China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Reductionism versus Systems Thinking in Aging Research
Published in Shamim I. Ahmad, Aging: Exploring a Complex Phenomenon, 2017
The science of social genomics and the notion of gene–culture coevolution share common elements [70] and both are now becoming more relevant in formulating a complex view of aging. The gene–culture coevolution concept explains the changing interactions between genetic evolution and cultural evolution (also known as the Dual Inheritance theory). An extension of the concept of gene–culture coevolution [71,72] defines influences from our technological culture upon our own health and, at the same time, how we influence the evolution of the environment itself [73], characteristics which define the Third Phase Science model. This amalgam between sociotechnical/cultural elements with biological structures and processes is also studied through principles developed within social genomics, and more details are discussed below.
The surname structure of Trentino (Italy) and its relationship with dialects and genes
Published in Annals of Human Biology, 2021
Alessio Boattini, Eugenio Bortolini, Roland Bauer, Marta Ottone, Rossella Miglio, Paola Gueresi, Davide Pettener
The relationships between genes, language, cultural markers and geography are at the core of a vast field of study (identified by the general name of Dual Inheritance Theory, Cultural Evolutionary Theory) broadly aimed at investigating the co-evolutionary processes underlying biological and cultural change over time in human populations (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981; Boyd and Richerson 1985). A conspicuous section of this unified field of study is interested in understanding the mechanisms responsible for the diffusion of human culture at different geographic scales (e.g. migratory events, cultural diffusion, etc.; Jordan et al. 2016; Bortolini et al. 2017 among others). Language, in particular, being one of the most apparent and ubiquitous human cultural markers, represents the focus of many pivotal studies (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988; Gray and Atkinson 2003; Gray et al. 2011). Exploring the distribution of linguistic features and genetic variants, however, may greatly benefit from evidence on the distribution of surname variability (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 2004). Since surnames are words, a significant association between their distribution and that of dialects/languages could be expected (Manni et al. 2005; Manni et al. 2008). At the same time, in the vast majority of cases, surnames are characterised by patrilineal heritability, and can therefore be considered as proxies for Y-chromosomal genetic markers (King and Jobling 2009a, 2009b). For this reason, due to their remarkable variability, they have been widely used to infer the genetic structure of human populations – especially in case studies entailing a smaller geographical and temporal scale (Pettener 1990; Blanco Villegas et al. 2004; Boattini et al. 2007; Fiorini et al. 2007; Boattini et al. 2010). In addition, thanks to the availability of archival historical sources, changes over time in surnames themselves can be effectively studied as privileged support to infer local population histories.