According to the research (->link) at the University of Helsinki (2026), a woman’s reproductive history affects biological aging and lifespan. The study showed that both infertility, a large number of children (more than 4) and early first birth are associated with faster epigenetic (->link) aging, which supports the life cycle theory of the division of resources between offspring production and body maintenance.
New research highlights the challenges of DNA sampling from specimens found in Finland's acidic soil. The study can be found here.
People often wonder why different genetic tests give them completely different ethnic profiles. Finns sometimes get either a completely or almost completely Finnish profile, sometimes, for example, a profile that is only 60% Finnish and 40% northwestern European, such as Scandinavia and Britain. This is where many people's faith in these tests falters. Then the know-it-alls raise their own profile and competence by defending the results with their ideas. However, it is clear that the same person cannot get such different results as we see. The thing is that the results depend solely on the method used. Which method the test developer has used depends solely on the intended purpose of the test and the preferences of the developer. I will now go through the test methods categorically, not the purposes, because few test developers reveal them. The methods are mainly divided into three groups:
1 Tests based on allele distribution. In these, a Finnish test taker often gets a very wide geographical distribution, which can vary depending on the test references. For example, I can get 60% Karelia + 40% Germany or 60% Estonia and 40% Sweden or an additional 5% Greece or Southern Italy.
2 Tests based on allele distribution profiles. In these, a Finnish test taker can get up to 100% Finnish results, but only when the test distribution exactly matches the allele distribution of the ethnic samples used in the reference. Usually, the results of Finns include some minority ethnicity, which is typically 10-20%.
3 Tests based on allele or haplotype distribution weights. In this way, you can almost always achieve 100% ethnic identification, but as in point 2, only for part of the ethnic profile. The allele or haplotype distribution can be optimized to maximize ethnicity readings. On the other hand, weighting the data can also lead to incorrect results, where some minority ethnicity is dropped from the results. In these tests, I usually get a result of 95% Finland + 5% Sweden.
An interesting article discusses the inheritance of higher intellectual characteristics. It was previously believed that the genome is divided into the protein-coding region and the rest of the genome is "Junk DNA" unnecessary for inherited characteristics. The article tackles the problem of why, for example, measured intelligence cannot be derived solely from the coding DNA region. The conclusion is that the inheritance of intelligence is not due to genes at all, but is culturally inherited from parents to children, or that the inheritance of higher intellectual functions is complex, related also to the "Junk DNA". Sociological or racial concepts have been often associated with intelligence. The dilemma arises whether to accept purely genetic differences among individuals or whether to accept individual differences as a social hierarchy. Neither option seems like a "good" explanation, not even a combination of the two. The last word has not been given in this assessment either.
I was hoping that finally Middle Iron Age samples would have been presented, but it wasn't the case.
I analyzed six Siberian ancient samples belonging to the N-haplogroup for the study "Ancient DNA reveals the prehistory of the Uralic and Yeniseian peoples" and collected location and age data from them.
I12488 - N1a1a1a1a Russia Fofonovo (Baikal) ? BCE)
I1961 - N1a1a1a1a Russia Ust Ilimsk (Irkutsk Oblast) 4239-4002 calBCE
I20305 - N1a1a1a1a (possibly N-CTS6967) Russia Krasnoyarsk Krai (Sharypovskiy District) 2288-2058 calBCE
I32545 N1a1a1a1a (possibly N1a1a1a1a2, N-Z1936, clade age 2600 BCE) Russia Rostovka (Omsk Oblast) 2021-1884 calBCE
N4a1 N1a1a1a1a Russia Kyordyughen (Sakha Republic) (possibly N1a1a1a1a4, N-M2118, ISOGG dating 2500 BCE) announced dating "Late Neolithic", but the haplogroup age reveals 3100 BCE for N1a1a1a1a
N4b2 N1a1a1a1a Russia Kyordyughen (Sakha Republic) (possibly N1a1a1a1a1a2a N-L1022, clade age 1900 BCE, seems to be a Baltic branch)
My test gives results with ISOGG classification, but I have added mutations according to Yfull or some other source. ISOGG gives a large number of mutations, which also appear in my test, but not included.
Unfortunately, all classifications are made according to modern populations, and ancient dead branches of the haplotree cannot be found this way. Because of this, most classifications end in the category N1a1a1a1a. You may have wondered why so many results end up in this category. This also leaves the sample history, datings by the y-tree and historical linkage between ancient samples incomplete. It is likely that ancient male lineages show more historical information over a wide area, and there is no way we can know which ancient specimens are more closely related based on classifications made based on living men if we have an unknown time period of 4,000 years from the ancient specimen to the present.
Please feel free to speculate.
While reading the study "Ancient DNA reveals the prehistory of the Uralic and Yeniseian peoples" I noticed that according to the presented f4 analysis, the distance of Yakutia LNBA (LNBA - Late Neolithic and Bronze Age) from the Tatars is smaller than the distance of Cis-Baikal LNBA from Tatars. I found it strange, because the Tatars are significantly closer to the Baikal region. My second observation was related to the connection between languages and genetics. The study proves that the genetic distance between the Yakutia LNBA and the speakers of the Uralic languages proves that the Yakutia LNBA is the original population of the Uralic languages. However, the study does not make a comparison between all language groups in relation to the Yakutia LNBA samples, but uses as evidence the occurrence of a single Yakutia LNBA-type sample in the assumed area of occurrence of the Uralic language group. The emphasis is placed on the Seima Turbino phenomenon.
Seima Turbino was a Bronze Age multi-ethnic trade channel extending from northwestern China to the regions of Finland and Estonia, and Seima Turbino has been thought to be connected to the westward spread of the Uralic languages. However, linguistic theory does not define the eastern home of the Uralic languages on the basis of Seima Turbino. The evidence for the presence of Seima Turbino is purely archaeological. Whether this unity of the Uralic languages is true or not, Seima Turbino was a multi-ethnic commercial and cultural phenomenon in which the Uralic languages may have been involved, but the evidence of a few ancient genomes cannot be significant.
I decided to perform a similar F4 test to see the distances of the Yakutia and Cisbaikal LNBA samples to the present-day samples of the different language groups. All the samples used in that test are available on the Reichlab website. The only exception compared to the Yakutia LNBA samples from the study is that I did not include one sample classified as Yakutia LNBA in the study, supposed to have a Seima Turbino origin and in this respect I only kept to the local Yakutia LNBA samples. This sample is presumably not relevant to the F4 results.
The study has been presented in Nature magazine in its final form, but is unfortunately behind a paywall there. The preprint from 2023 can be found at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.01.560332v2.full#ref-89.
All Yakutia LNBA and Cisbaikal LNBA samples are ready-made genotype files from public samples shared by Reichlab. There may be more samples from these two LNBA-era populations in the study. I have downloaded the bam-format samples used in the study, but I will leave them for later use for now.
Southern Uralic Mordovian and Mishar Tatars seem to be more like Cisbaikal LNBA than like Yakutia LNBA. I don't know why my results using Reichlab genotypes and Reichlab program qpDstat gives different results. Maybe my readers can run tests to confirm which one is correct.
My results:
