Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41632808›Full record

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.

Le Tao, Ying Xie, Haifeng He, Tianyou Bai, Jianxin Guo, Kongyang Zhu, Baitong Wang, Guangmao Xie, Qiang Lin, Chuan-Chao Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Le TaoInstitute of Forensic Science, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.ORCID 0009-0007-1032-5457
Ying XieGuangxi Institute of Cultural Relics Protection and Archaeology, Nanning 530003, China.ORCID 0009-0000-5001-8143
Haifeng HeState Key Laboratory of Cellular Stress Biology, School of Life Sciences, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China.ORCID 0009-0007-7076-1082
Tianyou BaiState Key Laboratory of Cellular Stress Biology, School of Life Sciences, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China.ORCID 0009-0001-2209-4349
Jianxin GuoState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3275-4099
Kongyang ZhuDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Vienna, Djerassiplatz 1, Vienna 1030, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3807-6970
Baitong WangMinistry of Education Key Laboratory of Contemporary Anthropology, Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Center for Evolutionary Biology, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China.ORCID 0009-0008-2877-7520
Guangmao XieGuangxi Institute of Cultural Relics Protection and Archaeology, Nanning 530003, China.ORCID 0009-0009-2750-9628
Qiang LinGuangxi Institute of Cultural Relics Protection and Archaeology, Nanning 530003, China.ORCID 0009-0009-5777-0405
Chuan-Chao WangInstitute of Forensic Science, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4630-5232

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China 2024YFC3306701
6 · The paper itself

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

Asian PeopleBurialEthnicityGenome, HumanCavesChinaDNA, AncientGene FlowGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationHumansDNA, Ancientancient DNAcave burialsHmong–Mien speakersKra–Dai speakers

Identifiers

PMID41632808
PMCPMC12917239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.