Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 25.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2020 Jul 25;62:91–96. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2020.06.010

Generations of Genomes: Advances in Paleogenomics Technology and Engagement for Indigenous People of the Americas

Krystal S Tsosie 1, Rene L Begay 2, Keolu Fox 3,4,5, Nanibaa’ A Garrison 6,7,8
PMCID: PMC7484015  NIHMSID: NIHMS1608230  PMID: 32721847

Abstract

For decades, scientists have collected genomic information from Indigenous peoples and their ancestors with the goal of elucidating human migration events, understanding ancestral origins, and identifying ancestral variants contributing to disease. However, such studies may not have offered much benefit to the Indigenous groups who contributed DNA, and many have instead perpetuated stereotypes and other harms. With recent advances in genomic technology facilitating the study of both ancient and present-day DNA, researchers and Indigenous communities have new opportunities to begin collaboratively addressing important questions about human health and history. Yet, while there are increased efforts to ethically engage Indigenous communities, more work is still needed as the discipline struggles to absolve itself of the racialized science and extractive biocolonialism that defined its past.

Introduction

Recent technological advancements in paleogenomics, the study of our ancestors and relations using ancient DNA (aDNA), have enabled more sequenced ancient human genomes in the past two years than in the entirety of human history [1,2]. Just six years ago, sequencing the complete genome of a Neanderthal woman was a major scientific achievement [3]. Sequencing technology continues to improve, enabling increased scale (number of ancient genomes analyzed), resolution (quality of aDNA assemblies), and infrastructure (number of laboratories). While paleogenomic studies permit unprecedented insights into the human past, this rapid trajectory has raised important concerns for Indigenous scientists and communities regarding the balance of technology with ethics and expectations for community engagement.

Scientists have analyzed genomes of current-day and ancient Indigenous peoples to connect them to a broader narrative of human dispersals out of Africa and into the Americas [4,5,6,7]. These studies have challenged Indigenous peoples’ beliefs about their origins, for instance, by suggesting they are not originally from their ancestral lands. Further, past sampling portrayed Indigenous peoples as isolated groups, leading to problematic notions of racial purity (using local ancestry estimation methods) and conflations of biological classifications of race [8,9] with sociocultural and political designations of Indigeneity [10,11]. Certainly, improved methods and higher-resolution estimates of local and global ancestry make it possible to move away from race-based characterizations of genetic ancestry [12], but these methods should incorporate culturally respectful research collaborations with local communities who offer detailed accounts of their own local histories and ethnographical data.

Genomics has been divisive for many Indigenous people throughout the Americas [2,13,14], especially in cases lacking robust engagement and consultation. Building and establishing trust is paramount for conducting genomics research in Indigenous communities, especially as paleogenomics research expands and brings potential implications for future generations. For instance, engaging Indigenous communities in aDNA research can aid in the identification of their ancestors (which may be important for repatriation efforts [15,16]) and collaboration can enrich our global understanding of diversity in ancient and contemporary populations [17].

Here, we examine current genomic research involving the collection of aDNA from Indigenous ancestors and its implications for present-day Indigenous people. Due to the volume of studies occurring in North, Central, and South America, we largely focus on Indigenous people of the Americas. Throughout this piece, we use the term “Indigenous” to describe first peoples generally and encourage researchers to cease using “Amerind” or “Amerindian” since those terms are closely tied to outdated racial ideologies [18]. The term “Native American” should be reserved as a political designation in the US. We urge scientists to defer to communities to designate how they wish to be referred.

Recent Insights into Old Questions

When considering how people moved across the globe, Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. states that “the history of Native American populations is one of the most debated topics in the study of ancient human migrations” [19]. Much of recent paleogenomics research is centered on determining when the Americas were originally populated and by whom [20]. North American studies, for instance, continue to use genetic, archeological, and paleoecological evidence to elucidate the timing of Pacific coastal and inland migrations [21,22,23,24]. In contrast, many paleogenomic studies in Central and South America have focused on a different part of the peopling of the Americas narrative [25], such as investigating genetic differences [4] that typify pre-Columbian peopling of the Andes versus the Amazon region, or the “Andes-Amazonia Divide,” both at the continent-wide scale [19,26,27] or more locally within populations [28,29,30,31].

Some aDNA studies throughout the Americas have examined other kinds of questions, such as recent population histories or patterns of movement and interaction. While some researchers see a potential divide between aDNA research and other fields [1], there has been an increasing “multidisciplinary dialogue” [32] that allows researchers to layer multiple forms of complementary data (e.g. genomic, linguistic, archeological, and sociocultural experiences) to create a higher resolution understanding of our shared history. For instance, Gomez-Carballa et al. analyzed variations in mtDNA and the nonrecombining portion of the Y-chromosome to reveal sex-specific genetic trends in gender demography. They found that women historically exhibited a larger effective population size presumably due to linguistic exogamy, a cultural practice requiring men to marry women speaking a different language [30]. These multidisciplinary questions increasingly involve analysis of living descendants, not just ancestors, and thus could benefit from more collaboration with Indigenous communities.

Caring for Our Ancestors and their DNA

Indigenous people have raised concerns about the open accessibility of their genomic sequence data. Much of the apprehension stems from concerns about biocolonialism [33], or the commodification of Indigenous peoples’ biological information. Additionally, there is considerable pluralism in the ability of Indigenous people to exercise autonomy in governing their genomic data [34]. In the US, for example, some tribes exert their sovereign authority by instituting their own research regulations [35,36]. While we cannot comment on the sovereign status or degree of research oversight by Indigenous people in Central and South America, we express concern that research oversight from government agencies alone may effectively bypass direct engagement with communities. Rather than depositing data in openly assessible databases, some researchers take proactive approaches to act as data stewards to make data available upon request with restrictions [37]. However, we must ultimately empower Indigenous peoples to become data stewards themselves to enforce safeguards around the use of data [38].

Beyond genomic data, recent studies show greater attentiveness to the care, identification, and return of ancestors to descendant communities. Many Indigenous peoples assert that their ancestors should remain in ancestral lands near kin to maintain their connections to land and relatives [39], which is essential for ancestors’ spirits to rest [13]. Importantly, we can learn from the collaboration and consultation that Wright et al. had with Aboriginal Australian Traditional Owners to integrate knowledge from elders and communities in a study showing that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is a poor identifier of descendancy, resulting in an estimated 7% return of ancestors to the wrong Indigenous group [40]. This is important for future efforts that may rely on mtDNA to repatriate ancestors.

Amidst long-standing concerns about destructive sampling of aDNA [41], there is hope and excitement over emerging non-invasive technologies, a trend that has been implemented increasingly in laboratories [42]. For instance, in contrast to traditional ZooMS (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry) techniques that require destructive analysis of samples, non-destructive ZooMS was applied to bone points from pre-contact St. Lawrence Iroquoian village sites in southern Quebec, Canada [43]. Additionally, metagenomic soil analysis of burial sites has the potential to yield sequence ‘reads’ by deconvoluting bacterial DNA in soil from human aDNA [44]. These emerging non-invasive techniques offer the potential to generate impactful paleogenomic data without destroying sacred Indigenous items or ancestors. However, new ethical questions are raised related to the provenance of Indigenous aDNA collected from soil ten meters below an excavation site. For instance, the question of who ‘owns’ or has stewardship over digital sequence information (DSI) from soil microbiomes should be decided in collaboration with Indigenous partners.

Balancing Risks and Benefits

We caution that repatriation should not be oversold as a benefit to Indigenous communities [45] as each community has its own unique cultural history and diaspora. For instance, as the Australian diaspora predates the Polynesia diaspora (respectively ~50 versus ~2–7 thousand years ago, or kya), there is less genetic diversity among Polynesian populations, making it more difficult to repatriate Polynesian ancestors to specific communities or islands due to a lack of high aDNA resolution. Further, for US tribes, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) does not enforce the provenance of Indigenous ancestors stored in museum collections worldwide, especially for those curated before the law was enacted in 1990. Also, NAGPRA’s definition of “human remains” is not defined, thus human teeth or hair containing aDNA have been sold [Christie’s Auction House, URL: https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-necklace-lei-niho-palaoa-hawaiian-islands-6230024-details.aspx] and sequenced without consideration of Indigenous descendants. Repatriation under NAGPRA will likely be further limited as it does not reflect current technological advancements related to storage and access of DSI from Indigenous ancestors.

Paleogenomic techniques can also enable our understanding of past human genetic variation and inform current medical knowledge [46]. Exome sequencing of a First Nations ancestor [47] suggest that decreased effective population size and gene flow events due to European contact, intermarriage, introduction of diseases, and genocide led to changes in HLA variant frequencies among Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, thus potentially informing our understanding of immune-related selection pressures in present-day Indigenous peoples. Such temporally cross-sectional genomic analyses of both ancient and present-day Indigenous genome sequence data could profoundly impact the development of treatments for autoimmune disorders. However, in investigating these potential linkages, scientists must ensure their use of language does not exacerbate existing negative stereotypes and become normalized in peer-reviewed publications. For example, a study of the biomedical implications of recent admixture described a Colombian Andean population as having “escaped from complete admixture given their warrior nature and persistent culture” [29]. Indigenous communities should be consulted about culturally sensitive language in final research products prior to dissemination.

Just as aDNA can be used to inform our current understanding of disease phenotypes, geneticists are studying recent admixture in Latin American descendent communities to understand variation inherited from Indigenous ancestors. For instance, investigators concluded that a gene variant associated with lighter skin pigmentation in Eurasia was carried into the Americas through migrations into the New World some 15 kya [48]. While this could contribute to our larger understanding of genetic and phenotypic variation [49] and maybe even challenge simplistic notions of ancestry and phenotype [50], such studies should take care not to inadvertently contribute to already divisive viewpoints that conflate race and skin pigmentation [51,52,53] or other physical traits [48,54]. Exercising cognizance of these larger social and cultural dynamics is important, particularly if one is conducting research with historically disempowered communities.

Similarly, using Indigenous ancestors for genetic ancestry estimation can have consequences for present-day Indigenous descendants. The politics of what constitutes Indigenous identity and ancestry are complex, and the issue is further complicated when lay individuals falsely equate biological constructs with Indigeneity. For instance, Leroux [55] accounts an ongoing controversy in which individuals lacking lineal evidence of an Indigenous ancestor are misinterpreting mtDNA to claim First Nation Métis identity, and points to a 149% increase in Métis self-identification claims from 2006 to 2016. This movement has been exacerbated by direct to consumer testing that does not account for lived experiences in cultural practices, developing traditional kinship relations, and connections with the land [56,57,58]. Genetic testing for the purposes of establishing an Indigenous ancestor is not supported among Indigenous communities because DNA does not determine identity [11].

In general, scientists must remember that categories of race, ethnicity, and ancestry are not neutral. Furthermore, scientists must be careful not to “equate those who are more admixed as being less Indigenous than ‘non-admixed’ Indigenous people” [55] because Indigeneity and kinship are socially and politically determined, and Indigenous people retain the right to define them for themselves. To modify these structures would mean undermining their sovereignty.

Empowering Indigenous People

It is incumbent upon researchers to empower Indigenous people to serve as stewards of their ancestors and be more collaborative to ensure bi-directional benefits [15,59]. Indigenous communities have a long history of being subjected to research with unethical dimensions, little to no benefit, or in inappropriate or unapproved areas. To mitigate these harms, Indigenous scholars and policy makers have developed new guidelines, protocols, and frameworks for ethical engagement [60], while also advocating for ways to implement and enforce existing regulations [61,62,63,64]. Emergence of Indigenous data sovereignty or the right of Indigenous peoples and nations to govern the collection, ownership, methods, and application of data about their peoples, lands, and resources [65,66,67,68,69], has prompted Indigenous peoples to assert their collective rights to control interests in biological materials [70], develop laws and policies, use emerging technologies to direct population genetics narratives for themselves [71], and build capacity to house and oversee materials. Formal tribal approval through research review boards [72,73] or government-to-government consultation with tribes is essential to seek input and approval [74]. Most tribes in the US have sovereign status to uphold their own laws and research codes.

In the frameworks and guidelines about ethical engagement in research, a greater emphasis is being placed on finding ways to avoid exacerbating stereotypes or harmful assumptions that challenge tribal affiliation [57] and ancestral familial connections [56]. First, researchers should consult with the community about important questions that can be answered using genomic techniques, then proceed with permission to carry out respectful methods while maintaining transparency, and finally collaboratively work to interpret the results with culturally-appropriate viewpoints [75]. Research collaboration with community informants can enable diverse interpretations and offers opportunities to delve deeper and uncover new insights about human evolutionary history.

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. Jennifer Raff, Ripan Malhi, Deborah Bolnick, and Emilia Huerta-Sanchez for taking the time to review the content of this manuscript and offer insightful comments.

Funding Sources

KST is supported by an Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) award from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant number P20GM103442. NAG was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (K01 HG008818).

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Conflict of Interest Statement

KST and KF serve as voluntary board members of a non-profit 501(c)3 Indigenous biobank initiative, the Native BioData Consortium, in the United States. RLB and NAG do not declare any conflicts.

References

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

• of special interest

•• of outstanding interest

  • [1].Callaway E: Divided by DNA: The uneasy relationship between archaeology and ancient genomics. Nature 2018, 555:573–576. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-03773-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2••].Fox K, Hawks J: Use ancient remains more wisely. Nature 2019, 572:581–583. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02516-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Discusses efforts to use ancestors conscientiously in paleogenomic research.
  • [3].Prufer K, Racimo F, Patterson N, Jay F, Sankararaman S, Sawyer S, Heinze A, Renaud G, Sudmant PH, de Filippo C, et al. : The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains. Nature 2014, 505:43–49. doi: 10.1038/nature12886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Horai S, Kondo R, Nakagawa-Hattori Y, Hayashi S, Sonoda S, Tajima K: Peopling of the Americas, founded by four major lineages of mitochondrial DNA. Mol Biol Evol 1993, 10:23–47. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a039987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Neel JV, Ward RH: Village and tribal genetic distances among American Indians, and the possible implications for human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1970, 65:323–330. doi: 10.1073/pnas.65.2.323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Schell LM, Agarwal SS, Blumberg BS, Levy H, Bennett PH, Laughlin WS, Martin JP: Distribution of albumin variants Naskapi amd Mexico among Aleuts, Frobisher Bay Eskimos, and Micmac, Naskapi, Mohawk, Omaha, and Apache Indians. Am J Phys Anthropol 1978, 49:111–117. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330490117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Simmons RT, Graydon JJ, Semple NM, Fry EI: A blood group genetical survey in Cook Islanders, Polynesia, and comparisons with American Indians. Am J Phys Anthropol 1955, 13:667–690. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330130409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Weiss KM, Long JC: Non-Darwinian estimation: my ancestors, my genes’ ancestors. Genome Res 2009, 19:703–710. doi: 10.1101/gr.076539.108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Ramachandran S, Zhao C, Pritchard JK, Feldman MW: Clines, clusters, and the effect of study design on the inference of human population structure. PLoS Genet 2005, 1:e70. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].TallBear K: Narratives of race and indigeneity in the Genographic Project. J Law Med Ethics 2007, 35:412–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00164.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].TallBear K: Native American DNA: tribal belonging and the false promise of genetic science. University of Minnesota Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Secolin R, Mas-Sandoval A, Arauna LR, Torres FR, de Araujo TK, Santos ML, Rocha CS, Carvalho BS, Cendes F, Lopes-Cendes I, et al. : Distribution of local ancestry and evidence of adaptation in admixed populations. Sci Rep 2019, 9:13900. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50362-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13••].Bardill J, Bader AC, Garrison NA, Bolnick DA, Raff JA, Walker A, Malhi RS: Advancing the ethics of paleogenomics. Science 2018, 360:384–385. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq1131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; An essential articulation by Indigenous scientists and bioethicists, and allied non-Indigenous scientists to guide ethical principles and practices in paleogenomics.
  • [14].Claw KG, Lippert D, Bardill J, Cordova A, Fox K, Yracheta JM, Bader AC, Bolnick DA, Malhi RS, TallBear K, et al. : Chaco Canyon dig unearths ethical concerns. Hum Biol 2017, 89:177–180. doi: 10.13110/humanbiology.89.3.01 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Phillips N: Indigenous groups look to ancient DNA to bring their ancestors home. Nature 2019, 568:294–297. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01167-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Kakaliouras AM: The repatriation of the Palaeoamericans: Kennewick Man/the Ancient One and the end of a non-Indian ancient North America. BJHS Themes 2019, 4:79–98. doi: 10.1017/bjt.2019.9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Lindo J, Achilli A, Perego UA, Archer D, Valdiosera C, Petzelt B, Mitchell J, Worl R, Dixon EJ, Fifield TE, et al. : Ancient individuals from the North American Northwest Coast reveal 10,000 years of regional genetic continuity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017, 114:4093–4098. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1620410114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Greenberg JH, Turner CG, Zegura SL: The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence. Current Anthropology 1986, 27:477–497. [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Gnecchi-Ruscone GA, Sarno S, De Fanti S, Gianvincenzo L, Giuliani C, Boattini A, Bortolini E, Di Corcia T, Sanchez Mellado C, Davila Francia TJ, et al. : Dissecting the pre-Columbian genomic ancestry of Native Americans along the Andes-Amazonia Divide. Mol Biol Evol 2019, 36:1254–1269. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msz066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Moreno-Mayar JV, Vinner L, de Barros Damgaard P, de la Fuente C, Chan J, Spence JP, Allentoft ME, Vimala T, Racimo F, Pinotti T, et al. : Early human dispersals within the Americas. Science 2018, 362. doi: 10.1126/science.aav2621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Grugni V, Raveane A, Ongaro L, Battaglia V, Trombetta B, Colombo G, Capodiferro MR, Olivieri A, Achilli A, Perego UA, et al. : Analysis of the human Y-chromosome haplogroup Q characterizes ancient population movements in Eurasia and the Americas. BMC Biol 2019, 17:3. doi: 10.1186/s12915-018-0622-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22•].Tackney J, Jensen AM, Kisielinski C, O’Rourke DH: Molecular analysis of an ancient Thule population at Nuvuk, Point Barrow, Alaska. Am J Phys Anthropol 2019, 168:303–317. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; An example in which researchers sought approval through tribal research regulatory channels, engaged in open dialogue with Alaska Native community members about the destructive technique, and maintained communication through annual presentations directly through annual presentations.
  • [23].Potter BA, Baichtal JF, Beaudoin AB, Fehren-Schmitz L, Haynes CV, Holliday VT, Holmes CE, Ives JW, Kelly RL, Llamas B, et al. : Current evidence allows multiple models for the peopling of the Americas. Sci Adv 2018, 4:eaat5473. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aat5473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Waters MR: Late Pleistocene exploration and settlement of the Americas by modern humans. Science 2019, 365:eaat5447. doi: 10.1126/science.aat5447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Posth C, Nakatsuka N, Lazaridis I, Skoglund P, Mallick S, Lamnidis TC, Rohland N, Nägele K, Adamski N, Bertolini E, et al. : Reconstructing the deep population history of Central and South America. Cell 2018, 175:1185–1197.e1122. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Arias L, Schroder R, Hubner A, Barreto G, Stoneking M, Pakendorf B: Cultural innovations influence patterns of genetic diversity in Northwestern Amazonia. Mol Biol Evol 2018, 35:2719–2735. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Galarza JM, Barquera R, Alvarez AMT, Hernandez Zaragoza DI, Sevilla GP, Tamayo A, Perez M, Davila D, Birnberg L, Alonzo VA, et al. : Genetic diversity of the HLA system in human populations from the Sierra (Andean), Oriente (Amazonian) and Costa (Coastal) regions of Ecuador. Hum Immunol 2018, 79:639–650. doi: 10.1016/j.humimm.2018.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Alonso Morales LA, Casas-Vargas A, Rojas Castro M, Resque R, Ribeiro-Dos-Santos AK, Santos S, Gusmao L, Usaquen W: Paternal portrait of populations of the middle Magdalena River region (Tolima and Huila, Colombia): New insights on the peopling of Central America and northernmost South America. PLoS One 2018, 13:e0207130. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Criollo-Rayo AA, Bohorquez M, Prieto R, Howarth K, Culma C, Carracedo A, Tomlinson I, Echeverry de Polnaco MM, Carvajal Carmona LG: Native American gene continuity to the modern admixed population from the Colombian Andes: Implication for biomedical, population and forensic studies. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2018, 36:e1–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Gomez-Carballa A, Pardo-Seco J, Brandini S, Achilli A, Perego UA, Coble MD, Diegoli TM, Alvarez-Iglesias V, Martinon-Torres F, Olivieri A, et al. : The peopling of South America and the trans-Andean gene flow of the first settlers. Genome Res 2018, 28:767–779. doi: 10.1101/gr.234674.118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Harris DN, Song W, Shetty AC, Levano KS, Caceres O, Padilla C, Borda V, Tarazona D, Trujillo O, Sanchez C, et al. : Evolutionary genomic dynamics of Peruvians before, during, and after the Inca Empire. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018, 115:E6526–e6535. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1720798115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Racimo F, Sikora M, Vander Linden M, Schroeder H, Lalueza-Fox C: Beyond broad strokes: sociocultural insights from the study of ancient genomes. Nat Rev Genet 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41576-020-0218-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Faye DJ: Bioprospecting, genetic patenting and indigenous populations: challenges under a restructured information commons. J World Intellect Prop 2004, 7:401–428. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2004.tb00213.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Sieder R, Barrera Vivero A: Legalizing Indigenous self-determination: autonomy and Buen Vivir in Latin America. J Lat Am Caribb Anthropol 2017, 22:9–26. doi: 10.1111/jlca.12233 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Garrison NA, Barton KS, Porter KM, Mai T, Burke W, Carroll SR: Access and management: Indigenous perspectives on genomic data sharing. Ethn Dis 2019, 29:659–668. doi: 10.18865/ed.29.S3.659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Hiratsuka VY, Beans JA, Reedy J, Yracheta JM, Peercy MT, Saunkeah B, Woodbury RB, O’Leary M, Spicer PG: Fostering ethical, legal, and social implications research in Tribal communities: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2019:1556264619872640. doi: 10.1177/1556264619872640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Pugach I, Duggan AT, Merriwether DA, Friedlaender FR, Friedlaender JS, Stoneking M: The gateway from near into Remote Oceania: new insights from genome-wide data. Mol Biol Evol 2018, 35:871–886. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Carroll SR, Rodriguez-Lonebear D, Martinez A: Indigenous data governance: strategies from United States Native Nations. Data Science Journal 2019, 18:31. doi: 10.5334/dsj-2019-031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Raff J: Genome of the Ancient One (a.k.a. Kennewick Man). Hum Biol 2015, 87:132–133. doi: 10.13110/humanbiology.87.2.0132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40••].Wright JL, Wasef S, Heupink TH, Westaway MC, Rasmussen S, Pardoe C, Fourmile GG, Young M, Johnson T, Slade J, et al. : Ancient nuclear genomes enable repatriation of Indigenous human remains. Sci Adv 2018, 4:eaau5064. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau5064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Not only is this an excellent example of how to ethically engage Indigenous tribal leaders and community members, but the authors find that mtDNA alone can lead to mis-repatriation of ancestors to the wrong descendant community.
  • [41].Palsdottir AH, Blauer A, Rannamae E, Boessenkool S, Hallsson JH: Not a limitless resource: ethics and guidelines for destructive sampling of archaeofaunal remains. R Soc Open Sci 2019, 6:191059. doi: 10.1098/rsos.191059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Bolnick DA, Raff JA, Springs LC, Reynolds AW, Miró-Herrans AT: Native American genomics and population histories. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016, 45:319–340. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-100036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].McGrath K, Rowsell K, Gates St-Pierre C, Tedder A, Foody G, Roberts C, Speller C, Collins M: Identifying Archaeological Bone via Non-Destructive ZooMS and the Materiality of Symbolic Expression: Examples from Iroquoian Bone Points. Sci Rep 2019, 9:11027. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47299-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Slon V, Hopfe C, Weiß CL, Mafessoni F, de la Rasilla M, Lalueza-Fox C, Rosas A, Soressi M, Knul MV, Miller R, et al. : Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from Pleistocene sediments. Science 2017, 356:605–608. doi: 10.1126/science.aam9695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Kakaliouras AM: An Anthropology of Repatriation: Contemporary Physical Anthropological and Native American Ontologies of Practice. Current Anthropology 2012, 53:S210–S221. doi: 10.1086/662331 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].O’Connor TD: Native American genomic diversity through ancient DNA. Cell 2018, 175:1173–1174. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Lindo J, Huerta-Sanchez E, Nakagome S, Rasmussen M, Petzelt B, Mitchell J, Cybulski JS, Willerslev E, DeGiorgio M, Malhi RS: A time transect of exomes from a Native American population before and after European contact. Nat Commun 2016, 7:13175. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48•].Adhikari K, Mendoza-Revilla J, Sohail A, Fuentes-Guajardo M, Lampert J, Chacon-Duque JC, Hurtado M, Villegas V, Granja V, Acuna-Alonzo V, et al. : A GWAS in Latin Americans highlights the convergent evolution of lighter skin pigmentation in Eurasia. Nat Commun 2019, 10:358. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08147-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; An article that explores skin pigmentation genetic variation in Latin America. The authors conclude that selection for a MFSD12 gene variant associated with light skin pigmentation was carried into the Americas and is presently found in East Asians and Native Americans
  • [49].Quillen EE, Norton HL, Parra EJ, Lona-Durazo F, Ang KC, Illiescu FM, Pearson LN, Shriver MD, Lasisi T, Gokcumen O, et al. : Shades of complexity: New perspectives on the evolution and genetic architecture of human skin. Am J Phys Anthropol 2019, 168 Suppl 67:4–26. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [50].Wade L: Light skin may be legacy of Native American ancestors. Science 2019, 363:333. doi: 10.1126/science.363.6425.333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [51].Canache D, Hayes M, Mondak JJ, Seligson MA: Determinants of perceived skin-color discrimination in Latin America. Journal of Politics 2014, 76:506–520. doi: 10.1017/S0022381613001424 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [52].Weaver HN: What color is red? Exploring the implications of phenotype for Native Americans In The melanin millenium: skin color as 21st century international discourse. Edited by Hall RE: Springer; 2012:287–299. [Google Scholar]
  • [53].Hunter ML: Race, gender, and the politics of skin tone. New York: Routledge; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • [54].Martin AR, Gignoux CR, Walters RK, Wojcik GL, Neale BM, Gravel S, Daly MJ, Bustamante CD, Kenny EE: Human demographic history impacts genetic risk prediction across diverse populations. Am J Hum Genet 2017, 100:635–649. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [55].Leroux D: ‘We’ve been here for 2,000 years’: White settlers, Native American DNA and the phenomenon of indigenization. Soc Stud Sci 2018, 48:80–100. doi: 10.1177/0306312717751863 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [56].Blanchard JW, Outram S, Tallbull G, Royal CDM: “We don’t need a swab in our mouth to prove who we are”: identity, resistance, and adaptation of genetic ancestry testing among Native American communities. Current Anthropology 2019, 60:637–655. doi: 10.1086/705483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [57].Walajahi H, Wilson DR, Hull SC: Constructing identities: the implications of DTC ancestry testing for tribal communities. Genet Med 2019, 21:1744–1750. doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0429-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [58].Watt E, Kowal E: What’s at stake? Determining indigeneity in the era of DIY DNA. New Genetics and Society 2019, 38:142–164. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2018.1559726 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [59].Powless P, Freiwald C: The challenges of dealing with human remains in cultural resource management. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2019, 7:55–59. doi: 10.1017/aap.2018.44 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [60••].Claw KG, Anderson MZ, Begay RL, Tsosie KS, Fox K, Garrison NA: A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with Indigenous communities. Nat Commun 2018, 9:2957. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05188-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Indigenous scientists present strategies for researchers to ethically engage Indigenous peoples in genetic research
  • [61].Arbour L, Cook D: DNA on loan: issues to consider when carrying out genetic research with aboriginal families and communities. Community Genet 2006, 9:153–160. doi: 10.1159/000092651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [62].Callaway E: South Africa’s San people issue ethics code to scientists. Nature 2017, 543:475–476. doi: 10.1038/543475a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [63••].Garrison NA, Hudson M, Ballantyne LL, Garba I, Martinez A, Taualii M, Arbour L, Caron NR, Rainie SC: Genomic research through an Indigenous lens: understanding the expectations. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2019, 20:495–517. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; A review of recent policies and guidelines pertaining to Indigenous peoples in research identified gaps for further consideration.
  • [64].Jacobs B, Roffenbender J, Collmann J, Cherry K, Bitsoi LL, Bassett K, Evans CH Jr.: Bridging the divide between genomic science and indigenous peoples. J Law Med Ethics 2010, 38:684–696. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00521.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [65].Jorgensen M (Ed): Rebuilding Native Nations: strategies for governance and development Tucson: The University of Arizona Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • [66].Kukutai T, Taylor J: Data sovereignty for indigenous peoples: current practice and future needs In Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda. Edited by Kukutai T, Taylor J: Australian National University Press; 2016:1–24. [Google Scholar]
  • [67].Rainie SC, Schultz JL, Briggs E, Riggs P, Palmanteer-Holder NL: Data as a strategic resource: self-determination, governance, and the data challenge for Indigenous nations in the United States. International Indigenous Policy Journal 2017, 8. doi: 10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [68].Rodriguez-Lonebear D: Building a data revolution in Indian country In Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda. Edited by Kukutai T, Taylor J: Australian National University Press; 2016:253–274. [Google Scholar]
  • [69].Snipp CM: What does data sovereignty imply: what does it look like? In Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda. Edited by Kukutai T, Taylor J: Australian National University Press; 2016:39–56. [Google Scholar]
  • [70••].Hudson M, Garrison NA, Sterling R, Caron NR, Fox K, Yracheta J, Anderson J, Wilcox P, Arbour L, Brown A, et al. : Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data. Nat Rev Genet 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41576-020-0228-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; International perspectives by Indigenous scientists addresses challenges that unrestricted data access can have for Indigenous communities and suggests solutions for genomic researchers.
  • [71].Fox K, Rallapalli KL, Komor AC: Rewriting human history and empowering Indigenous communities with genome editing tools. Genes (Basel) 2020, 11. doi: 10.3390/genes11010088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [72].Beaton A, Hudson M, Milne M, Port RV, Russell K, Smith B, Toki V, Uerata L, Wilcox P, Bartholomew K, et al. : Engaging Maori in biobanking and genomic research: a model for biobanks to guide culturally informed governance, operational, and community engagement activities. Genet Med 2017, 19:345–351. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [73].Parkinson AJ, Hennessy T, Bulkow L, Smith HS: The Alaska Area Specimen Bank: a tribal-federal partnership to maintain and manage a resource for health research. Int J Circumpolar Health 2013, 72:20607. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v72i0.20607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [74••].Hudson M, Southey K, Uerata L, Beaton A, Milne M, Russell K, Smith B, Wilcox P, Toki V, Cheung M: Key informant views on biobanking and genomic research with Maori. N Z Med J 2016, 129:29–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; International perspectives by Indigenous scientists addresses challenges that unrestricted data access can have for Indigenous communities and suggests solutions for genomic researchers.
  • [75].Bader AC, Malhi RS: How subjectivity strengthens research: developing an integrative approach to investigating human diet in the Pacific Northwest Coast. American Anthropologist 2019, 121:476–478. doi: 10.1111/aman.13218 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES