To avoid all kind confusion I want to say that the paper about CWC was not revolutionary

 To avoid all kind confusion I want to say that the paper about CWC was not revolutionary. It changed nothing. Except that we have now more solid evidence that the European R1b-L51 was present there. And CWC was not initially exclusively R1a culture in Central Europe. Only few centuries later it became predominantly R1a due to founder effects.

Also it followed more northern trajectory. That's why we don't see any R1a in Hungary in Pannonian plain which was the main route for Yannayans (R1b Z2103) into Balkans. CWC folks choosed more northern route via Bielorussia and Poland. And further to Germany where in most likelihood Bell Beaker R1b P312 formed.

This means Davidski beated Carlos. And Carlos Quiles was wrong about CWC being an Uralic culture. A ridiculous idea proposed only by him. Current DNA of Uralic people leaves absolutely no other solution than Western Siberian origin of Uralic speakers.

As for Yamna and PIE homeland nothing change. As Carlos himself notes there is simply no other solution for Tocharians other than Afanasievo culture which was predominantly Z2103.

Now the modeling of CWC also changed. In Haak 2015 a model was proposed that CWC was something like 70 percent Yamna + 30 percent of local European farmers. It worked well until we got those new early CWC samples. Now the most plausible model becomes something like 70 percent Yamna + ~20 percent of Euro Neolithic farmers + plus extra ancestry ~10% from local foragers known Ukraine N. 

PS Ukraine N are hunters despite the fact that they are labeled Neolithic. This is due to the fact in ex Sovietic countries Neolithic do not always mean farmers but can also mean hunter gatherers with pottery. So it's the presence of pottery that made them Neolithic not the farming.

Spreadsheet S17 from supplements.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/261079/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/abi6941_Tables_S1_to_S37.zip