Dr Doug McDonald BGA analysis results

These are my Eurasia7 results:

West Asian - 71%
Atlantic-Baltic - 7,5%
East-Asian - 1,9%
Southern - 19,6%
SubSaharan 0%
South Asian 0%
Siberian 0%

According to McDonald that South Asian might be related to Sindhi

Yes that is. Like we already know. The so called "South Asian" component is actually made up by two other very distinct components. ANI and ASI. ANI is very close to West Asian as well shares similarities with West/East European. It is ancestral to Kalash, Sindhi, Afghans, Northindians and other more Central Asian populations while ASI is ancestral to South Indians and more similar to pacific groups. Among Kurds the South Asian seems to be similar to Kalash.
 
Last edited:
Uouu Kardu, in the Eurasia7 results you are pretty much Georgian than at higher resolution using a K=12 style or the Euro7 Calculator, very focussed in West Eurasia.

The same happens to me. In both K=12 or the Euro7 Calculator I'm clearly distinctive from Spaniards, but this time I'm much closer. The only thing I noticed here is that I'm the closest one to Gascons and Basques, but just a bit more. However, my results usually look "very Catalan".
 
@ Alan

Yes, on Decodetome if I run my data through Asian populations, I stand apart but the closest ones are Kalash.

@ Knovas

True, here are the euro7 results:

‎53.80% Caucasus
0.01% Northwestern
3.03% Northeastern
36.96% Southeastern
0.00% African
0.90% Far_Asian
5.29% Southwestern

And as for Catalan-Spanish distinction I guess among Spanish there are also regional distinctions.
 
Yes, of course there are regional distinctions. I think for example in something like this:

- Northwest Iberians: Including Gallicians, Asturians, and people who is ethnically from the Northwesternmost of Castilla y León. We must assume quite of them look very similar to the Portuguese, or viceversa, doesn't matter.

- Main Spaniards: Vast majority of both Castillas (León & Mancha) and Extremadura, although some individuals from there could deviate to Portugal. Most people of very mixed heritage we have in Cantabria, Valencia, Catalonia, etc., would also fit here.

- Southern Iberians: Including people from Southern Valencia, Murcians and vast majority of Andalusians.

- Basque influenced Spaniards: I guess people from Northeast Castilla y León, some people from la Rioja, Northern Navarrans and North Aragonese. Passiegos seem to be more or less the same as Basques, but we could consider them apart. People from Álava would be also necessary to separate from Basques, and put it here.

- Northeast Iberians: Some Navarrans, a lot of Argonese, people from Northern Valencia and, of course, ethnic Catalans.

If one day there are enough samples to do so, I'd really like that Dienekes' makes as many divisions as possible.
 
By the way, I remember a Gallician who wasn't identified as 100% Spanish with Doug McDonald's tools, when all the rest got this set of population by default (what I said about the most simillar population). He had to guess it, and he guess it good, but the program failed.

Not sure about the markers detected using the program. The guy seems to get typical results for a Gallician in both Dodecad and Eurogenes. I supose there are just a few cases of this.

Also, another guy, but this was a White American, got an absurd ancestry painting from the program. I think even Doug wasn't able to find an explanation for this.
 
Fascinating! Hopefully more samples will be available in near future..
 
Vikings surely carried genes in all Britain, but a substantial impact it's only considered to exist between some Irish and Northern Scotish. At least, for what I have read in several threads at 23andme.

Genome wide or relative finder matches sometimes is not the best indicator for ancestry (full admixture). For example, in my case, being almost entirely Catalan, my highest Genome Wide match is an Angloamerican, having several of similar ancestry very close to this one. And my relative finder is composed mostly of Angloamericans, being my highest matches a Southern French (this one makes sense) followed by a Swedish with four grandparents there.

If you don't join Dodecad and Eurogenes, I recomend you to do so. Both will give you a better idea with the different components, and colud help also to clarify better your Norman ancestry.

PD: I sent you a private message ;)

There are many parts of Britain that were relatively untouched in genetic terms by Danish and Norwegian Vikings. There is little Viking influence in Wales and the Home Counties, for example. Regarding Ireland, McEvoy and Bradley's study found that Viking markers such as forms of I1 and R1a1a are effectively absent in Ireland.

In England, the Vikings made a substantial contribution to the gene-pools of Yorkshire and Lancashire, the Norwegian contingent made a heavy contribution to The Wirral in Cheshire [see Harding and Jobling's 'Wirral and West Lancashire Project'] and to parts of Cumbria, especially Penrith.

There is a heavy Viking contribution to Skye, the Orkneys and Shetland Isles too.
 
There are many parts of Britain that were relatively untouched in genetic terms by Danish and Norwegian Vikings. There is little Viking influence in Wales and the Home Counties, for example. Regarding Ireland, McEvoy and Bradley's study found that Viking markers such as forms of I1 and R1a1a are effectively absent in Ireland.

In England, the Vikings made a substantial contribution to the gene-pools of Yorkshire and Lancashire, the Norwegian contingent made a heavy contribution to The Wirral in Cheshire [see Harding and Jobling's 'Wirral and West Lancashire Project'] and to parts of Cumbria, especially Penrith.

There is a heavy Viking contribution to Skye, the Orkneys and Shetland Isles too.
Well, the Easterm part of Ireland was colonised by Vikings, they founded the capital Dublin and other towns. But in terms of nordic contribution in the British Isles, not only the Vikings, but also very ancient tribes when the Isles were connected to the continent, the Doggerland people, that were distributed between Scandinavia, Holland, North-Germany and British Isles.
 
Well, the Easterm part of Ireland was colonised by Vikings, they founded the capital Dublin and other towns. But in terms of nordic contribution in the British Isles, not only the Vikings, but also very ancient tribes when the Isles were connected to the continent, the Doggerland people, that were distributed between Scandinavia, Holland, North-Germany and British Isles.

I agree that there is definate historical evidence for both Danish and Norwegian Viking settlement in Ireland, but as McEvoy and Bradley's study appears to show, they seemingly have left few genetic echoes. At least, the markers [I1 and R1a1a] one might associate with them most strongly are effectively absent in Ireland.

I agree re Doggerland peoples- maybe I2a2b-Isles, or I2a1b2-Isles as it has been recently re-named is an echo of such people.
 
Correct what Wilhelm says about Dublin.

If it's true that possibly the most purest Atlantics are found in Ireland, where for example the Eurogenes Project showed individuals with the highest scores in the mentioned cluster, it's also true that several individuals deviated from this in a substantial degree. Not only scoring more than the average in the main clusters where Scandinavians got peaks, even when Asian clusters were intruded (North + East Eurasian, quite Forumers surely remember it), some of this Irish got atypical scores.

Mongoloid genes, are of course present between ethnic Scandinavians, but apreciable amounts are not consistent for someone of fully Irish descent.
 
I found this results from a North Ossetian on the net. Very ilustrative to show Doug Mc Donald's work:

Most likely fit is 88.0% (+- 10.4%) Mideast (all Caucasus Area)
and 4.7% (+- 2.2%) S. Asia (various subcontinents)
and 7.3% (+- 8.4%) Europe (various subcontinents)

The following are possible population sets and their fractions,
most likely at the top
Georgian= 0.768 S_India= 0.052 Chuvash= 0.180
Georgian= 0.763 N_India= 0.061 Chuvash= 0.177
Georgian= 0.746 Sindhi= 0.077 Chuvash= 0.176
Georgian= 0.740 Pathan= 0.093 Chuvash= 0.167
Adygei= 0.974 S_India= 0.026 Finland= 0.000
Adygei= 0.967 S_India= 0.027 Sardinia= 0.006
Adygei= 0.972 N_India= 0.028 Romania= 0.000
Adygei= 0.963 N_India= 0.030 Sardinia= 0.007
Adygei= 0.949 Sindhi= 0.040 Sardinia= 0.011
Adygei= 0.963 Sindhi= 0.035 Tuscan= 0.002
Second most likely fit is 79.6% (+- 10.9%) Mideast (all Caucasus Area)
and 18.1% (+- 6.8%) Mideast (various subcontinents)
which is 97.7% total Mideast
and 2.3% (+- 5.4%) Europe (various subcontinents)

The following are possible population sets and their fractions,
most likely at the top
Adygei= 0.726 Iranian= 0.245 Chuvash= 0.029
Adygei= 0.795 Iranian= 0.200 Russian= 0.005
Adygei= 0.812 Iranian= 0.188 Tuscan= 0.000
Adygei= 0.812 Iranian= 0.188 Hungary= 0.000
Adygei= 0.807 Iranian= 0.189 Sardinia= 0.004
Adygei= 0.809 Iranian= 0.190 Basque= 0.001
Georgian= 0.525 Iranian= 0.291 Chuvash= 0.184
Adygei= 0.798 Turkish= 0.202 Finland= 0.000
Adygei= 0.943 Palestin= 0.057 Belorus= 0.000
Adygei= 0.933 Palestin= 0.061 Chuvash= 0.005

As you can see, the above list is essentially mixing Middle Eastern
populations, mostly in the Caucasus area, with some minor “modifications”.
IF it is one of the populations I have, it has to actually be Adygei. Of course
it might be one I don’t have, but it still has to be somewhere in that area.

I’d love to hear the answer.

Doug McDonald

vfa6e.jpg
2n69lz7.png
zwkily.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/zwkily.png
 
He guessed quite good considering there's no North Ossetian cluster in the plot. Anyways, both North Ossetians and Adygeians are very similar.
 
He guessed quite good considering there's no North Ossetian cluster in the plot. Anyways, both North Ossetians and Adygeians are very similar.

Yes, they usually group together on autosomal maps and not only.
 
One of Dr. McDonald's plots, with two Syrian Arabs, two Iraqi Mandaeans, one additional Armenian, and several Assyrians (Syriacs, Chaldeans, and "Nestorians") added. This does not include Turks, Iranians, Kurds, Georgians, and others, as the plot is cropped where the original image contained a McDonald crosshair. Refer to the dozens of images I have posted of this plot on other forums, if you are interested in the other populations.
 

Attachments

  • mcdonald_plot_1012.jpg
    mcdonald_plot_1012.jpg
    52.6 KB · Views: 73
One of Dr. McDonald's plots, with two Syrian Arabs, two Iraqi Mandaeans, one additional Armenian, and several Assyrians (Syriacs, Chaldeans, and "Nestorians") added. This does not include Turks, Iranians, Kurds, Georgians, and others, as the plot is cropped where the original image contained a McDonald crosshair. Refer to the dozens of images I have posted of this plot on other forums, if you are interested in the other populations.
Why did you cut the image in half ? Here is the entire plot :

 
You are right about Scots, but concretely Southwest Scots. In some of the Eurogenes plots they cluster very close to Irish, although Cornish people clusters even closer. Not sure about Welsh, I assume the most ethnic ones would get very similar reports too. That was clear when Eurogenes included a North Atlantic component (quite present along the Atlantic fringe, Iberians included), and those groups as well as most of the Irish, got the highest scores.

Another thing is some Irish and people from the Northernmost of Scotland, sometimes deviate to Scandinavians, and surely must be due to the Vikings. These people of mixed heritage probably clusters with the Orcadian and the Orkney samples, from the HGDP and 1000 Genomes projects.

Dr McDonald informs me that his English samples are largely from Kent with a few from Cornwall. I came out as 100% English, by the way. I think these two sampling frames replace the Orcadians in the latest version of his superb BGA system. I must say that his choice of largely Kentish tempered by Cornish 'English' samples is a very good indicator of England's 'Celto-Germanic' mixture. That is to say, the English are predominantly Germanic with a lesser Celtic component. Dr McDonald's PCA maps show a clear genetic distance between the 'English proper' and the Irish and Basques which is a further nail in the coffin lid of the spurious 'minimalist' arguments of those such as Oppenheimer to the ends that the English largely derive from Paleolithic fisher-folk. Plainly, as Dr McDonald's BGA analysis strongly indicates, those of English ancestry like myself descend in the main from Germanic invaders. Hence the strength of the Kent samples. Kent was the first county to be colonised by the Anglo-Saxons, and there is much overlap between Kentish people and northern Germans.

Actually, I don't know why I use the term 'invaders' because for the English these 'invaders' are 'us'...
 
I'm not sure I understand how samples from Kent and Cornwall can be applied as difinitive proof of being mainly Anglo/Saxon for the whole of England. What about the areas that were under Danelaw for example? And wasn't Kent the kingdom of the Jutes and not the Anglo Saxons? Although Kent is one of the few English counties that still retains it's Brythonic name originating with the tribe who controlled the area, the (according to Julius Caesar) Cantiaci.

The invasion theory of the Anglo/Saxons is somewhat debunk now, the current theory (due to archaeology) is that it was more of a migration that happened over centuries, and began sometime during the Roman occupation. And that, similar to the Norman invasion, the Anglo/Saxons only replaced the ruling classes leaving much of the original population in place.
 
Yorkie

I don't agree that English people is mainly descended from Germanics. Of course it's likely that quite of them have Germanic ancestry, but it's not incredibly significant. Just check the Dodecad v3: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...owN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0

It's clear that Germans have substantially higher East European (Baltic) admixture. And the samples are the same used in the Eurogenes project, where the analysis separating Atlantics from "Northern Europeans" and Baltics (more especific to Europe), showed perfectly that English people is manily Noth Atlantic (Celtic) just with some Germanic. So it's rather the contrary.

There are individuals deviating though, it's possible that according to your BGA results you could be more Germanic than Celtic. But it's not the dominant thing, at least, in the samples that have been tested till the moment. I assume depeneding on the British zone we check, more differences we find in regards for this.
 
I was pretty impressed by the accuracy of McDonald's analysis in my case.

"Most likely fit is 81.4% (+- 13.3%) Europe (all Western Europe)
and 18.6% (+- 13.3%) Europe (various subcontinents)
which is 100% total Europe

The following are possible population sets and their fractions,
most likely at the top
Irish= 0.668 Tuscan= 0.332
French= 0.708 Irish= 0.292
English= 0.825 Tuscan= 0.175
French= 0.871 Russian= 0.129
French= 0.864 Finland= 0.136
French= 0.859 Lithuani= 0.141
Irish= 0.623 Italian= 0.377
Spain= 0.607 Lithuani= 0.393
French= 0.820 Belorus= 0.180
French= 0.515 English= 0.485

This looks French with a slight northward adjustment."

The map oddly placed me EXACTLY to where I've traced my Paternal ancestry back to in Nord, France. I didn't give personal information other than 23andme raw data so I'm somewhat impressed.

One thing I don't understand about the figures here. How are the "fraction" population sets related to the ones on the left column? Are the "fraction sets" the European population sets I least fit into? Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
 
It's easy to note that every file scores 100%, so the program seems to produce 10 sets of A+B (sometimes even A+B+C as the example showed above) which in general terms may represent your ancestry. Doug McDonald simply makes the interpretation while checking the whole when it's not clear, and surey he saw many samples similar to your's in the past. However, I think in your case the program guessed it automatically in the map, so not much work for him.
 

This thread has been viewed 48212 times.

Back
Top