000175 63.00% KAZ_Turk + 37.00% MNG_Ulaanzukh_LBA_2
0.02001120 51.00% MNG_Late_Med + 49.00% TUR_Ottoman
0.02005956 45.20% KAZ_Nomad_HP + 54.80% KAZ_Turk
0.02011327 68.00% MNG_Late_Med + 32.00% Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
0.02011450 63.80% KAZ_Turk + 36.20% MNG_East_N
0.02012934 79.40% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 20.60% RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
0.02019016 78.80% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 21.20% Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o1
0.02020363 79.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 20.80% Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
0.02033750 58.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 41.80% KAZ_Turk
0.02046316 72.40% KAZ_Kipchak + 27.60% RUS_Yankovsky_IA
0.02048324 67.40% MNG_Late_Med + 32.60% Sarmatian_KAZ
0.02051861 67.00% MNG_Late_Med + 33.00% Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1

There are some indicators from a historical point of view to make me believe that the genetic drift of Anatolian Turks from MA2196-like form to modern-day form has concluded after the 1700s. At one point in 300 years ago, Anatolian Turks were Turkic as much as Kazakh confederation although the migration started in the early 1000s. Eventually, there seem to be some Kazakhs who are Turkic as much as today's Anatolian Turks, still. Who would have thought?

[Altaylı]

No YoU aRe wRoNg

tHiS Is tRuTh:

An AlPhA MonGaliAn mAn ASSimilaTeD All InDo eUrOpEAnS iN CenTrAl AsIa anD InVaDEd WeSt ThIs WhY TuRkIsH pEoPLe ArE NoT rEaL tUrK AnD I aM 3 Iq
HRrrrrRrrrrrRRBRrRrRREEEEEEEEE

[Altaylı]

up

[RicoSuave]

Just common genetic drift, the Turkic romance is exaggerate for propaganda, maybe something is there but not as power as you think

[Kaspias]

DA89 once more proved to be a decent candidate for Oghuz
Ironically, the pre-Mongol average of the Kazakh profile represented closest to Ottoman MA2195, which makes me think that MA2195 was a refugee from a later migration wave triggered by the Mongol invasion of Khwarezm that caused Turks and possibly the Iranic speakers from the region to influx Anatolia.






The plots with the "subtracted" name represent the amount of Mongol admixture removed from modern Kazakhs to create a ghost coordinate.


https://i.ibb.co/4FhMJJ8/PCA1.png
https://i.ibb.co/f9kFvpp/pca2.png

[Visitor_22]

Turk_Medieval: Gokturk DA89, Karluk, Kimak, Kipchak DA23, Kirgiz DA86.
Mongol_Medieval: I13176 and all other LM samples.


https://i.ibb.co/7XKV6Qh/kazaklar.png


Distance to: Kazakh
0.01581083 60.00% MNG_Late_Med + 40.00% RUS_Late_Xiongnu_Sarmatian
0.01657276 33.60% KAZ_Kangju + 66.40% MNG_Late_Med
0.01659217 60.00% KAZ_Kipchak + 40.00% MNG_Late_Med
0.01730870 21.80% ARM_MBA + 78.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.01785308 29.00% IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA + 71.00% MNG_Late_Med
0.01786186 70.00% MNG_Late_Med + 30.00% Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
0.01786507 51.20% KAZ_Turk + 48.80% MNG_Late_Med
0.01792495 62.20% MNG_Mongol + 37.80% RUS_Nomad_MA
0.01797143 64.80% KAZ_Turk + 35.20% RUS_Amur_IA
0.01800692 30.60% KAZ_Katon_Karagay_LBA + 69.40% MNG_Late_Med
0.01810822 39.20% MDA_Cimmerian + 60.80% MNG_Late_Med
0.01815124 66.80% MNG_Late_Med + 33.20% Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2
0.01837487 62.20% KAZ_Turk + 37.80% MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave
0.01845440 49.00% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 51.00% KAZ_Kipchak
0.01856670 48.00% KAZ_Turk + 52.00% KGZ_Nomad_MA
0.01861255 21.80% ARM_LBA + 78.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.01864869 49.20% MNG_Late_Med + 50.80% RUS_Nomad_MA
0.01866048 60.00% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 40.00% TUR_Ottoman
0.01871880 53.80% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 46.20% MNG_Early_Med_Uigur
0.01877114 77.40% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 22.60% RUS_Alan_MA
0.01882057 36.20% KAZ_Wusun + 63.80% MNG_Late_Med
0.01883711 78.60% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 21.40% RUS_Maykop
0.01902194 21.40% ARM_Areni_C + 78.60% Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.01903656 47.00% KAZ_Kipchak + 53.00% MNG_Mongol
0.01904052 22.20% ARM_Lchashen_MBA + 77.80% Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.01913961 66.60% MNG_Late_Med + 33.40% Sarmatian_RUS_Urals
0.01914439 57.00% KAZ_Turk + 43.00% MNG_Xianbei_IA
0.01925448 31.40% HUN_Prescythian_IA + 68.60% MNG_Late_Med
0.01926804 43.40% KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian + 56.60% KAZ_Turk
0.01934201 51.80% KAZ_Turk + 48.20% RUS_Late_Xiongnu
0.01950924 77.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 22.80% UZB_Dzharkutan2_BA
0.01961079 69.20% MNG_Late_Med + 30.80% Scythian_UKR
0.01966605 33.00% KAZ_Turk_o + 67.00% MNG_Late_Med
0.01978434 74.40% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 25.60% TUR_IA
0.01979970 71.20% MNG_Late_Med + 28.80% Yamnaya_BGR
0.01984781 79.00% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 21.00% RUS_Maykop_Late
0.01989544 66.80% MNG_Late_Med + 33.20% Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
0.01993108 78.00% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 22.00% IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Historic
0.02000175 63.00% KAZ_Turk + 37.00% MNG_Ulaanzukh_LBA_2
0.02001120 51.00% MNG_Late_Med + 49.00% TUR_Ottoman
0.02005956 45.20% KAZ_Nomad_HP + 54.80% KAZ_Turk
0.02011327 68.00% MNG_Late_Med + 32.00% Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
0.02011450 63.80% KAZ_Turk + 36.20% MNG_East_N
0.02012934 79.40% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 20.60% RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
0.02019016 78.80% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 21.20% Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o1
0.02020363 79.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 20.80% Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
0.02033750 58.20% Hun_Tian_Shan_o + 41.80% KAZ_Turk
0.02046316 72.40% KAZ_Kipchak + 27.60% RUS_Yankovsky_IA
0.02048324 67.40% MNG_Late_Med + 32.60% Sarmatian_KAZ
0.02051861 67.00% MNG_Late_Med + 33.00% Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1


Can you explain what these results mean?

[Kaspias]

Can you explain what these results mean?

Kazakhs are around 40% Mongol, 60% Turkic on average. Turkic admixture of Kazakhs in the same line as Karluk and Karakhanid on average, despite supposedly covering almost all Turkic groups in an individual level.

[Visitor_22]

Kazakhs are around 40% Mongol, 60% Turkic on average. Turkic admixture of Kazakhs in the same line as Karluk and Karakhanid on average, despite supposedly covering almost all Turkic groups in an individual level.

So 40% admixture came from Medieval Mongol conquerers?

[Visitor_22]

Kazakhs are around 40% Mongol, 60% Turkic on average. Turkic admixture of Kazakhs in the same line as Karluk and Karakhanid on average, despite supposedly covering almost all Turkic groups in an individual level.

Interesting... How much Mongol % do Tuvans have?

[Komintasavalta]

In terms of their Y-DNA distribution, Kazakhs are very similar to Mongols. In the heatmaps below, the closest neighbor of Kazakhs are Mongols based on Y-DNA but Uzbeks based on mtDNA. Kazakhs have less mtDNA C than Mongols but more mtDNA H.

https://i.ibb.co/L6h0jtM/complexheatmap-tambets-2018-ydna.png
https://i.ibb.co/FxFD1cM/complexheatmap-tambets-2018-mtdna.png

[vbnetkhio]

In terms of their Y-DNA distribution, Kazakhs are very similar to Mongols. In the heatmaps below, the closest neighbor of Kazakhs are Mongols based on Y-DNA but Uzbeks based on mtDNA. Kazakhs have less mtDNA C than Mongols but more mtDNA H.

https://i.ibb.co/L6h0jtM/complexheatmap-tambets-2018-ydna.png
https://i.ibb.co/FxFD1cM/complexheatmap-tambets-2018-mtdna.png

could you try some clustering with Y-STR data? that would be interesting.

[CommonSense]

Which modern-day Turkic ethnicity has the most medieval Turkic admixture?

[Leto]

In terms of their Y-DNA distribution, Kazakhs are very similar to Mongols. In the heatmaps below, the closest neighbor of Kazakhs are Mongols based on Y-DNA but Uzbeks based on mtDNA. Kazakhs have less mtDNA C than Mongols but more mtDNA H.

[img]https://i.ibb.co/L6h0jtM/complexheatmap-tambets-2018-ydna.png
[img]https://i.ibb.co/FxFD1cM/complexheatmap-tambets-2018-mtdna.png
Which mtDNA HGs are considered East Eurasian?

[Komintasavalta]

could you try some clustering with Y-STR data? that would be interesting.

Where can I get Y-STR data?


Which mtDNA HGs are considered East Eurasian?

The ones that were listed at the end of table S4 in Tambets et al. 2018 (https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1522-1#Sec25): A, B, F, M(xD, G, C, Z), D, G, C, Z, and L. For example I didn't consider U4 to be eastern, even though it was the most common in Kets, Nganasans, Mansi, and Khanty.

[vbnetkhio]

Where can I get Y-STR data?


in supplementary data of y-DNA studies and public FTDNA projects.

for example, here's for haplogroup N

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066102#s6 (in the "Table S2")
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005449/ (the mmc4.xslx file)

projects:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N%20Y-DNA%20Project?iframe=yresults
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N1c1?iframe=yresults

[Leto]

The ones that were listed at the end of table S4 in Tambets et al. 2018 (https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1522-1#Sec25): A, B, F, M(xD, G, C, Z), D, G, C, Z, and L. For example I didn't consider U4 to be eastern, even though it was the most common in Kets, Nganasans, Mansi, and Khanty.
So Northern Russians are supposed to have 6% D. That's quite a bit. But then again, if they used the super isolated and far Northern pops like Pinega I wouldn't be surprised.

[Kaspias]

So 40% admixture came from Medieval Mongol conquerers?

Yes, in terms of autosomal.


Interesting... How much Mongol % do Tuvans have?

50-50 for Altaians, 60% Mongol for Tuvans. However, I'm not really sure about the Medieval Turkic form of them.

[Kaspias]

Which modern-day Turkic ethnicity has the most medieval Turkic admixture?

It is arguable. We can measure Turkic admixture of Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, and Turks because we have a decent amount of samples that cluster altogether. However, we also have outliers that have a distinct profile from the cluster, such as Kipchak DA23 and Kirgiz DA86 that show a further North/Eastern profile as well as one from Russia who is presumably either Khazar or Bulgar showing Uralic shift. Therefore we can not come up with certain thoughts on Altaians, Tuvinians... For example the results show Kirgiz is 65% Mongolic and only 35% Turkic, we can confirm this by their legends, but what if ancient Kirghiz profile were different than the actual Turkic cluster we have? Their homeland was East of Pazyryk after all. If they are migrated from that location, how they ended up having no native signal(received 0% Sogd/Wusun when modeled with the mentioned populations)

However, based on current methodology Siberian Tatars ranks first together with Bashkirs. Followed by Kazakhs and Altaians.

[Visitor_22]

It is arguable. We can measure Turkic admixture of Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, and Turks because we have a decent amount of samples that cluster altogether. However, we also have outliers that have a distinct profile from the cluster, such as Kipchak DA23 and Kirgiz DA86 that show a further North/Eastern profile as well as one from Russia who is presumably either Khazar or Bulgar showing Uralic shift. Therefore we can not come up with certain thoughts on Altaians, Tuvinians... For example the results show Kirgiz is 65% Mongolic and only 35% Turkic, we can confirm this by their legends, but what if ancient Kirghiz profile were different than the actual Turkic cluster we have? Their homeland was East of Pazyryk after all. If they are migrated from that location, how they ended up having no native signal(received 0% Sogd/Wusun when modeled with the mentioned populations)

However, based on current methodology Siberian Tatars ranks first together with Bashkirs. Followed by Kazakhs and Altaians.

I don't believe that kyrgyz are 65% mongolic. They are oldest known turkic tribe and quite different from modern day mongols autosomally. And they have 50-60% R1a which came from Siberia (Minusinks valley).

[Visitor_22]

In terms of their Y-DNA distribution, Kazakhs are very similar to Mongols. In the heatmaps below, the closest neighbor of Kazakhs are Mongols based on Y-DNA but Uzbeks based on mtDNA. Kazakhs have less mtDNA C than Mongols but more mtDNA H.

https://i.ibb.co/L6h0jtM/complexheatmap-tambets-2018-ydna.png
https://i.ibb.co/FxFD1cM/complexheatmap-tambets-2018-mtdna.png


Nah. Kazakhs are closer to kyrgyz and karakalpaks than uzbeks by autosomal results. Uzbeks are closer to uyghurs and hazaras.

[qylymla]

Why is it important how many % of you are Mongolian? Turks are mongol or what?

[Leto]

Their homeland was East of Pazyryk after all. If they are migrated from that location, how they ended up having no native signal(received 0% Sogd/Wusun when modeled with the mentioned populations)

Do you have confirmed Sogdian samples?

[Kaspias]

I don't believe that kyrgyz are 65% mongolic. They are oldest known turkic tribe and quite different from modern day mongols autosomally. And they have 50-60% R1a which came from Siberia (Minusinks valley).

Sen Manası okudun ba? Karakıtaylıktar onları zorladı. I see your point from a historical point of view, though.

[Kaspias]

Do you have confirmed Sogdian samples?

No, only those who infiltrated among Medieval Uygurs, also TUK001.

[Visitor_22]

Sen Manası okudun ba? Karakıtaylıktar onları zorladı. I see your point from a historical point of view, though.

Sorry. But I don't believe that kyrgyz are 65% Mongolic.

They have the same high % of R1a with Altai, Khakas, Minusink valley people. They are also not very different from kazakhs by autosomes. 60% is just hard to believe.

[Kaspias]

Sorry. But I don't believe that kyrgyz are 65% Mongolic.

They have the same high % of R1a with Altai, Khakas, Minusink valley people. They are also not very different from kazakhs by autosomes. 60% is just hard to believe.

Well, going with autosomes 60% is definitely what they should be. Note Kazakhs have 40% also. However, I speculated it as well, Medieval Kirgiz simply could be more Asian than the other Turkic groups.

[Komintasavalta]

in supplementary data of y-DNA studies and public FTDNA projects.

for example, here's for haplogroup N

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066102#s6 (in the "Table S2")
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005449/ (the mmc4.xslx file)

projects:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N%20Y-DNA%20Project?iframe=yresults
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N1c1?iframe=yresults

I tried plotting the data from Ilumäe et al. 2016 (in the second link), but I don't know if I did it right, because the clustering doesn't make much sense. Anyway, the heatmap became too long because there's too many different Y-STR haplotypes.

https://i.ibb.co/k6X3fM8/ystr-ilumae.png


So Northern Russians are supposed to have 6% D. That's quite a bit. But then again, if they used the super isolated and far Northern pops like Pinega I wouldn't be surprised.

Yeah, they said that the North Russian samples were from the White Sea. Karelians also had 5% mtDNA D and Komis had 4%.


Nah. Kazakhs are closer to kyrgyz and karakalpaks than uzbeks by autosomal results. Uzbeks are closer to uyghurs and hazaras.

Yeah. I just did ADMIXTURE runs of modern Eurasian samples in the 1240K+HO dataset. Here's the run at K=4. Each population is connected with a line to its three nearest neighbors, which for Kazakhs are Kyrgyz_Tajikstan, Kyrgyz_Kyrgyzstan, and Karakalpak.

In order to travel from Kazakhs to Mongols, you can take the path Kazakh -> Karakalpak -> Shor_Mountain -> Khakass -> Altaian -> Evenk_FarEast -> Kalmyk -> Mongol.

https://i.ibb.co/Mp4jJXN/eurasia-admixture-k4-square.jpg

It's interesting how there's such a huge genetic gap around the Gobi-Taklamakan desert. It's not really bridged by Salars because they have too much East Asian ancestry. But it's partially bridged by Chinese Kazakhs and Chinese Kyrgyzes. And maybe it would be bridged by some Uyghur-Chinese mixes.

I don't know what the heck the population named "Mongola" is suppose to be, but its location is set as China, so I guess they are Inner Mongolian Mongols. However they are also genetically so East Asian that they are closer to Japanese than to Daur in the run above.

In the image above, the clustering and lines to the nearest neighbors are based on a combined matrix of ADMIXTURE runs at different K values. In a distance matrix calculated based on the combined matrix, the closest neighbors of Kazakhs are these:

.154 Kyrgyz_Tajikistan
.196 Kyrgyz_Kyrgyzstan
.297 Karakalpak
.329 Nogai_Astrakhan
.388 Tubalar
.430 Kyrgyz_China
.433 Kazakh_China
.438 Hazara
.449 Shor_Mountain
.452 Nogai_Stavropol
.455 Uyghur
.458 Shor_Khakassia
.468 Altaian
.480 Kalmyk
.489 Khakass_Kachin
.521 Khakass
.533 Altaian_Chelkan
.534 Tatar_Siberian
.572 Even
.613 Evenk_FarEast
.633 Mongol
.650 Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye
.653 Tuvinian
.692 Uzbek
.721 Yukagir_Forest
.724 Mansi
.738 Buryat
.783 Bashkir
.786 Khamnegan
.787 Selkup
.798 Turkmen
.839 Ket

[Leto]

Yeah, they said that the North Russian samples were from the White Sea. Karelians also had 5% mtDNA D and Komis had 4%.

Do you happen to know where those Tajiks are from? I'm interested in the Y DNA. Still don't understand whether R1a is high or low in TJK.

[qylymla]

Why are you tormented? If haplogroups are a false invention?

[Sora]

Hi, @Kaspias abi!

Could you post the Kirgiz DA86 sample? I wondered it so much :o

[vbnetkhio]

I tried plotting the data from Ilumäe et al. 2016 (in the second link), but I don't know if I did it right, because the clustering doesn't make much sense. Anyway, the heatmap became too long because there's too many different Y-STR haplotypes.


i'm still trying to fully understand how STRs work. I got the idea to divide them with their mutation rates. But I didn't find any study where something like this was done.

https://yhrd.org/pages/resources/mutation_rates
https://isogg.org/wiki/Mutation_rates#Resources

[Kaspias]

Hi, @Kaspias abi!

Could you post the Kirgiz DA86 sample? I wondered it so much :o

Hi Sora! Sure,


Distance to: KGZ_Turk:DA86
0.03072051 Tubalar
0.04585718 Shor
0.04754714 Shor_Mountain
0.05315575 Shor_Khakassia
0.05786717 Khakass
0.06058749 Kazakh
0.06378500 Karakalpak
0.07969243 Nogai
0.08235853 Tatar_Siberian
0.08254243 Kirghiz
0.08355578 Kirghiz_China
0.09041583 Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye
0.09367360 Khakass_Kachins
0.09537103 Hazara
0.09637459 Uygur
0.09841909 Altaian
0.09996264 Kazakh_China
0.10210658 Althai_Kizhi
0.10279122 Hazara_Afghanistan
0.11684931 Bashkir
0.12253006 Yukagir_Forest
0.12882304 Uzbek
0.12985034 Mansi
0.13069383 Khanty
0.13366074 Ket

Distance to: KGZ_Turk:DA86
0.03550427 KAZ_Pazyryk_IA
0.03780590 KAZ_Nomad_MA
0.04362356 MNG_KHI001
0.05903482 MNG_Altai_MLBA
0.06005560 MNG_Munkhkhairkhan_MBA_2
0.06198999 KAZ_Karakhanid
0.06766592 MNG_Early_Med_Turk
0.08264622 MNG_Xiongnu_Central_Asian
0.08970675 KAZ_Karluk
0.09132537 CHN_Shirenzigou_IA
0.09217692 MNG_UUS001
0.09404971 KAZ_Kimak
0.09651550 MNG_EIA_5
0.09728359 KAZ_Kipchak
0.09808974 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
0.09827559 RUS_Marinskaya_IA
0.09916759 RUS_Khaptsagai_IA
0.10196789 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
0.10325966 RUS_Altai_IA
0.10341865 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
0.10389521 RUS_Yakutia_LUP
0.11692137 MNG_Mongun_Taiga_LBA_1
0.11710770 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
0.11825634 MNG_Early_Med_Uigur
0.11932985 MNG_Mongol


Presence of the same profile in more than one tribe is interesting. Note the shift of these two through Huns, while the rest shifts towards Sogds. DA23 and DA86, in this sense, might be representing "Eastern Turkicness" and might have joined the migration later than the rest. Pazyryk comes as a possible spawn point for their grandfathers.

Or, depends on the date which I can't recall now, it could be simply a mix of mainstream Turkic and Mongol. DA23 was C if I recall.

https://i.ibb.co/t4GggNc/pca1.png
https://i.ibb.co/kHXhpnH/xxxxxx.png

[Kaspias]

i'm still trying to fully understand how STRs work. I got the idea to divide them with their mutation rates. But I didn't find any study where something like this was done.

https://yhrd.org/pages/resources/mutation_rates
https://isogg.org/wiki/Mutation_rates#Resources

This was on my mind lately. You need to increase the significance of the STRs that have a lesser mutation rate. You can do it by simply duplicating them. Take this spreadsheet as an example: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16LV9tBTXViPtNshnj_dxlTklCFutXqD2/edit

DYS388 has 0.007270 mutation rate, DYS391 has 0.003220, and DYS390 has 0.006220. Presume that we are using only 3 STRs. Add these three together and it will make 0.01671. Then divide it into three in order to find the base parameter. It makes 0.00557. Divide all the STR rates with this number. For example, 0.007270/0.00557=1.30xxxxx. Then, multiple it with 10(even could be better if multiple with 100, but requires more work if we proceed with manual way). You will find 13. And for the other two, you will have 6, and 11.

Now create a spreadsheet and repeat STRs according to their value. This will create a differentiation between the individuals as the diversification between fast mutated will have a lesser effect(4-5 rows) while slower ones will pull harder with like 10 rows.

https://i.ibb.co/gjVX0Cb/rnektablo.png

There might be better solutions, but if not, an automated version of this would work smoothly.

[Leto]

Yes, in terms of autosomal.

50-50 for Altaians, 60% Mongol for Tuvans. However, I'm not really sure about the Medieval Turkic form of them.
You think the Turkic Altaians are half Mongolian?

[Kaspias]

You think the Turkic Altaians are half Mongolian?

Not sure honestly. This is what models indicate when using mainstream Turkic samples in the models -giving decent fit, btw- but I have reasons to think that the Altay region did not undergo the same mixes as Turks who migrated to the West experienced. I wouldn't even surprise if I see some strong Yeniseian absorb in the region rather than Mongolian.

[Leto]

Not sure honestly. This is what models indicate when using mainstream Turkic samples in the models -giving decent fit, btw- but I have reasons to think that the Altay region did not undergo the same mixes as Turks who migrated to the West experienced. I wouldn't even surprise if I see some strong Yeniseian absorb in the region rather than Mongolian.
Well, they are both culturally and linguistically isolated from the wider Turkic-speaking world. I thought they should be more Siberian than Central Asians given their location. Most of them are heavily R1a (30-50%), strangely enough.

[Komintasavalta]

In an ADMIXTURE run of modern Turkic samples in the 1240K+HO dataset, I got a pole for Altaians already at K=3. Maybe it's partially because there are only about 2,000 Tubalars and 1,000 Chelkans, so the Tubalar and Chelkan samples included some related individuals with high PI_HAT, even though I excluded one sample from each pair of samples with PI_HAT over .35.

https://i.ibb.co/ZhpKhHJ/3.jpghttps://i.ibb.co/TTmfTcq/4.jpg

At K=5, I got a new ghost component that the highest proportion in Karakalpak (41%), followed by Khakass (27%), Altaian (26%), Altaian_Chelkan (24%), and Bashkir (24%). Now there's also a new component that is maximal in Chuvashes. Tatar_Siberian and Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye both have 59% of the Chuvash component, so I don't know if Siberian Tatars are that close to the original Turks, because they seem to have additional Uralic-like ancestry. (Even though there's huge diversity among the different subgroups of Siberian Tatars, and this run didn't include include the populations Tatar_Tomsk.SG or Tatar_Irtysh_Barabinsk.SG.) Now the Yakut and Salar components that broke off at K=4 have merged again, so it causes Chinese Kazakhs and Kyrgyzes to plot closer to other Kazakhs and Kyrgyzes.

https://i.ibb.co/vHXsjfs/5.jpg