ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2026
Genetic formation and regional disparities of Kra-Dai and Hmong-Mien speakers inferred from ancient genomes of cave burial populations in southwest China.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cave burial is a funerary practice believed to be associated with modern Kra-Dai (KD) and Hmong-Mien (HM) speakers for thousands of years. However, the extent to which these ancient cave burial practitioners contributed to the formation of modern ethnic minority groups remains poorly understood due to the limited ancient genomic data. We generated 14 newly sequenced ancient human genomes from cave burial sites in Guangxi. The findings reveal continuous gene flow from northern lineages into ancient cave burial populations, shaping their genetic profiles over time. We observed a significant genetic distinction in HM populations: Southeast Asian HM groups derive 74.8% to 100% of their ancestry from cave burials, preserving a robust ancient southern genetic signature, while Chinese HM populations exhibit only 11.1% to 37.2% ancient cave burial ancestry, but heavily admixed with Yellow River-related populations (14.7% to 52.1%), reflecting differential historical interactions with northern migrants. In contrast, most KD speakers maintain tight genetic clustering with Guangxi ancestors (28.5% to 100% contribution from cave burials). The HM formation involved admixture between ancient cave burials, northern farmers, and local KD-related groups, which is evident in the genetic cline of She and Miao populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.