
<p>We often hear about the &#8220;nature versus nurture&#8221; debate, framing it as a battle between our genes and our environment. But in many cases it&#8217;s not a battle at all, it&#8217;s a partnership. The way our genes impact our health and traits may change depending on our environment.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="684" src="http://35.88.189.111/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GettyImages-981323210-1024x684.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-30209" srcset="https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GettyImages-981323210-1024x684.jpg 1024w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GettyImages-981323210-300x200.jpg 300w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GettyImages-981323210-768x513.jpg 768w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GettyImages-981323210-880x587.jpg 880w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GettyImages-981323210-1180x788.jpg 1180w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>



<p>Understanding both &#8220;nature&#8221; and &#8220;nurture&#8221; is especially important when we consider complex skills critical to success in life, like reading. Thanks to the contribution of over a million 23andMe<sup>®</sup> research participants, a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40991152/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">new study</a>, led by scientists from the University of Edinburgh, is helping to untangle how both genes and environment work to shape literacy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-reading-puzzle-nbsp">The Reading Puzzle&nbsp;</h2>



<p>Literacy is a powerful predictor of life outcomes, from education level to income. For decades, researchers have tried to understand the roles genetics and environment play in why some people learn to read and spell more easily than others.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="425" height="282" src="http://35.88.189.111/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/twins.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-392" style="width:309px;height:auto" srcset="https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/twins.jpg 425w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/twins-300x199.jpg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 425px) 100vw, 425px" /></figure>



<p>Several <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23725549/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">studies</a> of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19076484/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">twins</a> in the United States suggested an interaction between genes and environment. In these studies, how much influence genetics had on reading skills seemed to be higher in families with a higher socioeconomic status. In other words, genetics appeared to have a bigger impact on a child&#8217;s reading ability when they were in a more advantaged environment. This idea is called a gene-by-environment interaction.</p>



<p>However, the evidence of this gene-by-environment interaction was mixed in studies conducted in the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19296213/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">United Kingdom</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28832969/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Australia</a>. This puzzle led researchers to ask: can we use modern genetic data to test this theory in large, diverse populations?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-a-new-approach">A New Approach</h2>



<p>Researchers utilized summary statistics from a 2022 <a href="https://blog.23andme.com/articles/study-identifies-genetic-links-to-dyslexia" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">genome-wide association study (GWAS) on dyslexia</a> to construct a polygenic score—a way of estimating someone’s genetic tendency toward a trait by adding up the small effects of thousands of DNA differences.</p>



<p>The team then applied this polygenic score to two large groups of children and adolescents in Australia and the United Kingdom to see if the score&#8217;s effect on reading and spelling skills was moderated by their family&#8217;s socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status was used as a broad measure of environmental advantage, capturing factors like parental education level and household income.&nbsp;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-was-discovered-two-parallel-paths">What Was Discovered: Two Parallel Paths</h2>



<p>Both the dyslexia polygenic score (nature) and socioeconomic status (nurture) were significant predictors of reading and spelling performance. Together, demographic, genetic, and socioeconomic factors explained between 8% and 11.6% of the variation in reading skills.</p>



<p>However, the study found no interaction effect. Nature and nurture were both important, but they worked in parallel.</p>



<p>This means the influence of a person&#8217;s genetic predisposition was the same, regardless of their family&#8217;s socioeconomic background. In these groups, a higher genetic predisposition for reading provided a similar boost to children from all socioeconomic backgrounds.&nbsp;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-bigger-picture">The Bigger Picture</h2>



<p>This finding is an important reminder to scientists to consider different environments when looking for gene-by-environment interactions. While some earlier US-based studies suggested an interaction, the different environments in these large UK and Australian groups showed a different outcome. Suggesting that both our genes and our environment make their own distinct contributions to the development of this fundamental skill.</p>



<p>Of course, every study has its limitations. The 23andMe research participants who contributed to the original GWAS are a self-selecting group and may not be perfectly representative of the general population. Additionally, only about 5% of 23andMe research participants said they had dyslexia, which is on the lower end of the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18652545/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">commonly cited 5–10% range</a>.</p>



<p>Even so, this large-scale study provides a crucial piece of the puzzle, emphasizing how vital it is to test scientific findings in diverse environments to get the full story.</p>



<p></p>


Nature and Nurture: A New Look at the Genetics of Reading Ability


<p>This week the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is having its <a href="https://meetings.ashg.org/event/ASHG25/home/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">annual meeting</a> in Boston. Attending the ASHG annual meeting is about more than just presenting our work, it&#8217;s one way we are working to ensure that the 23andMe<sup>®</sup> Research Institute contributes to a healthier future for everyone.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Amplifying impact:</strong> Sharing our discoveries with a global audience helps our work reach those who can build upon it, accelerating the path from discovery to clinic.</li>



<li><strong>Fostering collaboration:</strong> It&#8217;s where we connect with the brightest minds in the field. These conversations spark new ideas and forge partnerships that are essential for tackling complex diseases.</li>



<li><strong>Staying on the cutting edge:</strong> Exposure to the latest technologies and unpublished data keeps our research relevant and innovative.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-23andme-research-institute-at-ashg">23andMe Research Institute at ASHG</h2>



<p>For those attending, stop by our posters in the following sessions:</p>



<div class="wp-block-columns is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-28f84493 wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow" style="flex-basis:66.66%">
<p>WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH 2:30 &#8211; 4:30 PM (Posters; Board #2004W) <br><strong>Sustaining Research Ethics in Times of Change: A Framework from the 23andMe Research Program</strong></p>



<p>presented by Emily DelloRusso, Principal Regulatory Science Manager</p>
</div>



<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow" style="flex-basis:33.33%">
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="683" height="1024" src="http://35.88.189.111/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-683x1024.png" alt="" class="wp-image-34327" style="width:150px" srcset="https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-683x1024.png 683w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-200x300.png 200w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-768x1152.png 768w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-587x880.png 587w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-787x1180.png 787w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image.png 1067w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 683px) 100vw, 683px" /></figure>
</div>
</div>



<div class="wp-block-columns is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-28f84493 wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow" style="flex-basis:66.66%">
<p id="block-e05b9433-cb70-4375-8c5a-ad9bb51dafb9">THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16TH 2:30 &#8211; 4:30 PM (Posters; Board #2035T)<br><strong>Explore23: a privacy-forward, secure, extensible, and easy-to-use web application for exploration of a large genomic research cohort</strong></p>



<p id="block-e05b9433-cb70-4375-8c5a-ad9bb51dafb9">presented by Julie Granka, Director, Statistical Genetics</p>
</div>



<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow" style="flex-basis:33.33%">
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="819" height="1024" src="http://35.88.189.111/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-1-819x1024.png" alt="" class="wp-image-34328" style="width:150px" srcset="https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-1-819x1024.png 819w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-1-240x300.png 240w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-1-768x960.png 768w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-1-704x880.png 704w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-1-944x1180.png 944w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-1.png 1280w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 819px) 100vw, 819px" /></figure>
</div>
</div>



<div class="wp-block-columns is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-28f84493 wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow" style="flex-basis:66.66%">
<p>FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17TH 2:30 &#8211; 4:30 PM (Posters; Board #3014F)<br><strong>Learning about a genetic predisposition to depression is psychologically well tolerated among those with high polygenic risk scores</strong></p>



<p>presented by Rebecca Berns, Sr. Product Scientist I, Genomic Health and Sciences</p>
</div>



<div class="wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow" style="flex-basis:33.33%">
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="682" height="1024" src="http://35.88.189.111/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-2-682x1024.png" alt="" class="wp-image-34329" style="width:150px" srcset="https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-2-682x1024.png 682w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-2-200x300.png 200w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-2-768x1153.png 768w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-2-586x880.png 586w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-2-786x1180.png 786w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-2.png 1066w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 682px) 100vw, 682px" /></figure>
</div>
</div>



<p>Interested in reading more? 23andMe has contributed to <a href="https://research.23andme.com/publications/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">more than 300 research publications</a>.</p>



<p></p>


23andMe Research Institute Attending ASHG 2025


<p>Cannabis is already one of the most widely used drugs globally, and its use will likely grow even more as it becomes more socially accepted and legally available. For many the recreational use of cannabis poses few problems, but for as many as a third of users, it becomes problematic developing into an addiction or what scientists call cannabis use disorder. Research suggests that genetics may explain why.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-searching-the-genome-for-clues">Searching the Genome for Clues</h2>



<p>In collaboration with 23andMe Research Institute, researchers at the University of California, San Diego <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-025-03219-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">published a study</a> today that found genetic links to cannabis use as well as links to psychiatric, cognitive, and physical health. The researchers used data from more than 130,000 people who consented to participate in 23andMe research. Participants answered survey questions on whether they had ever used cannabis (“lifetime use”) and, for those who had, how often they used it during their heaviest 30-day period (“frequency of use”). The team then conducted genome-wide association studies searching for genetic variants linked to ever trying cannabis and how often people used the drug.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-the-data-revealed">What the Data Revealed</h2>



<p>Researchers found that having ever used cannabis was associated with two genetic regions: <strong><em>CADM2</em></strong>—a gene <a href="https://blog.23andme.com/articles/scientists-identify-genes-associated-with-cannabis-use" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">previously linked</a> to cannabis and other substance use, impulsivity, and risk-taking—and <strong><em>GRM3</em></strong>. While GRM3 has been tied to alcohol use, schizophrenia, and certain personality traits, this is the first time it’s been linked to cannabis use. How often someone used cannabis was associated with a different variant also near <em>CADM2</em>, strengthening this gene’s role in cannabis behaviors.<br><br>Both having ever used cannabis and how frequently someone used cannabis were genetically linked to other substance use, pain, and psychiatric conditions like depression. Researchers also created <strong>polygenic scores</strong>—which tally the effects of many different genetic variants—to estimate both the likelihood of ever having used cannabis and the frequency of cannabis use. These polygenic scores were able to replicate associations between cannabis use and substance use and mood disorders in two other independent research datasets (All of Us and BioVU). The researchers also uncovered novel associations with anxiety, celiac disease, HIV, and viral hepatitis.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-why-this-research-matters">Why This Research Matters</h2>



<p>Most genetic research on cannabis has focused on two points in the spectrum: first use and cannabis use disorder. But the stages in between—like how often someone uses cannabis—are just as important. Studying these “pre-addiction” traits may help determine who is more likely to progress from a casual user to someone with cannabis use disorder. This study was one of the first genome wide association studies to look at traits that may lead to cannabis use disorder.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Traits like frequency of cannabis use can reveal genetic factors that shape vulnerability before addiction develops. Understanding these factors could eventually help predict risk for cannabis use disorder and related health conditions.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-more-than-just-dna">More Than Just DNA</h2>



<p>Like all research there are some important considerations to keep in mind for this study:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>While this research focused on genetics, many non-genetic factors may also play a significant role in a person&#8217;s likelihood of using cannabis or developing cannabis use disorder.</li>



<li>The study was conducted in people of European descent (based on an analysis of their local genetic ancestry), so the findings may not fully apply to people of other ancestries.</li>



<li>The measure of frequency (use days in a 30-day window) of using cannabis doesn’t capture full patterns such as the duration of regular use or quantity consumed.</li>



<li>While <em>GRM3</em> is a promising lead, more work is needed to understand how the genetic variant in this region affects cannabis use biology.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-road-ahead">The Road Ahead</h2>



<p>Future research will need to expand to larger and more diverse cohorts and include other cannabis-related traits such as craving, withdrawal, and response to cannabis. Combining genetic insights from multiple stages of cannabis use could:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Improve the discovery of new genetic variants</li>



<li>Help build predictive models for problematic use</li>



<li>Clarify how cannabis genetics intersect with physical and mental health</li>
</ul>



<p><strong>Takeaway:</strong> Studying genetic influences on early cannabis use behaviors could eventually help predict risk for cannabis use disorder and related health conditions, and may help shed light on who is most at risk for cannabis use disorder.&nbsp; These findings mark an important step toward understanding the genetics of cannabis use and its health consequences.</p>


New Genetic Insights Into Cannabis Use


<h6 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-a-new-study-may-help-identify-and-more-quickly-help-the-60-of-people-with-major-depression-who-do-not-get-relief-from-their-initial-treatments">A new study may help identify and more quickly help the 60% of people with major depression who do not get relief from their initial treatments<strong>. </strong></h6>



<p>It is estimated that 60% of patients with major depressive disorder don&#8217;t find relief from their first medication, and as many as one-third develop <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10503923/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">treatment-resistant depression</a>, which is often defined as still experiencing symptoms after trying at least two antidepressants.</p>



<p>Researchers at Johnson &amp; Johnson and the 23andMe Research Institute used advanced machine learning techniques to accurately identify those at most risk for treatment-resistant depression, a massive breakthrough for those suffering with this condition.</p>



<p>The groundbreaking research, published this week in the journal <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41028019/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Scientific Reports</em></a>, used only self-reported information from about 23,000 people who consented to participate in 23andMe research. The model included a total of 101 predictive factors, including such things as age, symptoms that persist between episodes of depression, the duration of episodes of depression, stress levels, and suicidal thoughts. </p>



<p>Using this predictive model, researchers were able to accurately predict those at the highest risk for treatment-resistant depression 78% of the time, according to the study.&nbsp;</p>



<p>The predictive model did not use either genetics or lab results, just questions that can be easily assessed by a clinician.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why This Matters</h2>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignright size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="508" height="531" src="http://35.88.189.111/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/drug-bottle.png" alt="" class="wp-image-34304" style="width:161px;height:auto" srcset="https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/drug-bottle.png 508w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/drug-bottle-287x300.png 287w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 508px) 100vw, 508px" /></figure>



<p>Typically, antidepressants used to treat major depression take a little time to work, up to a month or a month and a half. When a treatment does not work, clinicians often prescribe an alternative medication. When someone with depression fails to respond to at least two different medications, they are deemed to have treatment-resistant depression. In many cases, it can take around a year for someone to finally be diagnosed with treatment-resistant depression.</p>



<p>That long delay in finding effective treatment has a cost, not just in the time it takes to identify treatment but in the prolonged suffering for those in the throes of depression, unable to get relief.&nbsp;</p>



<p>The promise of the kind of predictive modeling described in this new study is that it would give both people with depression and clinicians who treat them a tool to flag those who might not respond to standard therapies.</p>



<p>Instead of waiting to see if initial treatments are effective, it may accelerate the process of finding alternatives. Additionally, this predictive model only utilizes patient-reported information; no expensive testing is required.&nbsp;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">More About the Predictive Model</h2>



<p>The model identified eight primary factors that predict treatment resistance, as reported by research participants. Each offers different dimensions of their depression.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="275" height="252" src="http://35.88.189.111/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/depression.png" alt="" class="wp-image-34307" style="width:184px;height:auto"/></figure>



<p>Participants reported on the different symptoms that persisted between the episodes of depression. They reported on how long each episode of depression lasted, and how many years they&#8217;d experienced these periodic episodes. Also included in the self-reported data were levels of stress, or whether they had recurring post-traumatic stress, and two critical factors that looked at more external stressors and life events. Also factored into the modeling was a participant&#8217;s age and whether they had suicidal thoughts. Finally, the model included the self-reported timing between episodes of depression, which was significant when the time between episodes was shorter.</p>



<p>Using these factors and advanced machine learning the researchers were able to accurately distinguish between those who were treatment-resistant and those who responded to treatment. An accurate way to identify if someone will or will not respond to treatment could translate into meaningful clinical benefits. It could mean the difference between waiting months for effective treatment instead of years.&nbsp;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">More Personalized Depression Care</h2>



<p>This research represents a crucial step toward more personalized mental health treatment and a move away from a &#8220;one-size-fits-all&#8221; approach to treatment of depression.&nbsp;</p>



<p>For the millions of people living with depression, this work represents a path toward precision care, shortening the time to effective treatment and improving quality of life.</p>



<p>The future of depression treatment lies not just in developing new medications, but in better understanding who needs what treatment when. This predictive model brings us measurably closer to that goal, promising a world where effective depression treatment is not a matter of luck, but of precision.</p>



<p><em>If you or someone you know is struggling with depression, please reach out to a mental health professional. The </em><a href="https://988lifeline.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>National Suicide Prevention Lifeline</em></a><em> (988) provides 24/7 support for those in crisis.</em><br></p>


Predicting Treatment-Resistant Depression Using the 23andMe Survey Data

<p style="float: right; text-align: right; width: 310px;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-4209" title="istock_000004127789xsmall" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/istock_000004127789xsmall.jpg" alt="istock_000004127789xsmall" width="300" height="199" /></p>
<p>Ten millennia ago, there were about six million people on Earth. Today, there are six billion.</p>
<p>This thousandfold increase in the global population is often thought to be linked to the invention of farming and the domestication of animals about 13,000 years ago in the Near East. Growing crops and raising live animals requires a larger work force than hunting or gathering, so as agriculture took hold, families grew in size. These families grew into villages, villages grew into towns and cities, which eventually consolidated into the vast civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Was this surge during the early days of agriculture the ONLY time in the history of our species that the worldwide population size of humans experienced a substantial boost? The traditional answer was yes. Early human hunter-gatherer populations were relatively stable, their overall size not changing much from generation to generation. Stone-age humans had a limited number of gazelles to hunt, berries to pick and eggs to snatch. Those ecological limitations suggest that pre-agricultural communities would have grown only modestly, even when the hunting was good.</p>
<p>But a new DNA analysis published in the July 29 issue of <em><a id="a:sf" title="PLoS One" href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006366" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PLoS One</a></em> suggests that the world&#8217;s human population grew dramatically even long before the development of farming.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Earlier analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested that there were bursts of population growth much further back in time, but those studies have been unable to pinpoint a specific time span.</p>
<p>Geneticist Michael Hammer and his colleagues looked at nuclear DNA from four African populations: the San hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari Desert, the Biaka Pygmies of the Central African Republic, the Mandenka of Senegal and the Yorubans of Nigeria. Nuclear DNA is useful here because it is more sensitive to population size changes than mtDNA.</p>
<p>The authors found genetic evidence for a surge in human population size about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. This period, just after humans first set foot outside Africa, is of great interest to archaeologists because it coincides with a dramatic increase in the sophistication of human behavior. People began crafting tools from bone, burying their dead and fashioning clothing to keep themselves warm in cool climates. They developed complex hunting techniques, and created great works of art in the form of cave paintings and jewelery.</p>
<p>The archaeological record also shows that during this time, humans began hunting more dangerous prey and more easily exploiting small game like rabbits and birds. They traveled farther than they had before, perhaps due to the growth of long-distance trade routes &#8211; the first of their kind. Jared Diamond, author of <em>The Third Chimpanzee</em>, calls this period &#8220;The Great Leap Forward,&#8221; when humans burst forth culturally &#8211; finally separating themselves from their evolutionary cousins.</p>
<p>The exact cause for these changes in human behavior may never be known. Some believe a simple genetic mutation or that the evolution of language could have sparked such a dramatic change. But what we do know now, thanks to this new genetic research, is that like the invention of agriculture this explosion of innovation was accompanied by population growth.</p>

The First Population Explosion: Human Numbers Expanded Dramatically Millennia Before Agriculture

<p style="float: right; text-align: right; width: 310px;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-3956" title="800px-camel_cart_in_rann_of_kutch2" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/800px-camel_cart_in_rann_of_kutch2.jpg" alt="800px-camel_cart_in_rann_of_kutch2" width="300" height="189" /></p>
<p>Most experts agree that the earliest examples of farming and animal domestication lie in the aptly named Fertile Crescent in present-day Iraq.</p>
<h2>Earliest Farming Communities</h2>
<p>But still, many questions have lingered over the years, especially about remnants of farming or animal domestication that have not survived to the present day.   What kind of tools did they use to farm the earliest crops? How did they transport these crops to neighboring communities? Now a new archaeological discovery in the mountains of Turkmenistan has finally given us more answers than questions, and has shed light on some of earliest farming communities in western Asia.</p>
<p>The finds center around discovering several model-sized carts at the archaeological site of Altyndepe, a Bronze Age settlement near Ashgabat in southern Turkmenistan. These tiny carts may have been used in ritual ceremonies or simply been young children&#8217;s toys.   However, the most interesting aspect of these carts is that they depict camels as the main beasts of burden. Archaeologists are always interested in artifacts from ancient civilizations that reveal clues about daily life, and these camel-pulled carts are a comparative jackpot.</p>
<h2>Of Camels and Carts</h2>
<p>An article about the carts recently appeared on the Discovery News website. They were documented by Lyubov Kircho of the Institute for the History of Material Culture at the Russian Academy of Sciences. They are described (in Russian) in the journal <em>Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia.</em> An English version will be published in the <em>Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists</em>.</p>
<p>Archaeologists have discovered cattle-pulled carts from the region about 6,000 years ago. These carts were initially used for transporting necessities like grain but later carried other items like alabaster and the prized stone lapis lazuli from hundreds of miles away. Trade networks with neighboring communities began to spring up, and by 3,500 BC, one of the first dedicated &#8216;highways&#8217; for vehicles had been built between Altyndepe and nearby towns in present-day Iran and Afghanistan.</p>
<h2>Influence of Climate</h2>
<p>But by 3,000 BC, the climate was becoming more arid, and the people of Altyndepe could no longer trust their cattle-pulled carts to make the long journeys. Archaeologists already suspected that the communities must have switched to camels, which could handle the drier climate better. Now, these model carts show that their suspicions were correct; camel-pulled carts were the standard for this region and were such an integral part of daily life that miniature versions were created as children&#8217;s toys.</p>
<h2>The Genetic History</h2>
<p>The presence of these carts &#8211; combined with previous ideas on the sharing of ideas and culture throughout this part of Western Asia &#8211; also has implications for the genetic history of the region. It is well documented that about 10% of modern Europeans contain a genetic signature of the early agriculturalists who arrived from the Near East about 9,000 years ago, bringing their farming techniques and DNA.</p>
<p>Scientists now believe that while some of these Near Eastern farmers did travel west into the heart of Europe, others headed into the plateaus and foothills east of the Caspian Sea. Like their Western counterparts, these farmers brought their farming tools and techniques to the indigenous people of southern Turkmenistan. And like their Western counterparts, they probably got their genes. In fact, some genetic studies have examined the genetic makeup of modern-day residents of Turkmenistan and have found that many of these people also bear the genetic signatures of the early farmers of the Fertile Crescent.</p>

Archaeologists Discover Early Example of Domesticated Camels

<p style="float: right; text-align: right; width: 405px;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-2866" title="evolutionparody" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/evolutionparody.jpg" alt="" width="395" height="196" srcset="https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/evolutionparody.jpg 395w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/evolutionparody-300x149.jpg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 395px) 100vw, 395px" /></p>
<p>Almost since the 1871 publication of &#8220;The Descent of Man,&#8221; in which Charles Darwin applied his theory of natural selection to the human species, biologists have argued over whether the dramatic series of evolutionary events that led to the emergence of <em>Homo sapiens</em> continues to this day.</p>
<h6><strong>Modern Humans</strong></h6>
<p>Some have argued that culture and technology have eclipsed the powerful biological forces that shaped our species in its formative years. In their view the species, no longer faced with a daily struggle for survival, is  adrift in an evolutionary Sargasso Sea.</p>
<p>&#8220;There&#8217;s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we&#8217;ve built with the same body and brain,&#8221; the famed evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould once said in an interview.</p>
<h6>An Evolution Acceleration</h6>
<p>In their new book &#8220;The 10,000 Year Explosion,&#8221; anthropologists Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran argue the contrary position. They claim that in fact, far from grinding to a halt, human evolution has accelerated dramatically since the origins of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.</p>
<p>&#8220;We intend to make the case that human evolution has accelerated in the past 10,000 years, rather than slowing or stopping, and is now happening about 100 times faster than its long-term average over the 6 million years of our existence,&#8221; they write.</p>
<p>In evolutionary terms, 10,000 years is no time at all – about 400 human generations. Rabbits can go through 400 generations in not much more than a century – can you imagine rabbits being substantially different than they were 100 years ago?</p>
<h6>Cognition</h6>
<p>Far from ending the chain of dramatic evolutionary changes that led to upright walking, advanced cognitive abilities and spoken language, Cochran and Harpending argue, the adoption of agriculture so dramatically changed the human environment that a new wave of genetic innovations flourished.</p>
<p>These new genetic variants thrived because they helped people cope with the challenges an agricultural way of life presented, such as the shift to a low protein, high carbohydrate diet; the creation of an organized, stratified society and the rise of infectious diseases in response to increased population density.</p>
<p>In fact, many of the genetic variations that 23andMe provides information about are relics of those evolutionary changes. The SNP that confers lactose tolerance, for example, appears to have arisen in Europe about 8,000 years ago among the first people to herd cows and other milk-producing animals. The lactose-digesting variant quickly spread throughout the parts of Eurasia that were ecologically suited to pastoralism.</p>
<p>There are also a number of genetic variations covered by 23andMe that cause physiological problems when two mutated copies are present, but provide protection against infectious disease when a person has one of each version of the gene.</p>
<p>For example, the genetic variations that cause sickle cell anemia and G6PD deficiency confer resistance to malaria. Geneticists call this situation balancing selection; over the entire population, the reproductive cost to those who end up with the genetic disease is outweighed by the benefit to others who are resistant to the infectious one.</p>
<h6>Natural Selection</h6>
<p>At the end of the book, Cochran and Harpending make the controversial argument that balancing selection is responsible for the increased incidence of a number of genetic diseases among people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent – and for their higher intelligence relative to other groups.</p>
<p>The authors do raise some interesting points about the anomalously high frequency among Ashkenazi of genetic disorders that stimulate the growth of neurons in the brain. And they cite studies that have shown increased intelligence among people with some of these diseases.</p>
<p>But genetic explanations for between-group differences in intelligence are best taken with a whopping dose of skepticism. Even the definition of intelligence is a matter of intense debate, not to mention the degree to which it can be inherited through genetics. in the end, their case is little more than a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story" target="_blank" rel="noopener">just-so story</a>.</p>
<p>In telling it Cochran and Harpending blunt the rest of their book&#8217;s powerful message: human evolution is not over by a long sight.</p>


The 10,000 Year Explosion

<p style="float: right; text-align: right; width: 310px;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-2293" title="istock_000001256085xsmall" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/istock_000001256085xsmall.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" /></p>
<p>Before genetics came into the picture, researchers interested in introducing agriculture to Europe had only the archaeological record to go on – a limited collection of primarily stone and bone artifacts that left much room for interpretation. But as researchers began applying population genetics to the question of how farming spread across Europe, beginning with the work of <a id="yenv" title="Luca Luigi Cavalli-Sforza" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/258176?ordinalpos=7&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Luca Luigi Cavalli-Sforza</a> nearly 40 years ago, there began to be hope for a better understanding of how agriculture spread through the continent beginning about 10,000 years ago.</p>
<h2>The Spread of Agriculture</h2>
<p>Decades of genetic research have produced some clarity. But geneticists have also created their own new sources of debate surrounding the spread of agriculture.</p>
<p>Over the years, two schools of thought have jockeyed for dominance: one argues that farmers from the Near East came into Europe around 10,000 years ago, spreading both their knowledge of farming AND their descendants throughout the continent.</p>
<p>Known as the &#8216;Demic Diffusion Model,&#8217; this hypothesis predicts that most of today&#8217;s Europeans trace their ancestry to early farmers from the Near East.   The alternative hypothesis, dubbed the &#8216;Cultural Diffusion Model,&#8217; argues that while the practice of farming likely spread from the Near East into Europe, the farmers themselves did not.   Instead, the technology was passed along from settlement to settlement until it reached northern Europe 5,000 years later. It predicts most modern Europeans should trace their ancestry to the original Stone Age inhabitants of Europe.</p>
<h2>The Balkan Link</h2>
<p>As the debate has continued, newer studies have begun breaking the puzzle down into more manageable pieces, looking at particular regions within Europe to see how farming changed the demographics on a more regional level.</p>
<p>This is precisely what new research published in the <em>European Journal of Human Genetics</em> seeks to do by examining the genetic history of the Balkans in Eastern Europe to work out what was happening there nearly 10,000 years ago.</p>
<p>The study&#8217;s authors, including Stanford professors and 23andMe scientific advisers Drs. Peter Underhill and Roy King focused on the Balkans chiefly because the archaeological record in this area hints at interactions between farmers from the east and the hunter-gatherers who were already living there.   The researchers chose to examine the Y-chromosome, which is passed down from father to son, to see if any traces of such interactions remained in people living in the Balkans today.   They sampled more than 1,200 men from Greece, Albania, Slovenia, and many other countries on the Balkan Peninsula and throughout Eastern Europe.</p>
<h2>Early Haplogroups</h2>
<p>They found three major Y-chromosome haplogroups (clusters of men with deep ancestry along the paternal line). One group pre-dated the arrival of agriculture into the region, a second arrived along with agriculture, and a third fell somewhere in between.</p>
<p>Specifically, more than 60% of those sampled belonged to branches of either haplogroup I or haplogroup R, both of which are believed to have arrived in Europe tens of thousands of years ago.   In addition, a unique branch of haplogroup E is found at levels of 15-25% among the men tested, but only in those people hailing from the southern Balkans (such as Greece or Macedonia).   Finally, up to one-fifth of the men tested fell into haplogroup J, which is common in the Near East and thought to be closely associated with Mediterranean seafarers and agriculture&#8217;s origin and spread.</p>
<p>What do these figures mean?</p>
<p>First of all, it is clear that over half of the men in the Balkans and Eastern Europe belong to haplogroups that pre-date the arrival of agriculture in the area.   These men&#8217;s paternal ancestors likely trace back to the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.   On the other hand, the 20% of men belonging to Haplogroup J likely trace their ancestry to the same Near Eastern populations where agriculture originated.</p>
<h2>Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers</h2>
<p>So it stands to reason that &#8211; because the authors&#8217; samples contain both hunter-gatherer and farmer haplogroups &#8211; there was likely some kind of interaction between the two populations when they came into contact with each other nearly 10,000 years ago.   More importantly, it reveals that the spread of farming into Europe cannot be pigeonholed into either the Demic Diffusion or Cultural Diffusion Model.   Its spread is far more complex &#8211; and intriguing &#8211; than many initially thought.</p>
<p>But what about the men who traced their ancestry to that sub-branch of haplogroup E, which is typical of North or East Africans; what is it doing in the Balkans?   Haplogroup E has a unique history, stretching back some 40,000 years to East Africa. From where men carrying it expanded into the Nile Valley.   The authors believe this branch of Haplogroup E exited Africa almost 16,000 years ago, well before the arrival of farming, making it to the southern Balkans a few thousand years later.   Men bearing the haplogroup may have been among the first converts to agriculture when Neolithic farmers arrived in the area a few thousand years after that.</p>
<p>So it would seem that by using genetics to piece together ancient interactions between Mesolithic hunters and Neolithic farmers, we are actually left with new questions surrounding the arrival of Haplogroup E.</p>
<p>Who were these men who carried it?   What made them expand from the Nile Valley into the Balkans just before the arrival of farming?   And did their presence in the Balkans influence interactions between the hunter-gatherers and the farmers from the Near East?</p>
<p>Once again, research into the genetic signatures of the first farmers has given us both new answers and new questions.</p>

New Genetic Discoveries Shed Light on the Spread of Farming in Eastern Europe

<p style="float: right; text-align: right; width: 310px;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-2214" title="istock_000000757021xsmall" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/istock_000000757021xsmall.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" /></p>
<p>Archaeologists rarely agree on anything.   So it&#8217;s no surprise that for years two groups of scholars have drawn completely opposite conclusions about the relationship between the ancient people of Thailand and China.</p>
<p>Some experts argue that, thousands of years ago, people from Thailand migrated into East Asia, becoming the ancestors of present-day Chinese peoples.   Others argue the exact opposite: that it was people from East Asia who migrated south into Thailand.   Unfortunately, the sheer complexity of languages and cultures in the region, combined with conflicting archaeological reports, makes it next to impossible to draw concrete conclusions.</p>
<p></p>
<p>In situations like this one researchers increasingly turn to the field of genetics to help fill in the gaps and piece together the history of various populations – and that is just what a team from Thailand has done.   In this month’s issue of the <a id="ruzb" title="American Journal of Physical Anthropology" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615504?ordinalpos=2&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">American Journal of Physical Anthropology</a>, a bipartisan team of archaeologists and geneticists from across Thailand describes how the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of both ancient and modern Thai populations can help us understand the peopling of the country.</p>
<p>Because the demographics of Thailand are so complex, the authors felt that just sampling modern Thai populations would not give a clear picture into the peopling of the region.   So, the researchers dug deeper by sampling archaeological remains as well.   They extracted DNA from 43 skeletons excavated at two sites in northeastern Thailand that date to about 3,500 years ago.   The authors chose these particular sites, called Noen U-loke and Ban Lum-Khao, because they represented typical ancient farming communities &#8211; some of the earliest settlements in existence.</p>
<p>Right away, the authors noticed the ancient and modern samples were very similar genetically – an indication that within the last 3,500 years, people haven’t moved around very much in northeastern Thailand.   Some of the modern people tested may in fact be descendants of these early Thai farmers — a very exciting prospect.</p>
<p>More importantly, however, the authors believe they have worked out the peopling of Thailand from the genetic information they gathered.   Their data support the hypothesis that many present-day Thai populations are actually descended from people who migrated from southern China only a few thousand years ago — an idea that has gained prominence in recent years among many archaeologists.</p>
<p>These results are compelling for a number of reasons – most notably the fact that the authors were able to use genetic data to resolve uncertainties about the peopling of Thailand when other types of data could not.   It also shows how useful it can be to compare ancient and modern DNA when tracing prehistoric migrations.   Many studies use only one or the other.   Finally, these authors were able to utilize genetics in a region – Southeast Asia – that has not seen much genetics research compared to other regions.   Hopefully future research on the genetic history of this region will continue down the path laid out by these researchers, following their lead of taking evidence from all disciplines in reshaping theories on ancient civilizations.   Perhaps we will even see more agreement from archaeologists.</p>

New Approach Studying Genetic History of Southeast Asia

<p>Throughout the history of our species there has been one constant:   movement.   Since the origin of <em id="bjh4">Homo sapiens</em> nearly 200,000 years ago in East Africa, humans have journeyed around the globe, ultimately inhabiting every continent save Antarctica.<br id="x.292" /><br id="x.293" />Scientists have traditionally used archaeology, and more recently genetics, to understand the timing and scope of these ancient migrations.   The field of historical linguistics has also been used in the same way,   reasoning that if people migrated to new regions, they would have brought their languages with them.   In this way, linguistics can be used as an additional resource in understanding our species’ past movements.<br id="x.294" /><br id="x.295" />However, this concept is rarely — if ever — that straightforward.   For example, a language might spread from local population to local population, while the original speakers of the language stayed put.   This concept, called ‘cultural diffusion’ is at the core of many debates about our species’ prehistory:   did people (and therefore their genes) migrate to a new region, or was it just a transfer of cultural traits (such as language) from one region to the next?</p>
<p></p>
<p>There are two famous examples in human prehistory that delved deep into this very question.</p>
<h6><br id="x.298" /><br id="x.299" /><strong>Bantu Expansions in sub-Saharan Africa</strong></h6>
<p><br id="x.2911" />About 5,000 years ago, the majority of sub-Saharan African peoples still relied on hunting, gathering, and foraging as their main source of food.   But some people in west-central Africa were developing new techniques of survival.   They began to experiment with herding and agriculture, cultivating the yams, legumes, peppers, and gourds that would became staples of a sub-Saharan African diet.   Then, about 4,000 years ago, they began to move.   As they traveled over a period of centuries, they both displaced and absorbed groups that were already living throughout Africa.   <br id="x.2912" /><br id="x.2913" />The languages that they brought with them from their ancestral homeland, belonging to the Bantu family, also spread throughout sub-Saharan Africa.   Today the majority of sub-Saharan African languages are Bantu.<br id="x.2914" /><br id="x.2915" />What both genetics and linguistics have told us about the Bantu expansions is that it was an expansion of both peoples and cultures.   Though these early Bantu speakers may have intermarried as they expanded,   their genetic signature still shows West African ancestry.   The distribution of Bantu languages throughout sub-Saharan Africa confirms this prehistoric migration.   In fact, this example marks one of the most straightforward instances of a combined genetic and cultural expansion.  </p>
<h6><br id="x.2917" /><strong>The Spread of Agriculture and Indo-European Languages</strong></h6>
<p><br id="x.2919" />Unfortunately, the spread of agriculture from the Near East into Europe and its connection to the spread of Indo-European languages is far more complicated.  <br id="x.2920" /><br id="x.2921" />Agriculture is believed to have originated in the Near East about 13,000 years ago.   Starting about 10,000 years ago, the archaeological record indicates that the practice expanded westward into Europe. By 9,000 years ago, agriculture existed in Greece.   By 5,000 years ago it had reached Scandinavia.<br id="x.2922" /><br id="x.2923" />But was this spread of technology accompanied by farmers themselves, as in the Bantu migrations?   Linguists felt they had the answer: the vast majority of languages spoken in Europe today are members of the Indo-European language family.   Languages such as Greek, Latin, Celtic, and English all belong to this group.   In fact, only a few isolated European languages (such as Basque and Finnish) are unrelated.  <br id="x.2924" /><br id="x.2925" />Linguists argued that the geographical origin for this language family was probably somewhere in the Near East or Caucasus Mountains, and that these languages spread — along with the farmers themselves — into Europe, replacing the older languages that were already in existence.   The archaeology appeared to support this idea, and soon many scholars had argued for an expansion of agriculturalists from the Near East.<br id="x.2926" /><br id="x.2927" />However, the genetics told a somewhat different story.   Though there are genetic footprints in Europe of these early Near Eastern agriculturalists, there are pre-agricultural genetic footprints as well.   In fact, more Europeans trace their ancestry back to ancient European hunter-gatherers, who survived the harsh Ice Age in the southern fringes of Europe 20,000 years ago, expanding into northern Europe as glaciers receded several thousand years later.   They were not replaced or marginalized by the arrival of agriculturalists.<br id="x.2928" /><br id="x.2929" />This discordance has made the question of the arrival of agriculture and Indo-European languages in Europe one of the most contentious in the fields of archaeology, genetic anthropology, and linguistics.   It remains unresolved, though many scientists now argue for lower levels of genetic diffusion into Europe than originally thought.<br id="x.2930" /><br id="x.2931" />There are countless other examples in human prehistory of cultural vs. genetic diffusion, with different disciplines often yielding different hypotheses.   The connection between genetic diffusion and cultural diffusion is anything but straightforward, and the best research will take into account not only genetic and linguistic evidence, but evidence from the archaeology, human skeletal remains, and paleobotany.   As noted scientist and author Jared Diamond has put it, &#8220;It is quite a challenge, but a uniquely fascinating one.&#8221;<br id="x.2932" /><br id="x.2933" /></p>

Genes and Languages: Not So Strange Bedfellows?

<p><span style="color: #808080;"><em>This guest post is by Roy King, who is a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University and a research colleague of Stanford geneticist and 23andMe scientific adviser Peter Underhill. Roy and Peter have been using genetics to trace the spread of agriculture from the Near East to Europe.</em></span></p>
<p style="float: right; text-align: right; width: 360px;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/germanvineyard.jpg" alt="" title="germanvineyard" class="alignright size-full wp-image-564" width="350" height="260" srcset="https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/germanvineyard.jpg 350w, https://blog.pub.us-west-2.prd.23andme.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/germanvineyard-300x223.jpg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 350px) 100vw, 350px" /></p>
<p>The question of how agriculture first arose and spread in Europe has perplexed archaeologists and geneticists alike for decades. Evidence for farming communities in Greece, Crete, the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Mediterranean France and Spain first appears in the archaeological record eight to nine thousand years ago with the appearance of domesticated wheat, barley, sheep, goats and cows, and a related culture featuring pottery and anthropomorphic figurines. Before this period, most of the indigenous people of Europe fished, hunted small game or foraged for their livelihood.</p>
<p>But how did farming get to Europe in the first place? We know that 2,000 years before agriculture hit Europe, just after the end of the Ice Age, people living in the Near East had already developed farming, with the domestication of wild species of grasses, goats and cattle likely beginning in the fertile river valleys in present-day northern Iraq, Syria and southeastern Turkey. Near Eastern farmers also settled in villages and produced pottery and ceramic human figurines similar to the ones later found across Mediterranean Europe.</p>
<p>So did the first farmers of the Near East hop into boats with their domesticated plants, animals and artistic motifs and colonize Mediterranean Europe? Or did native Europeans learn about farming through trade with the Near East and decide to adopt this agricultural economy too?<br />
<br />
Genetic studies are starting to provide answers to this enduring question. Not only do genetic studies of sheep, goats, cows and wheat demonstrate that the European varieties are subtypes of the species found in the Near East, but data from the human Y chromosome suggest that people currently living in Southern Europe are descended in large part (at least through the paternal line) from the Near East. This suggests, at least for the Mediterranean areas of Europe, that the most probable scenario is that Near Eastern farmers did actually move into Europe, bringing farming with them.</p>
<p>23andMe has a Y chromosome marker on its custom chip, rs34126399, which captures the spread of agriculture from the Near East to Europe. The G state at rs34126399 is found in most individuals carrying paternal haplogroup J2a, whose origin can ultimately be traced to Turkey 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. Southern Turkey is the likeliest source for the initial domestication of wheat.</p>
<p style="float: right; text-align: right; width: 232px;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-559" title="rs34126399" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/rs34126399.png" alt="" width="222" height="172" /></p>
<p>In the millennia after its appearance in Turkey, rs34126399G then experienced a population growth and spread westward into the eastern Mediterranean and eastward into Mesopotamia, Iran and northern Egypt. The map to the right shows the present-day distribution of rs34126399G in Europe and the Middle East.</p>
<p>In addition to its high frequency in the Near East, rs34126399G is present in 10 to 25% of the population of southern Greece and Italy, Crete, Sicily, Bulgaria and Romania. The concentration is an indication of the early spread of farming to these regions, where the climate of wet winters and hot dry summers suited the varieties of winter wheat that were first domesticated.</p>
<p>Since the initial movement of people associated with the origins of agriculture nearly 10,000 years ago, there has been persistent contact and trade throughout the Mediterranean. Just think of the Mediterranean diet – rich in olive oil, goat cheese, and red wine – all of whose origins can be traced to these regions. One archaeologist described the Mediterranean Sea figuratively as a giant bathtub that for millennia has permitted easy seafaring transit from one area to another. The genetic evidence appears to support that analogy.</p>

agriculture

Nature and Nurture: A New Look at the Genetics of Reading Ability

23andMe Research Institute Attending ASHG 2025

New Genetic Insights Into Cannabis Use

Predicting Treatment-Resistant Depression Using the 23andMe Survey Data

Nature and Nurture: A New Look at the Genetics of Reading Ability

23andMe Research Institute Attending ASHG 2025

New Genetic Insights Into Cannabis Use

Predicting Treatment-Resistant Depression Using the 23andMe Survey Data

Nature and Nurture: A New Look at the Genetics of Reading Ability

23andMe Research Institute Attending ASHG 2025

New Genetic Insights Into Cannabis Use

Predicting Treatment-Resistant Depression Using the 23andMe Survey Data

The First Population Explosion: Human Numbers Expanded Dramatically Millennia Before Agriculture

Archaeologists Discover Early Example of Domesticated Camels

The 10,000 Year Explosion

New Genetic Discoveries Shed Light on the Spread of Farming in Eastern Europe

New Approach Studying Genetic History of Southeast Asia

Genes and Languages: Not So Strange Bedfellows?

The Origin of Farming in Europe: A View from the Y Chromosome

Stay in the know.