Summarizing clade M1

Clade M1 has been mentioned on this site quite a few times, usually in complicated molecular genetics jargon that some may be hard-pressed to understand. At times, the jargon proves to be complicated to the point that some individuals don't even realize it, when their ideological views about this clade are being refuted beyond little to no doubt. So to address this, the goal herein is to simplify basic facts about this clade to the extent possible.

Review: Population Relationships in the Mediterranean Revealed by Autosomal Genetic Data (Alu and Alu/STR Compound Systems)

Herein, aspects of a recent publication by E. González-Pérez et al. (2009) under the heading described above, will be revisited and examined respectively.

The abstract goes as follows:

González-Pérez et al.

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 Nov 16.

The variation of 18 Alu polymorphisms and 3 linked STRs was determined in 1,831 individuals from 15 Mediterranean populations to analyze the relationships between human groups in this geographical region and provide a complementary perspective to information from studies based on uniparental markers. Patterns of population diversity revealed by the two kinds of markers examined were different from one another, likely in relation to their different mutation rates. Therefore, while the Alu biallelic variation underlies general heterogeneity throughout the whole Mediterranean region, the combined use of Alu and STR points to a considerable genetic differentiation between the two Mediterranean shores, presumably strengthened by a considerable sub-Saharan African genetic contribution in North Africa (around 13% calculated from Alu markers). Gene flow analysis confirms the permeability of the Sahara to human passage along with the existence of trans-Mediterranean interchanges. Two specific Alu/STR combinations-CD4 110(-) and DM 107(-)-detected in all North African samples, the Iberian Peninsula, Greece, Turkey, and some Mediterranean islands suggest an ancient genetic background of current Mediterranean peoples. - abstract ends

A run down of the Alu markers and 3 Alu-linked STRs, is as follows:

18 autosomal Alu markers: CD4, TPA25, APO, ACE, Yb8NBC120, Yb8NBC125, B65, D1, FXIIIB, A25, PV92, HS2.43, Sb19.3, Sb19.12, HS4.32, HS4.69, DM, Ya5NBC221

Tandem Repeats linked to sites identified with specific Alu insertions or deletions designated by three designators: CD4+, DM+ and FXIIIB-. These reportedly represent the "ancestral" states of the sites in question, and the nature of said site-states are indicated by either the "+" or "-" symbols respectively.

Y-chromosome Alu insertion: The YAP+ Y-chromosome Alu insertion, fairly common in African populations, particularly in the form of Hg E, serves as an addition to the collection of Alu markers cited above.

Populations sampled:

Click on the image to get a better resolution.

The study opens with the following lines:

As far as the origin of human populations in the Mediterranean is concerned, it is commonly accepted that their roots can be traced back to the Upper Paleolithic with the expansion of human groups from the Near East or Central Asia, or some millennia later with the westward and northward spread of Neolithic populations from the Fertile Crescent. Although there is little doubt regarding the human entrance route to the Mediterranean, controversy appears when different studies try to determine to what extent their current genetic background preserves traces of Paleolithic people and in which degree the almost continuous cultural and political contacts have influenced present genetic affinities.

Indeed, the authors are correct in their assessment about controversy in terms of how different studies interpret their observations, with regards to the entrance or exit of certain lineages, particularly in relation to the time of event and how extensive. Their own opening assessment attests to this, recalling the bit about origins of "Mediterranean" populations being traced back to the so-called "Near East" or Central Asia. This implies that northern Africa was a barren region for a long period of time, where no autochthonous African population ventured, even as humanity spent the bulk of its socio-biological evolution exclusively on the continent until ca "50-60 ky ago era" when a subset of anatomically modern humans successfully left the African continent for refuge elsewhere. This begs the question: human beings in Africa did not see fit to populate the northern areas of the continent, yet non-Africans were supposedly the first to see fit to do so? As a matter of fact, Maghrebi paleontological record stretches back to as far as the Middle Paleolithic era, preceding anatomically modern human occupation outside of Africa.

The authors appear to have been influenced in their assessment by the likes of Olivieri et al. (2006), whose work has been a subject of discussion (clickable link) on this site, as it relates to the Upper Paleolithic demic diffusion episodes in the northern sections of the African continent, and by the likes of Arredi et al. (2004), as it relates to theories surrounding Neolithic demic diffusions in that same region. Apparently, the authors are working with outdated concepts in their assessment, as earlier theories about Upper Paleolithic northern African complexes [see for example, the so-called "Ibero-Maurusian"] being manned by people from outside of the continent, based on erroneous assumptions built around archaeological finds on lithic artifacts, have now been rectified and updated with research that link origins of certain Upper Paleolithic lithics-oriented innovations to northern Africa, which were subsequently diffused into neighboring extra-African territories. Other erroneous assumptions about the earliest Upper Paleolithic northern African anatomically modern populations coming from outside had been based on shabby and flimsy reliance on outdated bio-anthropological concepts built around cranio-morphometric examinations. A notable example that immediately comes to mind, is the idea of Mechtoid populations [see: Mechta and Afalou: Do they and the so-called "Mechtoids" constitute a type with the "Cro-Magnon"?] , who were almost considered to be synonymous with the Cro-Magnon of Europe. Outposts of lingering cult-like Eurocentric elements continue to rely on ideological concepts of the Cro-Magnon as some sort of embodiment of "Caucasoids" or "Caucasians", and even that, has been discredited by more recent and refined analysis of cranio-morphometric data [See: Brace et al. (2005) and Chris Stringer (click), for example]. Even earlier bio-anthropologists tacitly took note of differentiations between the African Mechtoid variants and those of the European Cro-Magnon, even as superficially-invoked links were being insinuated. The bottom line is that the authors' presumptuous assessment, that the theory of northern Africa being first populated by people from the so-called Near East is a "commonly accepted" understanding, has little basis to it, as no prevailing evidence backs up such a notion. It implies that this is an understanding that has harmonized the various scientific multidisciplinary applications at our disposal, when no evidence has been brought forth to suggest such status quo. It is certainly not the message harmoniously relayed by either genetics or paleontology, nor by Upper Paleolithic complexes, as just mentioned a few comments ago. Then by what, aside from wishful thinking? Notably, the authors' own data does not lend support to such thinking. On the other hand, the flaws of Olivieri et al.'s (2006) and Ana Gonzalez et al.'s (2007) Upper Paleolithic demic diffusion hypothesis have been touched upon on this site before. U6 is undoubtedly Upper Paleolithic by most accounts, but it makes up very little of the contemporary northern African gene pool, while major M1 expansions are mostly linked with spread of proto-Afrasan or Afrasan-affiliated speaking groups some time in the late Paleolithic and early Holocene Neolithic time frames. Again, Olivieri et al. (2006) are emphasized here, because the authors of the present study appear to be relying on them, with regards to so-called Near Eastern sourcing of Upper Paleolithic northern African populations; see for example:

Recent mitochondrial DNA data (Olivieri et al., 2006) suggest a common Levantine source for the Upper Paleolithic cultures that occupied the European (Aurignacian) and North African (Dabban) shores of the Mediterranean. A more recent origin for these populations associated with the demic diffusion of Middle Eastern groups in the Neolithic has been suggested by studies of Y-chromosome (Arredi et al., 2004) and autosomal data (Myles et al., 2005; Tomas et al., 2008).

The authors of the present study themselves reference research that contradicts the idea of either the Upper Paleolithic or Neolithic sourcing from the so-called Near East; see for example:

A detailed survey of the E-M78 Y-chromosome haplogroup (Cruciani et al., 2007) indicates the Northeast African origin of this variant and its involvement in trans-Mediterranean migrations from North Africa to Europe during the last 13,000 YBP.

The predominant paternal markers of coastal northwestern-central African markers are comprised of E-M78 and E-M35 markers. This being the case for the northern African populations that the authors sampled here, the fact serves as a major contradiction to the so-called Near Eastern sourcing of northern African populations, who have supposedly persisted into contemporary times, if we are to go by conclusions drawn by the authors of the present study. Yet, we are suppose to buy into some presumption of the Upper Paleolithic "Near Eastern" sourcing of northern African populations as some sort of a "commonly accepted" understanding or truth.

It should be reiterated, as explained before on this site, that contemporary Imazighen-groups , who predominate much of northern Africa today, don't have TMRCAs—deemed to be "characteristic" of Tamazight or "Berber" speaking populations—that date to the Upper Paleolithic. Yes, these lineages derive from lineages of Paleolithic provenance, but they themselves, don't—at least not according to patrilineal lineage. The E-M81 mutation of the E1b1b lineage—which is predominantly found in Imazighen populations—has at most, been implicated in expansions that only go back as far as 8 ky or so ago. This falls short of the ages associated with Upper Paleolithic/Epi-Paleolithic or earliest Holocene cranial specimens uncovered in coastal northwestern Africa. Furthermore, none of the cranial specimens tied to contemporary northern African populations remotely tie in with the Cro-Magnon specimens of Europe, as Brace et al. (2005) had found out; whereas we are pressed to believe in ties between the so-called Mechtoid variants and the European-based Cro-Magnon.

Furthermore, the authors note:

Similarly, specific Mediterranean haplogroups or clades (U6 and M1b in the mtDNA; EM78 and EM81 in the Y-chromosome) have also been described for these populations and dated in Paleolithic times.

Nothing in the above supports "Near Eastern" sourcing of northern African populations examined here. None of the above markers are known for being quintessential indications of "Near Eastern" ancestry, as opposed to African ancestry. Not even U6, whose "non-African" ancestor remains ever so elusive, is a marker of the so-called "Near East"; it is quite rare in that region and its presence there can only be spoken of, in terms of back-migration from northern Africa, even if it is assumed that a proto-U6 ancestor was "Near Eastern" in origin. None of the markers above are even confined to the "Mediterranean" regions, so as to justify the use of the moniker of "Mediterranean haplogroups or clades".

One issue that stands out like a sore thumb, is the comprehensiveness of the authors' so-called "sub-Saharan" collection; see:

In search of new insights into these questions, this study analyzes a relevant set of Mediterranean populations including eight European samples (from Spain, France, Greece, and Turkey), seven from North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt), plus two samples from Central Europe (Germany) and sub-Saharan Africa (Ivory Coast) as external references.

Granted, the Ivory Coast sample is representative of sub-Saharan gene pool, but it only serves as a part of that gene pool, not the whole of it. It is highly questionable that this Ivory Coast sample will contain all that that is present in sub-Saharan Africa, as opposed to giving a snapshot of what is present in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, what purpose does it serve, to ignore populations situated between Ivory Coast and those in the northern African territories sampled? Common sense intimates that such an undertaking will ensure more abrupt changes in DNA marker distribution trends; but then again, the authors could be gunning for just that. From their frame of thinking, such relative abrupt change in pattern could serve to sift out what they think could be representative of the autochthonous northern African patterns. After all, the authors reckon:

This pattern identifies Mediterranean populations as genetically separate from both sub-Saharans and Central Europeans and allows the identification of a certain genetic structure between the two shores of the Mediterranean region.

There is still a problem with that perception, because while genetic exchange is expected between coastal northern African and the more-inward African populations, their primary ancestry has been liked to northeastern Africa [the Sahel region or southern confines of eastern Sahara; in other words, the belt or areas that seem to have been neglected in the study] and ultimately sub-Saharan eastern Africa. Certain information is bound to escape the authors' observation, with such sampling choices. Let's examine the sampling particulars, visually:


Click on the image for better res.

It is highly questionable that the Ivory Coast sample will be representative of all that which is part of the southern Sahara or Sahel belts. It is any wonder the Siwa sample assumed an "outlier" position on the authors' admixture analysis mapping, even though the Siwa, like the rest of the northern African populations sampled, are largely Imazighen and also live on the coastal areas of northern Africa. The Siwa sample noticeably maintains a good deal of distance from the Ivory Coast sample as well, not withstanding observations that sub-Saharan gene flow appears to be most significant amongst them vs. the other northern African samples.


Click on the image for better res.

Image caption: Multidimensional scaling plot (stress 0.036) applied to the Reynolds’ genetic distance matrix based on 18 autosomal Alu markers.

This sampling choice might account for the seemingly discordant observations in the 18 Alu "admixture" estimations and that of the Alu-STR combination "admixture analysis". The authors note:

In this general view, it is worth noting the particular position of two populations (the Spanish Pas Valley and the Egyptian Siwa Berbers) (see Fig. 2). These two populations have previously been described as genetic outliers (Esteban et al., 2006; Moral et al., 2006; Coudray et al., 2009) due to the orography of the Pas Valley and the desert surrounding the Siwa Oasis. This isolation could explain their differentiation by the action of the genetic drift associated with episodes with low effective population size, which in the case of Siwa Oasis, could have enhanced the effect of sub-Saharan flow (51% from Alu/STR data) through the Nile River (Fakhry, 1973).

Assuming one went by the earlier theory of the so-called Near Eastern Upper Paleolithic origin for coastal northern African populations, shouldn't the basic genetic structure of these populations therefore be the same, even when the effects of genetic drift are accounted for? Not only does the Siwa sample cluster away from the lone sub-Saharan sample of Ivory Coast, but also considerably does so from the coastal north African bunch, just going off on the 18 autosomal Alu markers alone...

MDS representation of the genetic distances (see Fig. 2) based on autosomal Alu data stresses the main differentiation of sub-Saharans, the clustering of Mediterraneans in two different groups corresponding to northern and southern populations, and the distant position of the Egyptian Siwa and the Spanish Pas Valley samples from their corresponding population clusters. The Siwa oasis sample presents a relatively extreme position, with respect to the other populations. In fact, the first genetic boundary in the Mediterranean separates Siwa Berbers from all remaining groups.

For visual aid, we have the following:


Click on the image for better res.

Image caption: Fig. 3. Multidimensional scaling plot (stress 0.049) applied to the Reynolds’ genetic distance matrix based on three Alu/STR compound systems.

Furthermore, if "sub-Saharan" gene flow was able to reach the Siwa, then how could they be considered "isolated"? Certainly the desert areas in northern Africa have not "isolated" the other coastal northern African groups. "sub-Saharan" gene flow reportedly finds expression in many of the coastal northwestern African Imazighen populations sampled, as reaffirmed by the pattern seen in the Alu-STR clusters; however, we are told that in the Siwa sample's case, "sub-Saharan" gene flow is virtually negligible in Alu pattern alone. Yet, the same Siwa sample is supposed to be indicative of the highest "sub-Saharan" gene flow amongst the coastal northern African Imazighen groups, going by STRs linked to certain Alu sites.

As for individual populations, the sub-Saharan gene flow in North Africa based on the Alu data collection ranges between 6 and 17% (Table 3), except the Siwa Berbers where that influence was negligible. Admixture values based on Alu/STR combinations indicate that sub-Saharan flow in North Africa ranged from 16% (North East Moroccan Berbers) to 35% (remaining samples) with the exception of Siwa Berbers who showed the highest admixture value (51%).

How was the relatively lower "sub-Saharan" contribution able to find expression in Alu markers of the other coastal northern African populations, but the more significant "sub-Saharan gene flow"— as communicated in the Siwa Alu-STR combinations— almost not represented at all in the Siwa Alu markers alone? Are we to assume that genetic drift enhanced "sub-Saharan" STR patterns but minimally did the same for Alu markers? The authors attribute this phenomenon of their finds in the following manner:

The disparity between the results from Alu loci and Alu/STR haplotypes, apart from the potential effect of the different number of independent markers examined (18 vs. 3), could be related to different mutation rates and therefore the power to detect ancient or more recent demographic events. Similar disparities between these two kinds of markers were found in the admixture analysis (Table 3).

Now of course, only three types of autosomal Alu loci were selected for examination along with flanking STRs, which tells us little about change in mutation rates across the genome types used here, and to what extent STRs on the other locations are useful enough in determining gene flow, along with whether this is in line with the data provided by the three type of sites used here. Undoubtedly different mutations rates between STRs and Alu markers could be a factor at some level, but the pattern we see in the extent of "sub-Saharan" gene flow across the full range of markers used in this study, may be more explainable in the sense, that 1) if the Siwa sample sufficiently comprised of identical Alu markers on chromosomes that share their immediate TMRCA nodes with sub-Saharan counterparts, then it could be distributed in such a way that it would be hard to ascertain gene flow from "sub-Saharan" populations with any degree of precision, or 2) some differentiation in Alu allele representation and nucleotide manifestation could be the product of within-population mutational events of markers with a "sub-Saharan" background in the Siwa, possibly in an interplay with that "action of genetic drift" that the authors mentioned in a piece cited above and some level of external gene flow from neighboring non-African territories, or yet 3) if the basic genetic structure of the Siwa stemmed from a non-African source, but then got introduced to "sub-Saharan" gene flow in an ancient period, and the population had since then remained relatively isolated from such influences ("sub-Saharan"). Only here, in either scenario, some visible level of Alu allele similarities would have come to the surface within those samples that reportedly tested positive for said "gene flow".

The first scenario doesn't seem to be likely, based on the 18 Alu makers multidimensional plot, given the position the Siwa sample assumes. While the third scenario could be presumptuously insinuated from the 18 Alu markers plot, given the considerable distance between the Siwa and that lone sub-Saharan African sample from the Ivory Coast, not to mention the possible case of the relative narrower distancing from the European clusters when compared to the African counterparts, including the so-called "southern Mediterranean samples" (coastal northern African samples), it is doesn't seem likely either; why? One would have to assume that while the Siwa might have been introduced to "sub-Saharan gene flow" at some point in time, it would have likely been a very occasional affair, and/or a very ancient one in the ethnogenetic history of the population, because this gene flow would otherwise not be negligible from across just the 18 Alu markers standpoint, even if the Siwa were of a small effective-population size subjected to heightened "action of genetic drift", and would therefore find expression as it did, in the other coastal northern African samples and European counterparts. Furthermore, the problem with that assumption is that the Siwa would likely have assumed a position more extreme than that of the "northern Mediterranean" samples in the 18 Alu markers multidimensional plot, from the lone sub-Saharan sample of Ivory Coast. The reason for this, is that elements of the "northern Mediterranean" samples would have become continued recipients of "sub-Saharan gene flow" either directly from sub-Saharan emigrants, and/or indirectly through continued contact with the "southern Mediterranean" populations aka coastal northern Africans. So the inclination here, is to go with the second scenario, and here's why: If the range of Alu markers were one or several step derivatives of autochthonous African counterparts, developed within the Siwa population during its ethnogenesis, then naturally, these markers would stand in contrast to ancestral sub-Saharan counterparts. As such, one would expect some level of persistence in some areas of the genome type selected for this study, particularly given that the sites that were picked for STR analysis happen to be those under linkage disequilibrium, according to the authors. So, while subsequent "sub-Saharan gene flow" cannot be ruled out in this scenario, it need not be the sole explanatory factor for the sub-Saharan inclinations of Siwa Alu-STR combinations, i.e. if the Siwa were treated as group that has been socio-culturally isolated from other external groups for some reason or the other. Possible additional external gene flow from nearby "non-African" territories, again likely ancient, cannot be ruled out under this scenario, in which case, such element would only serve to further contrast the Siwa Alu distribution from the sub-Saharan counterpart examined here...

The Siwa oasis sample presents a relatively extreme position, with respect to the other populations.

Under this scenario (2nd scenario), one can see why the so-called "southern Mediterranean" samples would assume intermediary positions along both types of multi-dimentional plots provided by the authors. The polarity here likely stems from a mix of continued, and hence more recent gene flow from external populations both African and non-African, along with in situ autochthonous within-population evolutionary events in said "southern Mediterranean" populations. Either of these factors would ensure that their socio-cultural and geographic distance from the Siwa would contribute to the differentiations in general Alu marker genetic structure, while at same time clustering them away from European clusters and the lone sub-Saharan sample. See:

the clustering of Mediterraneans in two different groups corresponding to northern and southern populations, and the distant position of the Egyptian Siwa and the Spanish Pas Valley samples from their corresponding population clusters.

 Furthermore,...

This pattern identifies Mediterranean populations as genetically separate from both sub-Saharans and Central Europeans and allows the identification of a certain genetic structure between the two shores of the Mediterranean region. This genetic picture of populations may be related to geographic factors as indicated by the high correlation (P < 0.002) between geographic and genetic distances (based on Alu markers) found under the isolation by distance model. The genetic distinctiveness of Mediterranean populations, as well as the distinction between Northern and Southern Mediterraneans, coincides with results in previous studies (see for instance, Simoni et al., 1999; Comas et al., 2000; Boschet al., 2001).

Furthermore...

The estimates of sub-Saharan gene flow in Southern Mediterraneans oscillated between 12.9% (Alu loci) and 39.5% (Alu/STR haplotypes), a wide range probably related with the different mutational nature of the markers analyzed and with the effect of repeated homoplasic mutation in STRs.

One might expect the effect of genetic drift to pick up these elements in the Siwa as well, if one is to treat said "sub-Saharan" gene flow level as largely the product of action of random genetic drift in a population of small effective-population size.

The presence of sub-Saharan African traces in the gene pool of North Africans supports the idea of the permeability of the Sahara desert to human migrations as reported in other studies for different kinds of markers (see for example, Plaza et al., 2003; Arredi et al., 2004; Myles et al., 2005; Coudray et al., 2006).

In the above, the authors seem to have no problem in acknowledging the fact that a desert environment, of the Sahara, has not restricted or barred gene flow. This means that these groups are not isolated by the desert; so why couldn't the same logic be approached with regards to the Siwa? It may well be the case, that the Siwa have socio-culturally isolated themselves from other coastal northern African Imazighen groups on their own terms, not to mention the considerable distance between them and the other coastal northern African populations sampled, and has little to do with the desert environment. One will note that even as far as neighboring territories go, which here are apparently European territories bordering the Mediterranean sea, the territory that the Siwa are identified with is relatively more distant from the nearest such territory than those associated with the other coastal northern African populations, respective to their nearest neighbor, This could explain the differentiation in genetic structure and their relative "outlier" position. The authors add:

Interestingly, data from mtDNA and Y-chromosome estimates of sub-Saharan gene flow in North Africa are similar to that obtained from our Alu loci set, a value also concordant with that corresponding to Mozabites in the recent survey of Li et al. (2008) based on more than 500,000 SNPs. The interpretation of the disparity in gene flow estimates according to the kind of marker is difficult, but it might be presumably be related to the different mutation rates of Alu and STRs.

The need to confide in uniparental lineage is not obviously underestimated, but the authors allude once again to the unpredictability characterizing their choice of markers, autosomal markers in the form of Alu sites and flanking tandem repeats at certain designated sites. As we have seen in an earlier piece, the chiming in of homoplasic tendencies in STRs does not dampen this unpredictable character. Of course, since we are dealing with autosomal sites, the question of recombination cannot be avoided. We are assured here, at least with regards to the Alu-STR combinations, that these are perceived to be the types in linkage disequilibrium.

Alu/STR linkage disequilibrium was present in all systems and samples.

This is a sure sign of non-random associations here, which means that the odds against random reshuffling by recombination are high and hence, possibly of some selective pressure advantage of the Alu/STR association. This naturally factors further into that matter about "different mutation rates" and no less, contributes to the unpredictability character of the change in mutation rates in different parts of the genome.

Notwithstanding the lone sub-Saharan sample of Ivory Coast, upon revisiting the matter, one notices that it still managed to give a snapshot of the fact that non-African populations are just representative of a subset of African gene pool: 

When STR variation has been analyzed separately in Alu(+) and Alu(-) chromosomes, larger variances are observed in chromosomes carrying the ancestral Alu variant: CD4(+), FXIIIB(-), and DM(+). In humans, the ancestral stage of the CD4 and DM loci is the presence of the Alu insertion, whereas the absence of the insertion is the ancestral stage for the FXIIIB locus (Brook et al., 1992; Nishimura and Murray, 1992; Tishkoff et al., 1996 ). Alu/STR linkage disequilibrium was present in all systems and samples.

The most obvious pattern of haplotype variation is observed in the CD4 system. The ancestral CD4(+) chromosomes show a decreasing pattern of copy number variation from sub-Saharans to Southern and Northern Mediterraneans. Among these latter populations, the 85(+) and 110(+) haplotypes are the most frequent (Supporting Information Table 2). The derived CD4 Alu(-) chromosomes present a lower variation than the ancestral Alu(+) chromosomes, which is statistically significant for Northern Mediterraneans (P < 0.01) and Southern Mediterraneans (P < 0.05), but non-significant for the sub-Saharan sample. This reduction trend is considerable in Northern Mediterranean samples (gene diversity: 0.174 for derived chromosomes vs. 0.554 for ancestral ones), moderate in Southern Mediterraneans (0.458 vs. 0.705), and less marked in sub-Saharans (0.721 vs. 0.778).

The ancestral markers are disproportionately higher in "sub-Saharans", which in this case as we know, is based on that lone sample from the Ivory Coast, and then, they are moderately represented in "southern Mediterraneans", which would be our coastal north African samples here, and least represented of all the groups herein, in the "northern Mediterranean" samples, which here would be the southern European samples. Respectively, greater nucleotide variation is found in "sub-Saharans", as characteristic of the ancestral markers, moderate diversity in coastal northern African, and least diversity in Europe. This seems to find some expression in the general positions assumed by the samples in the plots respective to each marker-format type; in each case, the northern African groups appear to be in the intermediary positions between the African samples in the extremes and the European ones on the other hand. Along the x coordinates of the multidimensional scaling plots provided to us by the authors of the present study, the Ivory Coast sample consistently attains the most extreme position on one end. Please refer back to the plots or maps provided earlier in the body of this post.

Of the derived examples of the Alu-STR clusters, the distributions patterns found in the present study suggest possible "southern Mediterranean" or coastal Northern African origins (or at least, populations ancestral to them) for the following types: CD4 110(-) and DM 107(-)

The highest frequencies of CD4 110(-) and DM 107(-) have been found in the High Atlas region (7 and 5.5%, respectively) of Morocco, reaching polymorphic frequencies in all the North African samples [barring the Mozabites for the CD4 110(-) combination]. They have also been found in the Iberian Peninsula, scattered along the northern Mediterranean shore to Greece and Turkey, and on the main islands of the western Mediterranean (Majorca, Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily; González-Pérez et al., 2007). The CD4 110(-) haplotype (Flores et al., 2000) and has also been reported in West Saharans and Mauritanians on five of the seven Canary Islands (Flores et al., 2001), as well as in Adygei from the Northern Caucasus (Tishkoff et al., 1996). Assuming from their frequency distribution that the place of origin of these particular haplotypes is located in the westernmost extreme of North Africa (Fig. 4A,B), their current ample distribution along both shores of the Mediterranean most likely reflects the effect of gene flow across the region since ancient times, even though specific ages cannot be accurately estimated with our data. Similarly, specific Mediterranean haplogroups or clades (U6 and M1b in the mtDNA; EM78 and EM81 in the Y-chromosome) have also been described for these populations and dated in Paleolithic times.

Last but not least, in keeping with pointing out the recurring theme of the lingering onto outdated or outmoded and subjective concepts by the authors of the present study, the following serves as further example:

Concerning Northern Mediterraneans, the gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa was inappreciable for Alu markers and swung from 6 to 15% for the Alu/STR haplotypes data calculations. When gene flow in Northern Mediterraneans was tested, taking Central Europe and Southern Mediterraneans as parental populations, the results were statistically inconsistent, indicating the limited power of our markers to discriminate gene flow within Caucasoid populations. Nonetheless, the distributions of frequencies for the Mediterranean haplotypes CD4 110(-) and DM 107(-) (Fig. 4A,B) are suggestive of gene flow processes across this geographical region.

Such recurring themes throughout different parts of the study do not bode well for the authors at hand.

*Keep an eye on possible future updates.
___________________________________________________________________
*References:

— As already cited in the body of the post.

Mitochondrial DNA M1 haplogroup: A Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al. 2007

Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at the present author. The present author lays these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:

Abstract:

Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa

Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera

BMC Genomics 2007, 8:223 doi:10.1186/1471-2164-8-223

Published 9 July 2007

Abstract (provisional)

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

Background
The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.

Results
The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.

Conclusions
This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.

-Abstract ends-

Present Author's Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.

*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:

From the present author's assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:

A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1.
A total of 154 for Africans.
A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes.
And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents.
The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.

*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:

The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.

Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:

Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.

So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa [see below for reference], the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.

In Africa, haplogroup M1 has supra-equatorial distribution (see additional files 1 and 2). As previously reported its highest frequencies and diversities (Table 2) are found in Ethiopia in particular and in East Africa in general. Two appreciable gradients exist. Frequencies significantly diminished from East to West and also going South to sub-Saharan areas. M1 is not uncommon in the Mediterranean basin showing a peak in the Iberian Peninsula. However, it is rare in continental Europe. Although in low frequencies, its presence in the Middle East has been well established from the South of the Arabian Peninsula to Anatolia and from the Levant to Iran. - Gonzalez et al. 2007

*Furthermore,

The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. (2006). To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b [in examining from the ongoing juxtapositioning, utilizing Olivieri et al.'s standpoint], but rather, either place M1c (Olivieri et al.'s M1b) at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:


As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.

*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:

The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.

*We've already seen the subjective nature of the present authors' age estimations, naturally attributable to biases underlying sampling procedures to some degree or another, as demonstrated above with the juxtapositioning of the findings of the present authors to those of Olivieri et al. (2006). Furthermore, erratic mutation rates would have undoubtedly affected the age estimation regime applied by the authors, however they may have downplayed the fact, as demonstrated by their observations surrounding the M1a2 subgroup, leading them to omit said subgroup in their lineage coalescence analysis. What makes this interesting, is that both group of authors sought to build their argument around parallel demic diffusion scenarios of U6 and M1, which has little in way of supporting material to stand on, notwithstanding the passionate efforts to push forward with argument; for instance in Olivieri et al.'s case, they say:

The hypothesis of a back-migration from Asia to Africa is also strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macrohaplogroup K, have been observed at high frequencies only in Africa (15, 16). However, because of the relatively low molecular resolution of the Y chromosome phylogeny as compared to that of the mtDNA, it was impossible to come to a firm conclusion about the precise timing of this dispersal (15, 16). - Olivieri et al. (2006)

One can almost sense Olivieri et al.'s venting their frustrations from not getting the "desired" results out on the supposed "relatively low molecular resolution of Y DNA", but indeed, as noted here earlier:

Previous genetic research work made very enthusiastic attempts to correlate the likes of U6 and possible "Eurasian"-tagged mtDNA with R1*-M173, supposedly as an attempt to buttress a possible back-migration into Africa; all but failed, with results showing considerable African mtDNA gene pool instead, for populations bearing these chromosomes.

Gonzalez et al. (2008) also fall into that trap; guess where they look towards, to make a connection between an M1 dispersal [supposedly parallel to a U6 one] and a "Middle Eastern" origin part of their argument? Interestingly, it happens to be from the same Dead Sea sample which was implicated in a clear genetic link with sub-Saharan and Eastern African groups. This is the same Dead Sea sample set that shared R1*-M173 with northern Cameroonian sample set, other African groups with these markers. This is also the same Dead Sea sample set with African G6PD-A alleles that were rare to absent in neighboring groups. And Gonzalez et al. (2008) tell us, that this is also the same sample set which is again distinguished from those of neighboring group in its higher "south of the Sahara" mtDNA markers:

Statistical analysis revealed that, whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbours, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its outstanding Eurasian haplogroup U3 frequency (39%) and its south-Saharan Africa lineages (19%) are the highest in the Middle East. On the contrary, the lack ((preHV)1) or comparatively low frequency (J and T) of Neolithic lineages is also striking. Although strong drift by geographic isolation could explain the anomalous mtDNA pool of the Dead Sea sample, the fact that its mtDNA lineage composition mirrors, in geographic origin and haplogroup frequencies, its Y-chromosome pool, points to founder effect as the main cause. - Gonzalez et al. (2008)

They acknowledge above that the "anamolous" character of the Dead Sea sample's Y-DNA pool "mirrors" its mtDNA gene pool, which too is replete with markers mostly found in Africa, including the aforementioned rare paraphyletic R1*-M173. However, something interesting happens, with regards to this Dead Sea sample of an "isolated" group:

Ancestral M1 lineages detected in Jordan that have affinities with those recently found in Northwest but not East Africa question the African origin of the M1 haplogroup.

Interesting, because these the same M1c chromosomes being referred to here, and whose specifics have been dealt with. Despite the apparent post-OOA emigration ties between the African groups and the Dead Sea community, reflected in not only both Y-DNA and mtDNA, but also in the X chrosome markers, Gonzalez et al. (2008) still come to the odd conclusion that its presence in the Dead Sea sample set somehow offers some sort of a challenge on the African origin of M1. The notion itself becomes quite comical, when one considers the fact that they just mentioned in the same breath, the presence of these same M1 clusters in Northwestern Africa, which happened to be their alternative hypothetical point of origin [Gonzalez et al. (2007)], as already noted. As they themselves acknowledge, that's where (northwestern Africa) said M1 clusters are widely distributed, and rather rare in the so-called "Middle East", save for this genetically "anamolous" [the authors' own words] and relatively isolated Dead Sea community, notable for its clear "past ties to sub-Saharan and eastern Africa", to put in Flores et al.'s (2005) words, a team that Gonzalez herself was a part of. "Anamolous", because to put it in the authors' own words, the considerably high post-OOA African ties of the Dead Sea sample dataset sets it appart from many other "Middle Eastern" groups, including its neighbours. So, how M1c clusters (which Gonzalez et al. (2007) dub "ancestral" based on their subjective age estimations) — that are very rare even in the "Middle East" (save for the 'anamolous' Dead Sea dataset) in contrast to their wide distribution in northwestern Africa — suddenly puts a question mark on the African origin of M1, is beyond comprehension.

Not only is there lack of apparent parallelism between R1* paragroup distribution and those aforemention markers of U6 and "Eurasian"-tagged mtDNA markers in Africa itself, as the authors (like Olivieri et al. & Gonzalez et al.) seem to be so desperately yearning for, but also the paragroup is essentially absent in all Afrasan speaking groups but those in the Northeast African corner. The marker is even rarer in so-called Southwest Asia than it is in Africa. This naturally contradicts Olivieri et al.'s acknowledgement in the following...

Indeed, M1 and U6 in Africa are mostly restricted to Afro-Asiatic–speaking areas.

Where did this "Afro-Asiatic" phylum originate? Well, look no further than to Gonzalez et al., whom as we've seen, are energetic about this idea of M1 and U6 "parallelism", not unlike Olivieri et al. (2006); they too, clearly in a way that simulteneously soothens or seeks to explain away a bit of disappoint in the course of the study, say:

The anomalous evolution of M1a2 lineages left the coalescence ages of the eastern Africa M1a expansion uncertain, but as suggested for the sister U6a1 radiation; these movements could be correlated in time with an African origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages.

There you have it, folks, the answer to that simple question. And as if to defy the two groups of aforementioned research teams above, with regards to the proposed M1 and U6 "parallelism" in a demic expansion scenario, a newer study that came along in December 2008, points this out [a finding that appears to have been reproduced in several other studies]:

Our results highlighted a clear genetic differentiation between Berbers from the Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers. The first seems to be more related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4∗, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. Probably, such a maternal diversity between North African Berbers would have been the result of a conjunction of several geographical, prehistoric, and historic factors which guided contacts (and thus exchanges) between local populations and migrating groups. First, in addition to the geographical distance, which certainly increases the genetic distance, the geographical location of Berber populations is very peculiar: the Berbers from the Maghreb are at the end of a long migration route, whereas Berbers from Siwa are rather in a crossroads between the Middle East, East Africa, sub-Saharan areas and the North African corridor. Therefore, meetings and exchanges between local and migrating populations were not identical in North West and North East Africa. - C. Coudray et al., The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations

We are told above, that M1 is substantial in the Siwa group, but no U6 was observed! Furthermore, it would make sense for the Siwa group to be a pristine representative of the aforementioned U6/M1 "parallelism" scenario, given that they are even closer to the so-called "Near East" than the northwestern African "Berbers", would it not? Perhaps it wouldn't be as funny, if Anna Olivieri herself was not a participant of this Coudray et al. study! Speaking of the so-called "Near East", the following claim is interesting, when one takes into account that this area was singled out as one of Gonzalez et al.'s proposed areas of M1 origin, because while looking at it from the alternative proposed origin, presumably the northwestern African one, we are told in a passing that...

That M1 is an autochthonous North African clade that had its earliest spread in northwestern areas marginally reaching the Near East and beyond. This would explain the shortage of basic M1 lineages in the Near East but would leave the Asiatic origin of the M1 ancestor undetermined.

...interesting.

*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through the present study, are details that follow:

The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:

We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.


These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.

Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.

...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T; that ancestral state of 10873C remains at large in the M macrohaplogroup, unlike the so-called non-African & non-M haplogroup counterparts.

Furthermore,...

The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:

The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.


The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.

We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:

Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…

Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited. — Mait Metspalu et al.

With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:

haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.

Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.

Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000

mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations


"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."

The relevant representation in this recap diagram:

Image source: Link

In the image above, the 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive (as exemplified in the above extract) in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.

What does all this talk of specific transitions or nucleotide sequences tell us?

Well, to put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:

Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, because all the necessary basic nucleotide sequences have been identified in the autochthonous African gene pool [findings which have been buttressed by later studies, of basic motifs in rare "M-characteristic" basic (African L3) clades], enough to explain the proposed African origin for the M lineage in general, including M1; whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian "proto-M1" lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.

Getting to the gist:

Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago

And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago

The studies the present author posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, possibly the dectection of M1 and other M lineages in tandem within a Tanzanian sample (Gonder et al. 2006), and the apparent lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.

M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.

M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.