Rh negative from the Anthropocene?

Mmiikkii

Regular Member
Messages
467
Reaction score
76
Points
28
Ethnic group
southern EUROPEAN
Rh negative comes from the Anthropocene?

I've been studying blood groups for a while now and I came with this hypothesis.

The Rhesus marker, provides information of antigens in red cells.
Being positive is you have the Rh antigen, the same as the macaque/rhesus monkey(where it was discovered first).

Also the ABO blood groups are found in primates (B in gorillas and A,O in chimpanzees).
These are the 2 most common blood group systems, but there are dozens. And many seem to have roots in our primate ancestry.

But then there is Rh negativity(aka, not having the Rh antigen). That trait is absent from other species, even Neanderthals and Denosivans were discovered to be Rh positive.

It's even not found among East Asians or Native Americans. Races that diverged from West Eurasians in the Paleolithic.


The only places where it's found is in Europe(some 15%, it's a recessive gene) and to a lower extent, in the Middle East.

Even Nigeria and Ethiopia have some, but it quickly drops to almost nothing once you cross the Equator.


My hypothesis is that it evolved in West Eurasia, particularly around the Neolithic/Metal Ages.
That is when populations in the area "start" having their current shape.
It peaks in Basques(who have an outstanding percentage by the way).

The fact that Nigeria and Ethiopia have received Middle Eastern migration during the Holocene kind of adds evidence to my point.


mt-DNA H(H1 H3 in particular) and R1b(Df-27 in particular) are the main ancestries of Basques, so it evolved at least in some H, and thrived in H1 or H3.
That is the most likely explanation by now.


But that's not all.
You see, antigens seem to be selected in different environments as result of the diseases you have to face.
And in that sense, Rh- is a bit unlucky. Cause it's more represented in almost any disease.

Except for heavely contagious ones related to urban settlements. Such as the Plague, CoVid and even AIDS.
And these is what suggests it may have appeared in recent times. When sedentary settlement, urbanization was underway.
It seems more prepared for diseases of civilization.
These two arguments are clues. But I still don't have any idea of the exact details of which people carried the original mutation and how it spread.
 
Last edited:
I've been studying blood groups for a while now and I came with this hypothesis.

The Rhesus marker, provides information of antigens in red cells.
Being positive is you have the Rh antigen, the same as the macaque/rhesus monkey(where it was discovered first).
They have since backtracked stating:

The term "Rh" was originally an abbreviation of "Rhesus factor." It was discovered in 1937 by
Karl Landsteiner and Alexander S. Wiener, who, at the time, believed it to be a similar antigen found in rhesus macaque red blood cells. It was subsequently discovered that the human factor is not identical to the rhesus monkey factor, but by then, "Rhesus Group" and like terms were already in widespread, worldwide use. Thus, notwithstanding it is a misnomer, the term survives (e.g., rhesus blood group system and the obsolete terms rhesus factor, rhesus positive, and rhesus negative – all three of which actually refer specifically and only to the Rh D factor and are thus misleading when unmodified). Contemporary practice is to use "Rh" as a term of art instead of "Rhesus" (e.g., "Rh Group," "Rh factors," "Rh D," etc.).

Also the ABO blood groups are found in primates (B in gorillas and A,O in chimpanzees).
These are the 2 most common blood group systems, but there are dozens. And many seem to have roots in our primate ancestry.

But then there is Rh negativity(aka, not having the Rh antigen). That trait is absent from other species, even Neanderthals and Denosivans were discovered to be Rh positive.
Years ago, after contacting the Max Planck institute, I shared their email with me stating that their Neanderthal examinations resulted in the specimen showing as homogenous Rh(D) positives.
Now we have learned that they were actually Partial D.
https://www.rhesusnegative.net/staynegative/neanderthals-found-to-be-partial-rhd-not-rhd/
My thoughts: They could have been evolutionary stepping stones toward Rh(D) negative blood.

It's even not found among East Asians or Native Americans. Races that diverged from West Eurasians in the Paleolithic.


The only places where it's found is in Europe(some 15%, it's a recessive gene) and to a lower extent, in the Middle East.

Even Nigeria and Ethiopia have some, but it quickly drops to almost nothing once you cross the Equator.

In Africa, Partial D is very common.
https://www.rhesusnegative.net/staynegative/only-18-of-d-negative-africans-completely-lack-rhd/
In SE Asia, Weak D is.
As for the Yoruba and Igbo Jews of Nigeria:
I am not certain whether those identified as Rh negatives are Rh(D) negative or Partial D.
The same goes with certain studies from India showing higher levels of Rh negatives among HIV patients than I previously expected.


My hypothesis is that it evolved in West Eurasia, particularly around the Neolithic/Metal Ages.
That is when populations in the area "start" having their current shape.
It peaks in Basques(who have an outstanding percentage by the way).

That does make a lot of sense. Possibly the Yamnaya were the ones who wound up spreading it.
https://www.rhesusnegative.net/staynegative/rh-negative-origins-the-yamnaya-people/

The fact that Nigeria and Ethiopia have received Middle Eastern migration during the Holocene kind of adds evidence to my point.

Ethiopia is highly diverse. There may also have been a significant migration from India at one point.
Kerala is much higher in Rh negative frequencies than the rest. Then there are high frequencies among the Jewish tribes in and from that region.

mt-DNA H(H1 H3 in particular) and R1b(Df-27 in particular) are the main ancestries of Basques, so it evolved at least in some H, and thrived in H1 or H3.
That is the most likely explanation by now.
mtDNA J and T were also highly represented at one point. Question is what frequencies did Proto Basques have vs. today's Basques.
Was the high frequency "imported" from the Yamnaya or were the original Basques high in Rh negative blood?


But that's not all.
You see, antigens seem to be selected in different environments as result of the diseases you have to face.
And in that sense, Rh- is a bit unlucky. Cause it's more represented in almost any disease.

Except for heavely contagious ones related to urban settlements. Such as the Plague, CoVid and even AIDS.

Here is a quote from our study:
RhD negative subjects have increased the risk of developing of certain heart diseases, respiratory diseases and some immunity and autoimmunity related diseases, for example rheumatoid arthritis. The general pattern suggests that RhD negative subjects could have problems with autoimmunity, could be more resistant to infections of viral origin and could be less resistant to infections of bacterial origin.
https://www.rhesusnegative.net/staynegative/infections-of-viral-origin/
And these is what suggests it may have appeared in recent times. When sedentary settlement, urbanization was underway.
It seems more prepared for diseases of civilization.
These two arguments are clues. But I still don't have any idea of the exact details of which people carried the original mutation and how it spread.
I don't either, but we are getting much closer. It is also possible that the gene deletion occurred at different times in different places.

Thanks for your post.
I will do my best to share my findings.
I will do my best to organize things.

Btw. Have you seen Mathieson's claims about 40% Rh negative frequencies among the Yamnaya?
I have attempted to contact him several times via Twitter to understand how exactly he was able to make such a claim.
I expressed my skepticism openly and then he blocked me (surprise, surprise).

However, if there is something I am missing, I would love to be filled in on it.
 
Sorry for responding late, this site doesn't notify me of new posts. I'm very glad that you have shares a lot of this information.

Very interesting information. So, basically Neanderthals were Partial D, as are several at first sight Rh- in non-European populations today.

To me the main fact is Rh is very close to the rhesus and primates. They're very related genes. And our blood type is basically of more human, even of civilization origin.
The fact that we're 'overrepresented' among royals and US presidents says it all to me.
 
Very interesting information. So, basically Neanderthals were Partial D, as are several at first sight Rh- in non-European populations today.

It's also possible their mutation turned into complete D deletion.
 
Back
Top