Inferring the AJ admixture time using the lengths of admixture segments.

<p>The mean length of <i>RFMix</i>-inferred Middle-Eastern segments is plotted vs the mean simulated length, which is inversely related to the simulated admixture time. The red dot corresponds to the observed mean segment length in the real AJ data.</p

The number of IBD segments shared between Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) and other groups of populations.

<p>IBD segments were detected by <i>Germline</i> and <i>Haploscore</i>, as explained in <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644#sec022" target="_blank">Methods</a>. The population groups are as in <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644#pgen.1006644.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. Note the different scale of panels (A) and (B) (segments of length between [3,7]cM and >7cM, respectively), and that sharing between AJ and either Southern Europeans or Middle Easterners completely vanishes for the longer (more recent) segments, indicating a relatively older divergence/gene flow. Also note that while sharing with Eastern Europeans is high compared to other groups, it is nevertheless a relatively rare event (≈0.04 segments per pair of individuals), in particular compared to sharing within AJ (≈3.4 segments per pair).</p

The populations and datasets used in our analysis.

<p>The populations and datasets used in our analysis.</p

Inferring the AJ admixture time and sources using <i>Alder</i>.

<p>Admixture times are in generations. The parameters were inferred, for each European region, using <i>Alder</i>’s self-determined minimal distance cutoff (rightmost column), above which the admixture LD decay is fitted. The other reference panel was always Middle-Eastern.</p

A proposed model for the recent AJ history.

<p>The proposed intervals for the dates and admixture proportions are based on multiple methods, as described in the main text.</p

Inference of the proportion of Ashkenazi ancestry derived from each European region.

<p>We simulated admixed chromosomes with European and Middle-Eastern ancestries, where the ME ancestry was fixed to the Levant region and to 50% of the overall ancestry. We then varied the sources of the remaining European ancestry to determine which ancestry proportions most closely match the AJ data. In (A), the simulated EU components were Southern and Western EU. For each given proportion of Southern EU ancestry, we used our LAI-based pipeline to compute the proportion of chromosomes classified as Southern European. The best match to the proportion of thus classified chromosomes observed in the real AJ data (red dot) was found when the true simulated Southern EU ancestry was 31% of the total. In (B), the same simulation procedure was repeated, except that the simulated EU components were Southern and Eastern EU. The inferred proportion of Southern EU ancestry in AJ was 37%. (C) We fixed the Southern EU contribution to 34%, the average of its estimates from (A) and (B), and varied the remaining 16% between Western and Eastern EU. The simulations suggest that the closest match to the real results is at roughly equal contribution (8%) from Western and Eastern EU.</p

The Probability Density Function (PDF) of ancestry proportions in AJ and in simulations.

<p>The ancestry proportions in AJ were computed using LAI (<i>RFMix</i>). Simulations are of 1000 genomes with a history of an admixture pulse 32 generations ago between Middle-Eastern, Southern EU, Eastern EU, and Western EU populations. The density was estimated using a normal kernel. The admixture time was estimated by fitting the average standard deviation of the ancestry proportions across all chromosomes to the AJ data, where each chromosome was weighted by the square root of its length in cM. The confidence interval ([31,37] generations) was obtained by resampling AJ individuals, with replacement, 1000 times.</p

The relationship between the two admixture times in the Ashkenazi history, given bounds on the other admixture parameters.

<p>In the model, two populations (<b>A</b> and <b>B</b>) mixed <i>t</i>_<i>1</i> generations ago (early event; the proportion of ancestry contributed by population <b>A</b>, <i>q</i>, is indicated in the title of each panel). At a more recent time, <i>t</i>_<i>2</i> generations ago (recent event), migrants from <b>A</b> replaced another proportion <i>μ</i> of the admixed population (also in the titles). In each panel, we assumed that <i>q</i> and <i>μ</i> are known, as is the admixture time inferred under the assumption of a pulse admixture model (titles). Under these assumptions, and using <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644#pgen.1006644.e008" target="_blank">Eq (5)</a> in Methods, we plotted the time of the early event (<i>t</i>_<i>1</i>) vs the time of the recent event (<i>t</i>_<i>2</i>; blue circles). The weighted average (dashed lines) is a simple approximation, in which the time inferred under the pulse model is an average of <i>t</i>_<i>1</i> and <i>t</i>_<i>2</i>, weighted by the admixture proportions <i>q</i> and <i>μ</i>, respectively. In the context of the Ashkenazi Jewish admixture history, population <b>A</b> is European and <b>B</b> is Middle-Eastern. Panels (A)-(D) represent the bounds on (i) the admixture time inferred under a pulse model (24–37 generations ago); (ii) the admixture proportions at the early and recent events (34–61% and 15–23%, respectively); and (iii) the time of the recent admixture event (10–20 generations ago). These bounds are justified in the main text. The results demonstrate that (i) the weighted average is a reasonable approximation, though the pulse admixture time is influenced more by the early event, perhaps as it results in more admixture tracts; and (ii) the most extreme values of the early AJ event are 24 and 49 generations ago. The lower bound corresponds to the lowest value of the inferred (single event) admixture time, the highest value of the time of the recent admixture event, and the largest contribution of the early event to the overall admixture proportions, and vice versa for the upper bound.</p

Dimensional representation of psychotic and affective symptoms across diagnostic groups.

<p>The boxes used to identify the groups encompass the mean of each group as well as their standard deviations on both dimensions: schizophrenia without mood syndrome [SZ−]; schizophrenia with superimposed mood syndrome [SZ+]; schizoaffective disorder [SAD]; bipolar disorder with psychotic features [BPD+].</p

Demographic characteristics of study sample: schizophrenia without mood syndrome [SZ−]; schizophrenia with superimposed mood syndrome [SZ+]; schizoaffective disorder [SAD]; bipolar disorder with psychotic features [BPD+].

<p><b>Pairwise Comparisons:</b></p><p>A  =  SZ− vs. SZ+.</p><p>B  =  SZ− vs. SAD.</p><p>C  =  SZ− vs. BPD+.</p><p>D  =  SZ+ vs. SAD.</p><p>E  =  SZ+ vs. BPD+.</p><p>F  =  SAD vs BPD+.</p><p>See text for additional details.</p