Back

Local ancestry inference identifies robust evidence of selection in Neolithic Europe

Mies, G.; Mathieson, I.

2026-04-28 genomics
10.64898/2026.04.23.720248 bioRxiv
Show abstract

During the European Neolithic transition, migrating Anatolian farmers admixed with local hunter-gatherers, coinciding with major shifts in diet, environment, and lifestyle that imposed strong selective pressures. Local ancestry inference is widely used to detect selection following admixture, but most methods were developed and validated on present-day populations. Their performance in ancient DNA, where reference panels are smaller, data sparser, and admixture more ancient, remains unresolved. We benchmark six local ancestry inference methods on 176 imputed Neolithic genomes, comparing ancestry proportions, tract length distributions, and selection signatures. While individual-level ancestry estimates are highly correlated across methods, inferred tract lengths and admixture time estimates vary by over an order of magnitude. Integrating results across methods and replicating across methods and in two independent datasets (n=378 and 1,121) identifies robust ancestry deviations at SLC24A5 and FADS1/2, consistent with adaptation on pigmentation and metabolism, respectively. We also identify PER3 (circadian rhythm) and IRAK4 (innate immunity) as candidate loci, but with less consistent signals across methods. Finally, we replicate previous reports of excess hunter-gatherer ancestry at the HLA, but these results are inconsistent across methods and suggest that they may be affected by bias in local ancestry inference. Our findings demonstrate that while local ancestry inference recovers biologically meaningful signals in ancient genomes, results can be sensitive to the methods used for inference, particularly in complex regions like the HLA. Method choice critically influences inferred ancestry patterns and selection signals, underscoring the importance of multi-method validation.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.4%
2
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 8%
11.6%
3
Science
477 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
9.6%
4
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 7%
6.6%
5
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.4%
6
Nature
645 papers in training set
Top 3%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.4%
8
The American Journal of Human Genetics
234 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
5.0%
9
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
10
Nature Genetics
286 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.4%
11
Cell Genomics
172 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
12
Nature Ecology & Evolution
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
13
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.1%
14
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.7%
15
American Journal of Biological Anthropology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
17
Genome Research
468 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
Cell
431 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
19
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.1%
20
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.1%
21
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
GENETICS
483 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
23
Nature Human Behaviour
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
24
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
27
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.6%
28
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.6%