| Title |
Complete mitochondrial genomes of Thai and Lao populations indicate an ancient origin of Austroasiatic groups and demic diffusion in the spread of Tai–Kadai languages
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Genetics, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00439-016-1742-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wibhu Kutanan, Jatupol Kampuansai, Metawee Srikummool, Daoroong Kangwanpong, Silvia Ghirotto, Andrea Brunelli, Mark Stoneking |
| Abstract |
The Tai-Kadai (TK) language family is thought to have originated in southern China and spread to Thailand and Laos, but it is not clear if TK languages spread by demic diffusion (i.e., a migration of people from southern China) or by cultural diffusion, with native Austroasiatic (AA) speakers switching to TK languages. To address this and other questions, we obtained 1234 complete mtDNA genome sequences from 51 TK and AA groups from Thailand and Laos. We find high genetic heterogeneity across the region, with 212 different haplogroups, and significant genetic differentiation among different samples from the same ethnolinguistic group. TK groups are more genetically homogeneous than AA groups, with the latter exhibiting more ancient/basal mtDNA lineages, and showing more drift effects. Modeling of demic diffusion, cultural diffusion, and admixture scenarios consistently supports the spread of TK languages by demic diffusion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 9% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2024.
All research outputs
#5,908,754
of 23,668,780 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#750
of 3,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,582
of 312,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,668,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,609 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.