K12 Autosomal map : European admixture (from Dodecad)

[zanipolo]

Well, according to what you say, you CAN'T test your admixture proportions. It seems you only tested your Y-DNA with maybe some additional markers. That's the reason why you get such impossible results, because you didn't test the thousands of ancestral markers required to get reliable figures. The problem are not the tests, I can assure you they usuallly work (specially Dodecad and Eurogenes, I wouldn't pay attention to the others at the moment), so I think if you want to know your admixture proportions you'll have to get a full genotype file: in the range of 700.000 - 1.000.000 markers aprox.

You can get this via FTDNA, 23andme, etc.

Ok....I got my results today and FTDNA says 62% tuscan and 38% Western european

I did the Dodecad 13 with these results



Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	Atlantic_Med	37.67
2	North_European	31.74
3	Caucasus	14.93
4	Gedrosia	10.06
5	Southwest_Asian	5.3
6	East_Asian	0.28
7	Siberian	0.02

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	French (Dodecad)	10.16
2	French (HGDP)	10.18
3	N_Italian (Dodecad)	11.42
4	North_Italian (HGDP)	13.84
5	Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad)	14.43
6	Galicia (1000Genomes)	14.54

Now , I picked up 700 more years with a confirmed family line (other sources ) , starting at regensburg in 1198 and moving to Sud tyrol by 1228 , then Veneto in 1688, then friuli in and around 1750 , then veneto again around 1780.

I would like to know why does FTDNA state these minor groupings ( see above) and Dodcad, eurogenes , Happa and others show difference.

Maybe I am doing it wrong.....so can someone email me for an educational lesson

hunter and gather below

Population
Anatolian Farmer	15.31%
Baltic Hunter Gatherer	42.60%
Middle Eastern Herder	5.02%
East Asian Farmer	-
South American Hunter Gatherer	1.22%
South Asian Hunter Gatherer	-
North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer	0.78%
East African Pastoralist	-
Oceanian Hunter Gatherer	-
Mediterranean Farmer	35.07%
Pygmy Hunter Gatherer	-
Bantu Farmer	-

 

[Vallicanus]

i'm not racist too, in particular towards less european genetically italians, and in particular towards west asian admixtured central italians, with their peculiar big armenoid noses, that everyone knows are very common among pure tuscans, even the great poet Dante Alighieri had one!!!
By the way you needn't a graduation in medicine and biology to understand how solar radiation (tanning) influence pigmentation of the skin, and that tanning is a temporary condition due to the exposure to the sun.
Tuscans are known to be swarty in comparison with other central italians, and you are confirming it, infact Etrurians settled in Tuscany from the Middle East.

Nonsense.

According to Livi's survey Tuscans have more fair skin (43pc) than other central or southern Italians and also more than Emilians further north.
Also big tuscan noses are moistly Dinarid not Armenid.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Ok....I got my results today and FTDNA says 62% tuscan and 38% Western european

I did the Dodecad 13 with these results



Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	Atlantic_Med	37.67
2	North_European	31.74
3	Caucasus	14.93
4	Gedrosia	10.06
5	Southwest_Asian	5.3
6	East_Asian	0.28
7	Siberian	0.02

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	French (Dodecad)	10.16
2	French (HGDP)	10.18
3	N_Italian (Dodecad)	11.42
4	North_Italian (HGDP)	13.84
5	Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad)	14.43
6	Galicia (1000Genomes)	14.54

Now , I picked up 700 more years with a confirmed family line (other sources ) , starting at regensburg in 1198 and moving to Sud tyrol by 1228 , then Veneto in 1688, then friuli in and around 1750 , then veneto again around 1780.

I would like to know why does FTDNA state these minor groupings ( see above) and Dodcad, eurogenes , Happa and others show difference.

Maybe I am doing it wrong.....so can someone email me for an educational lesson

hunter and gather below

Population
Anatolian Farmer	15.31%
Baltic Hunter Gatherer	42.60%
Middle Eastern Herder	5.02%
East Asian Farmer	-
South American Hunter Gatherer	1.22%
South Asian Hunter Gatherer	-
North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer	0.78%
East African Pastoralist	-
Oceanian Hunter Gatherer	-
Mediterranean Farmer	35.07%
Pygmy Hunter Gatherer	-
Bantu Farmer	-

You have very weird result,from which country are you?
UK?
I mean your ancestors.
Or you are mixed from more european people from more countries?

 

[julia90]

i'm not racist too, in particular towards less european genetically italians, and in particular towards west asian admixtured central italians, with their peculiar big armenoid noses, that everyone knows are very common among pure tuscans, even the great poet Dante Alighieri had one!!!
By the way you needn't a graduation in medicine and biology to understand how solar radiation (tanning) influence pigmentation of the skin, and that tanning is a temporary condition due to the exposure to the sun.
Tuscans are known to be swarty in comparison with other central italians, and you are confirming it, infact Etrurians settled in Tuscany from the Middle East.

bah.. everyone know sardinians are the darkest italians.. maybe not in skin pigmentation; but in terms of eyes and hair pigmentation.. yeas.. other iralians have more light eyes and ligh hair

 

[zanipolo]

You have very weird result,from which country are you?
UK?
I mean your ancestors.
Or you are mixed from more european people from more countries?

my ancestors from great-great-great both sides are from north Italy.

with 800 years from bavaria, tyrol and veneto . I do not know where I am from.....I expected I would be around the caspian sea in ancient times...........maybe I am a very early middle-east "migrant' from neolithic times

this is FtDNA

Europe (Western European)	Basque, French, Orcadian, Spanish	37.08%	±12.10%
Europe (Southern European)	Tuscan	62.92%	±12.10%

what is Orcadian....Orkney islands?

 

[Knovas]

Now your results make a lot more sense considering you are North Italian descent. You can also send your data to Dodecad and Eurogenes for more accurate results, there are added benefits as for example genetic clustering maps.

By the way, I don't think you are representative of the Neolithic period, since Ótzi clusters modern Sardinians and you obviously don't according to your results. However,we still need more samples, because Basques are surely pretty much the same since Neolithic times (except for Y-DNA frequencies, ¿probably late Neolithic?), and they are quite different from Sardinians...I guess this is due to the fact they remained in mainland Europe (being easier to get influences from Northern Europe) while Sardinians got Isolated in the Middle of the Mediteranean sea.

 

[zanipolo]

Now your results make a lot more sense considering you are North Italian descent. You can also send your data to Dodecad and Eurogenes for more accurate results, there are added benefits as for example genetic clustering maps.

By the way, I don't think you are representative of the Neolithic period, since Ótzi clusters modern Sardinians and you obviously don't according to your results. However,we still need more samples, because Basques are surely pretty much the same since Neolithic times (except for Y-DNA frequencies, ¿probably late Neolithic?), and they are quite different from Sardinians...I guess this is due to the fact they remained in mainland Europe (being easier to get influences from Northern Europe) while Sardinians got Isolated in the Middle of the Mediteranean sea.

I have recently been heavily involved with another project team - AlpGen group due to my marker as there are minor markers in the Tyrol area, like, Q, L, T and N ( N3) ............I will be seeking a ....where, when and how these groups sought refuge in the alps.

Another thing with my Ftdna FF results states that 3 of my 22 chromosone markers has the comment "Not enough SNP data". I assume this is because I am one of the very few that has L446+.

Btw....I find more and more people describe test data or themselves as R-U106 or E-V13 or R-L21 etc etc.......maybe I should use T-L446 instead of my new T1a2b (august 2012).....!!!

Is there a fee with sending results to Dodecad or Eurogenes

thanks for info

 

[Kardu]

Dodecad and Eurogenes are totally free. Only requirement is to have 4 grandparents from the the same ethnicity.

You could also upload your data on Gedmatch

 

[Cato]

hello all , just a question , what is the average northern european admixture in southern Europe (Sardinia and Corsica too) ? also does northern admixture include even "central european admixture" ?

 

[zanipolo]

What does it mean by Scottish-irish in these admixture sites. Does it mean northireland and scottish lowland people?

next......... R1b-V88 is said to be out of Africa or went into africa - Chadic people.............are they noted as meditteraen mix or western european?

 

[Vallicanus]

What does it mean by Scottish-irish in these admixture sites. Does it mean northireland and scottish lowland people?

next......... R1b-V88 is said to be out of Africa or went into africa - Chadic people.............are they noted as meditteraen mix or western european?

The Scots-Irish were mainly Lowland Scottish Presbyterians who settled in Ulster in the 17th century and moved on to the American frontier in the 18th century.
They were not "pure" Scots but were mixed a bit with northern English and also with Irish converts to Protestantism.

 

[zanipolo]

The Scots-Irish were mainly Lowland Scottish Presbyterians who settled in Ulster in the 17th century and moved on to the American frontier in the 18th century.
They were not "pure" Scots but were mixed a bit with northern English and also with Irish converts to Protestantism.

thanks

I have 1 match a 5th cousin from north carolina - william C Johnson ..........go figure!?

 

[zanipolo]

Question on percentages in admixture tests.
Do , percentages indicate time , as in a higher % mean longer in that zone

below is mine from [h=2]MDLP World-22[/h]Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic	37.31
2	North-East-European	35.12
3	West-Asian	13.54
4	Near_East	11.43
5	North-European-Mesolithic	1.78
6	Samoedic	0.47
7	Indo-Iranian	0.17
8	South-African	0.09
9	South-America_Amerind	0.08

Single Population Sharing:

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	Italian_North (derived)	5.26
2	Bulgarian (derived)	5.68
3	Romania (derived)	6.53
4	Swiss (derived)	6.75

also, What does derived mean?

 

[zanipolo]

where does this fit in the context of personnel admixtures


Importantly, the K=12 Caucasus component appears as a mixture of the K=7 West_Asian and Southern components. The former (West_Asian) is the most important one in the Burusho, and the latter (Southern) is the most important one in Sardinians.

from
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/09/rolloff-analysis-of-french-as-mixture.html


note; I have also been following the discovery in the Friulian alps - Rio Secco Cave
[url]http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/peresani332/
[/URL]
does it mean that dodecad caucasus is now reflected as european in K12b ,........as I am about 20% caucasus in most admixture sites but have 100% european in ftdna population finder

 

[Kardu]

FTDNA Population Finder is not trustworthy atm. Probably this will change soon.

 

[zanipolo]

new Euogenes tests

Guess what I could be

#		Primary Population (source)	Secondary Population (source)	Distance
1		91.4%	North Italian	+	8.6%	North Russian	@	2.44
2		91.1%	North Italian	+	8.9%	East Finnish	@	2.47
3		79.4%	North Italian	+	20.6%	Serbian	@	2.47
4		90.6%	North Italian	+	9.4%	South Finnish	@	2.48
5		90.9%	North Italian	+	9.1%	East Russian	@	2.48
6		80.6%	North Italian	+	19.4%	AT	@	2.5
7		91.6%	North Italian	+	8.4%	Erzya	@	2.53
8		89.4%	North Italian	+	10.6%	North Swedish	@	2.68
9		90.5%	North Italian	+	9.5%	Ukrainian-Russian	@	2.69
10		92.5%	North Italian	+	7.5%	Udmurt	@	2.71
11		90.7%	North Italian	+	9.3%	West Russian	@	2.74
12		89.8%	North Italian	+	10.2%	Southwest Finnish	@	2.74
13		92.8%	North Italian	+	7.2%	Komi	@	2.78
14		84.2%	North Italian	+	15.8%	HU	@	2.82
15		90.3%	North Italian	+	9.7%	PL	@	2.82
16		92%	North Italian	+	8%	EE	@	2.84
17		91.6%	North Italian	+	8.4%	Belorussian	@	2.85
18		92.2%	North Italian	+	7.8%	Northwest Russian	@	2.86
19		90.7%	North Italian	+	9.3%	UA	@	2.9
20		80.1%	North Italian	+	19.9%	RO	@	2.9

 

[Drac II]

A 2009 autosomal study by Moorjani et al. that used between 500K and 1.5 Million SNPs estimated that the proportion of sub-Saharan African ancestry is 2.4% in Spain, 1.9 % in Greece and 1.5% in Tuscany. According to the authors, this is consistent in the case of Spain, with the historically known movement of individuals of North African ancestry into Iberia, although it is possible that this estimate also reflects a wider range of mixture times.^[36] According to the authors, application of f4 Ancestry Estimation, a method which produces accurate estimates of ancestry proportions, even in the absence of data from the true ancestral populations,^[38] suggests that the "highest proportion of African ancestry in Europe is in Iberia (Portugal 3.2±0.3% and Spain 2.4±0.3%)

Strange. You picked the paper they did NOT publish in preference to the one they DID publish, which actually contradicts their statement that the highest sub-Saharan input is supposedly in Iberia (unless you very dishonestly lump Spain and Portugal as one single "country"):

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article...ournal.pgen.1001373.t002&representation=PNG_M

Which shows that southern Italy (2.7%) alone has more of it than all Spain put together (2.4%). They found these results for Italy "consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire". And using STRUCTURE they also found the same results: southern Italy (1.7%) had more than all of Spain (1.1%)

Notice also that they did not extend the same "courtesy" of separating Spain into 3 separate regions like they did with Italy.

As you can see, the Iberian penninsula is the most spoiled by SSA admixture as a consequence of Moorish Invasion and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

I would not be so sure about that, since judging by the latest autosomal results Italy also has more of it than even Portugal:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0050794

"This analysis indicated that Italians have a basal proportion of sub-Saharan ancestry that is higher (9.2%, on average) than other central or northern European populations (1.5%, on average). The amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in other Mediterranean countries (7.1%)."

 

[wormhole]

This study you linked me to is rather chaotic and poorly presented with potentially interesting but very confusingly reported data. This is seen through the hyper-obsolete and sometimes sloppy nomenclature they use and the many bugs in the presentation of the data. The very paper claiming 9.2% SSA ancestry (which is absurd) was debunked here (https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/italian-haploid-genetics-messy-paper/) This thread has gotten ridiculous. Dienekes has already debunked any study you have found or posted including the Moorjani one. When people think of Black ancestry in Europe, it's Spain and Portugal. Not Italy. In fact, SSA mtDNA L can be found in up to 20% in some parts of Portugal. Let that sink in for awhile. By the way, North African's aren't Negroid so their gene flow doesn't matter. The "Africa" section of the study you posted was referencing Caucasoid North Africans. Not Negroes.

 

[Drac II]

This study you linked me to is rather chaotic and poorly presented with potentially interesting but very confusingly reported data. This is seen through the hyper-obsolete and sometimes sloppy nomenclature they use and the many bugs in the presentation of the data.

Now you are just plagiarizing the opinions of an anonymous blogger.

The very paper claiming 9.2% SSA ancestry (which is absurd) was debunked here (https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/italian-haploid-genetics-messy-paper/)

That's hardly a "debunking" of anything, more like an anonymous blogger expressing his opinions about supposedly obsolete nomenclature used in the paper. Plus he does not even say anything about the part being talked about here: the sub-Saharan African input in Italy according to their autosomal results.

This thread has gotten ridiculous.

That happened the very second that you irrupted into it with your personal issues regarding "black" influence in Europe, specially in Italy. You have done this in several other threads, and your choice of words (like "spoiled") very clearly show why you desperately want any other Europeans to have higher levels of it than Italians. To you having anything to do with sub-Saharan Africa is a "blemish".

Dienekes has already debunked any study you have found or posted including the Moorjani one.

That's funny, because it was you who brought up the authors of that study, an earlier version of the study which they did not publish in favor of a more complete version of it which they did publish. You should have been more careful and examined their results before bringing it up in your attempts to "slander" (because it is obvious that to you sub-Saharan influence is an "insult") Spaniards and Portuguese, because it backfired on you.

And Dienekes is just a blogger, an aficionado of genetics, he is no position to "debunk" a genetic study that other geneticists have not "debunked" or at least criticized. He can give his opinions about it, but that's it.

When people think of Black ancestry in Europe, it's Spain and Portugal. Not Italy.

Really? Is that why by simply going to Google and looking for references to Italians and blacks you get so many thousands upon thousands of hits of people associating the two? I am pretty sure you are well aware of how common this topic is among people, which explains your behavior.

In fact, SSA mtDNA L can be found in up to 20% in some parts of Portugal. Let that sink in for awhile.

The difference is that those earlier studies you are referring to are about haplogroups, a subject open to interpration. The ones that you desperately want to question or eliminate altogether are autosomal studies, which are considered more thorough than haplogroups. "Let that sink in for a while".

By the way, North African's aren't Negroid so their gene flow doesn't matter. The "Africa" section of the study you posted was referencing Caucasoid North Africans. Not Negroes.

Apparently you did not bother to read the quote, as it very clearly is referring to sub-Saharan African gene flow in Northern Europeans and European Mediterraneans.

 

[wormhole]

Really? Is that why by simply going to Google and looking for references to Italians and blacks you get so many thousands upon thousands of hits of people associating the two? I am pretty sure you are well aware of how common this topic is among people, which explains your behavior.

Doesn't really help your case when they are only referring to Sicilians. Not all Italians. In addition to that, everybody is taking "evidence" from a fictional movie that Tarantino helped write. THAT is why there is a faulty common association between the 2. That is why there are so many search results. You know this, but aren't mentioning it because of how stupid you know it actually is. It's all Jewish/Liberal propaganda. The fact that you believe that this association is in anyway relevant is a testament to your stupidity.

Nothing backfired on me. I'm sure that you're aware of the Muslim conquest. It affected Spain and Portugal the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there and shows in specific gradients. I guess you're Portuguese or Spanish, and it upsets you which is why you're trying to insult Italians. That would explain your behavior. Looks like you flag is Catalan? You never know, somewhere in your maternal line could be a negro since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in mtDNA studies.

I didn't plagiarize when I provided the link right after the quote now did I? Read next time before talking.

You haven't "won any argument", or "stuck it to the man" at all. Nobody else thinks that these papers are valid and everybody most certainly knows that 9.2% SSA would in actuality, change the look of Italians dramatically.

Also, from an earlier post:

"Medical studies have concluded that genetic traits found primarily in Africa (>80%) can be found at up to 20% of the Sardinian population and that there is a cline of African genetic input decreasing as one moves away from Iberia in a north easterly direction (note, the Grain I mentioned earlier) [3].

1. Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, et al. (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians"

2. Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". European Journal of Immunogenetics 29 (3): 205–11.

3. Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, et al. (March 2000). "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians". Tissue Antigens 55 (3): 239–49.

Thus, there is medical evidence that suggests Sardinia and Iberia share significantly higher levels of gene flow from Africa, perhaps as high as 20% in some areas. However, the relative isolation and European genetic influx into these areas has decreased the total African admixture to some degree."