K12 Autosomal map : European admixture (from Dodecad)

[Nobody1]

Im not sure if you actually understood the study you quoted, El Dracc
1. This study clearly shows that Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Italy is between 1%-2% (incl. M1 its 2.3%)
which corresponds perfectly with Achilli et al. 2007 or Gonzales et al. 2003 or Pereira et al. 2005 (all range from 0%-2.9%)

2. The "African" Y-DNA is E1b3 = E-M78 (Fig.3) and E-M78 is from the Balkans (as also mentioned in the study)
in addition there is E-M123 (Near East) and M-81 (Berber N.Africa); all clearly (and as such) mentioned in this study.

Based on these 2 facts (from the study) the study itself concludes:
"Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe."

Now if thats the case that there is only 1%-2% sub-saharan mtDNA and NO sub-saharan Y-DNA in Italy, (and that is the case based on the study itself) than those supposed 9.2% autosomal DNA is very dubious to say the least. especially when concerning the fact that there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated. It only refers to Figure 2, but also on Figure 2 there is no explanation.
And Its complete nonsense when given the fact that Moorjani et al. (2011) used the exact same method (as claimed in this study) for 'sub-saharan - AutosomalDNA' and determined a result of 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal.
w w w . plosgenetics . org / article / info:doi / 10.1371 / journal . pgen . 1001373?

And its funny how the Spaniards get all excited at those numbers, when the study clearly shows that NW Spain (ie. Galicia (the great celtic region) is 7.1% (thats not far from 9.2%) and according to Figure2 NW Spain is even higher than Portugal (on average with Portugal 7.1%)
But unlike Italy, which has a relativly low sub-saharan mtDNA; 1%-2% (as also this study clearly shows), Spain and Portugal on the other hand have the highest sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe:
Spain: Galicia 3.3% Pereira et al. (2005) or Catalonia 2.9% Alvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009) with certain regions and towns
as high as 4.7% - 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and 8.3% (Cordoba) Casas et al. (2006)
Portugal: 11.3% sub-saharan mtDNA in South Portugal Pereira et al. (2005) and Central Portugal 4.3% Gonzales et al. (2003) and up to 22% in certain towns "highest ever reported in Europe"
w w w . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 20737604
South Iberia in total = 7.4% sub-saharan mtDNA Casas et al. (2006)

So 7.1% Sub-Saharan AutosomalDNA plus the highest rate of sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe (up to 22%). thats quite something.
Good study.

 

[Drac II]

Im not sure if you actually understood the study you quoted, El Dracc
1. This study clearly shows that Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Italy is between 1%-2% (incl. M1 its 2.3%)
which corresponds perfectly with Achilli et al. 2007 or Gonzales et al. 2003 or Pereira et al. 2005 (all range from 0%-2.9%)

2. The "African" Y-DNA is E1b3 = E-M78 (Fig.3) and E-M78 is from the Balkans (as also mentioned in the study)
in addition there is E-M123 (Near East) and M-81 (Berber N.Africa); all clearly (and as such) mentioned in this study.

Based on these 2 facts (from the study) the study itself concludes:
"Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe."

Now if thats the case that there is only 1%-2% sub-saharan mtDNA and NO sub-saharan Y-DNA in Italy, (and that is the case based on the study itself) than those supposed 9.2% autosomal DNA is very dubious to say the least. especially when concerning the fact that there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated. It only refers to Figure 2, but also on Figure 2 there is no explanation.
And Its complete nonsense when given the fact that Moorjani et al. (2011) used the exact same method (as claimed in this study) for 'sub-saharan - AutosomalDNA' and determined a result of 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal.
w w w . plosgenetics . org / article / info:doi / 10.1371 / journal . pgen . 1001373?

And its funny how the Spaniards get all excited at those numbers, when the study clearly shows that NW Spain (ie. Galicia (the great celtic region) is 7.1% (thats not far from 9.2%) and according to Figure2 NW Spain is even higher than Portugal (on average with Portugal 7.1%)
But unlike Italy, which has a relativly low sub-saharan mtDNA; 1%-2% (as also this study clearly shows), Spain and Portugal on the other hand have the highest sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe:
Spain: Galicia 3.3% Pereira et al. (2005) or Catalonia 2.9% Alvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009) with certain regions and towns
as high as 4.7% - 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and 8.3% (Cordoba) Casas et al. (2006)
Portugal: 11.3% sub-saharan mtDNA in South Portugal Pereira et al. (2005) and Central Portugal 4.3% Gonzales et al. (2003) and up to 22% in certain towns "highest ever reported in Europe"
w w w . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 20737604
South Iberia in total = 7.4% sub-saharan mtDNA Casas et al. (2006)

So 7.1% Sub-Saharan AutosomalDNA plus the highest rate of sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe (up to 22%). thats quite something.
Good study.

It doesn't matter how hard you try to "spin" things and deviate to older Y-Chromosome and mtDNA studies (and you conveniently leave out some that do not go along with your agenda, like Plaza et al. 2003: 8.1% sub-Saharan lineages in southern Italy), the fact is that the results of this study using autosomes concluded this (clearly identified as "Sub-Saharan African", not North African or from anywhere else):

"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%)."

And where does it say in Figure 2 that "NW Spain (ie. Galicia, the great celtic region) is 7.1%" instead of this percentage being based on the two non-Italian Mediterranean samples they used (Portugal + only NW Spain)? Unless you have proof that a single region of Spain provided more samples than the whole nation of Portugal for an estimate that was intended to represent the entire non-Italian Mediterranean side of Europe in the study (quite unfairly, I may add, since Portugal is well-known to have more sub-Saharan influence than Spain and the rest of Mediterranean Europe, except Italy, according to the autosomal results of this study), don't jump to conclusions.

Also, the study does not even mention Moorjani et al 2011, so it seems that you are just assuming they used exactly the same methods the other authors employed for their estimates. The fact that you don't really know this is strongly suggested by your very own complaint that in this study "there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated."

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

It doesn't matter how hard you try to "spin" things and deviate to older Y-Chromosome and mtDNA studies (and you conveniently leave out some that do not go along with your agenda, like Plaza et al. 2003: 8.1% sub-Saharan lineages in southern Italy), the fact is that the results of this study using autosomes concluded this (clearly identified as "Sub-Saharan African", not North African or from anywhere else):

"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%)."

And where does it say in Figure 2 that "NW Spain (ie. Galicia, the great celtic region) is 7.1%" instead of this percentage being based on the two non-Italian Mediterranean samples they used (Portugal + only NW Spain)? Unless you have proof that a single region of Spain provided more samples than the whole nation of Portugal for an estimate that was intended to represent the entire non-Italian Mediterranean side of Europe in the study (quite unfairly, I may add, since Portugal is well-known to have more sub-Saharan influence than Spain and the rest of Mediterranean Europe, except Italy, according to the autosomal results of this study), don't jump to conclusions.

Also, the study does not even mention Moorjani et al 2011, so it seems that you are just assuming they used exactly the same methods the other authors employed for their estimates. The fact that you don't really know this is strongly suggested by your very own complaint that in this study "there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated."

Just another insecure person using outdated and sometimes dubious haplogroup data to frame certain population groups unjustly. Haplogroups are only meaningful to decipher ancient migration patterns. Little does he know that Iberia's SSA is mostly ancient, unlike some other regions of Europe. So ancient that it's trivial. Some people never, ever learn...an Alice-in-Wonderland moment.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Im not sure if you actually understood the study you quoted, El Dracc
1. This study clearly shows that Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Italy is between 1%-2% (incl. M1 its 2.3%)
which corresponds perfectly with Achilli et al. 2007 or Gonzales et al. 2003 or Pereira et al. 2005 (all range from 0%-2.9%)

2. The "African" Y-DNA is E1b3 = E-M78 (Fig.3) and E-M78 is from the Balkans (as also mentioned in the study)
in addition there is E-M123 (Near East) and M-81 (Berber N.Africa); all clearly (and as such) mentioned in this study.

Based on these 2 facts (from the study) the study itself concludes:
"Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe."

Now if thats the case that there is only 1%-2% sub-saharan mtDNA and NO sub-saharan Y-DNA in Italy, (and that is the case based on the study itself) than those supposed 9.2% autosomal DNA is very dubious to say the least. especially when concerning the fact that there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated. It only refers to Figure 2, but also on Figure 2 there is no explanation.
And Its complete nonsense when given the fact that Moorjani et al. (2011) used the exact same method (as claimed in this study) for 'sub-saharan - AutosomalDNA' and determined a result of 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal.
w w w . plosgenetics . org / article / info:doi / 10.1371 / journal . pgen . 1001373?

And its funny how the Spaniards get all excited at those numbers, when the study clearly shows that NW Spain (ie. Galicia (the great celtic region) is 7.1% (thats not far from 9.2%) and according to Figure2 NW Spain is even higher than Portugal (on average with Portugal 7.1%)
But unlike Italy, which has a relativly low sub-saharan mtDNA; 1%-2% (as also this study clearly shows), Spain and Portugal on the other hand have the highest sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe:
Spain: Galicia 3.3% Pereira et al. (2005) or Catalonia 2.9% Alvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009) with certain regions and towns
as high as 4.7% - 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and 8.3% (Cordoba) Casas et al. (2006)
Portugal: 11.3% sub-saharan mtDNA in South Portugal Pereira et al. (2005) and Central Portugal 4.3% Gonzales et al. (2003) and up to 22% in certain towns "highest ever reported in Europe"
w w w . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 20737604
South Iberia in total = 7.4% sub-saharan mtDNA Casas et al. (2006)

So 7.1% Sub-Saharan AutosomalDNA plus the highest rate of sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe (up to 22%). thats quite something.
Good study.

The studies you reference are of haplogroups and outdated for the most part. Check some of the latest autosomal DNA (complete heritage) statistics and you will find Portugal at 1.4% and Spain comes in at < 1%. (Eurogenes May, 2012) Moreover, the markers are ancient (Mesolithic, Neolithic). Anything so old is trivial. I feel sorry for you, guy.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

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.

Read the autosomal research. Both Spaniards are far more European than Southern Italians. The facts are as plain as day. Haplogroup studies are meaningless w

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."

Read the autosomal research. That's what counts. The most recent autosomal research shows that both Spaniards and Portuguese are far more European than Southern Italians. Moreover, Northern and Western Euro input is well beyond 50% (see Eurogenes, 5 / 2012, among others). S. Italy is nowhere near 50%. Iberians are actually much closer to Danes (but obviously do not cluster with them) than Southern Italians. Professional human population geneticists will laugh at your assertions. Time to move on...

 

[Nobody1]

"spin" ??? whats the spin?

there is no spin, just read the post again. The study clearly states: "Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component" and the Study (itself) has results of 0% Y-DNA and 1%-2% mtDNA. its all in that study.
Yet it claims based on an unknown method and 54 anonymous AIMs, that the AutosomalDNA is 9.2% average Italy and 7.1% average NW Spain and Portugal.
That contradicts their own statements "Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component" and their own results 0% Y-DNA and 1%-2% mtDNA (gene flow).
Apart from that its also completely in contrast to Moorjani et al. (2011) His AutosomalDNA is 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal.
I posted a link (remove spaces) for Moorjani et al. (2011), read all about it.

The same goes for Cerezo et al. (2012) - (Iberia is largely effected but not Italy, despite great no. of samples)
genome . cshlp . org / content / 22 / 5 / 821 / F1. large. jpg

The diff. is that Moorjani actually explains his study and Brisighelli does not.
But, also Brisighelli (your study) clealry shows that the mtDNA results for Italy are 1%-2%, and are therefor absolutely consistent with all other mtDNA studies that range Italy from 0%-2.9% [Ottoni et al. 2009 / Achilli et al. 2007 / Pereira et al. 2005 etc. etc.]

And Galicia is no longer in NW Spain. Thats a surprise. NW = North West

 

[Nobody1]

Are you kidding me?
from what planet did you drop from? In order for a study to be Outdated or Debunked, another study must actually OUT DATE IT with NEW Data or actually Debunk it. Im not aware that thats the case with Achilli, Pereira, Gonzales, Cerezo, Moorjani, Ottoni etc. If you posses such links to studies that clearly "outdate them" than please post them.

Other than that its just wishful thinking calling Genetic studies Outdated because they bust your fantasy.

And mtDNA is just a sprecise and important as AutosomalDNA. If not even preciser, because an AIM cannot be a substitute for a haplotype.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

^^

Sorry, guy, the latest autosomal data blows your codswallop away. There is nothing to talk about. Old haplogroup data? READ CAREFULLY: Haplogroup data is useful mainly to trace ancient migrations. Also, many studies you and your insecure friend quoted are defective in methodology, some radically so. Only autosomal facts count when it comes to determining true heritage percentages. You are using a pocket knife against a laser guided missile. You can't win.

 

[Nobody1]

listen dude, i don t know what game your playing or what you intend to win,
But i let you in on a little secret: There is no such thing as a more important DNA sequence or a lesser one.
mtDNA is just as important as atDNA or Y-DNA, because it reveals your direct maternal lineage so does Y-DNA (males - paternal line). autosomalDNA recombines and kicks out markers each Generation. so to conclude that thats "more" important or "more" precise is nonsense.

Apart from it i have nothing against AutosomolDNA tests or results, i have repeatedly quoted Moorjani et al. (2011). im just saying that the study you hold so dear is in contrast to the results of Moorjani and contradicts its own mtDNA and Y-DNA results; it lacks explanation and method and are therefor dubious. thats all.
you dont consider 7.1% average for NW Spain dubious?

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

^^

No games fella. You keep insisting on using haplogroup frequencies (doesn't matter if it's Y or MtDNA) and such cannot reveal full heritage, only VERY OLD migration patterns. Moorjani's results obviously make no sense, given all the evidence gathered by the likes of Behar (2010), The Eurogenes Project, etc.

This is a dying, almost laughable debate on the internet and new aDNA evidence pops up regularly blowing away the research you so desperately depend on. Don't let your primal insecurities get the best of you. Have a nice day / night.

 

[Nobody1]

new aDNA evidence pops up regularly blowing away the research you so desperately depend on

That doesnt even make any sense, how can mtDNA be blown away when its non-recombining (like Y-DNA) and therefor pretty stationary as a mean of a population (internal). And all those mtDNA and Y-DNA studies are spot on and still count, but good to know that your the decider.
Apart from that, Moorjani et al. (2011) and Auton et al. (2008) clearly state that autosomalDNA is a mirror of mtDNA and Y-DNA gene flow.
So get your facts straight. and whats your point anyways? i just made a comment about a dubious study that contradicts its own statements and own results and is in-off with other studies. but good to know they are all blown away.
keep blowing buddy.

 

[Drac II]

"spin" ??? whats the spin?

there is no spin, just read the post again. The study clearly states: "Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component" and the Study (itself) has results of 0% Y-DNA and 1%-2% mtDNA. its all in that study.
Yet it claims based on an unknown method and 54 anonymous AIMs, that the AutosomalDNA is 9.2% average Italy and 7.1% average NW Spain and Portugal.
That contradicts their own statements "Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component" and their own results 0% Y-DNA and 1%-2% mtDNA (gene flow).
Apart from that its also completely in contrast to Moorjani et al. (2011) His AutosomalDNA is 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal.
I posted a link (remove spaces) for Moorjani et al. (2011), read all about it.

The same goes for Cerezo et al. (2012) - (Iberia is largely effected but not Italy, despite great no. of samples)
genome . cshlp . org / content / 22 / 5 / 821 / F1. large. jpg

The diff. is that Moorjani actually explains his study and Brisighelli does not.
But, also Brisighelli (your study) clealry shows that the mtDNA results for Italy are 1%-2%, and are therefor absolutely consistent with all other mtDNA studies that range Italy from 0%-2.9% [Ottoni et al. 2009 / Achilli et al. 2007 / Pereira et al. 2005 etc. etc.]

And Galicia is no longer in NW Spain. Thats a surprise. NW = North West

Yes, "spin", you know what I am talking about. Read your posts trying to move around what the study plainly states regarding their autosomal results.


Somehow I strongly suspect, based on comparison of both Y-Chromosome/mtDNA and autosomal studies about Spain and Portugal, that if only NW Spain had been used as the only non-Italian Mediterranean sample the so-called "average in other Mediterranean countries" would have been fairly under that quoted 7.1% figure. Had they included people like Greeks and southern French, who in their turn seem to have less than the Spanish, it would still have been lower.


I was the one that brought up Moorjani et al. into the "conversation", remember? Your "friend" did not want to consider it since it does not agree well with his blatant anti-Iberian and pro-Italian agenda.


The study does not contradict itself. How do you know that the authors do not still consider 9.2% to be "minor"? It certainly can't be one of the major components of Italy's DNA, so in a sense it can only be considered "minor" no matter what it's actual value since it will always be small compared to other components of the Italian DNA.


Unlike autosomoes, Y-Chromosomes and mtDNA are not very good for admixture estimates, that's why for this purpose population genetics concentrates more on autosomes.

 

[Nobody1]

No, your spinning things around concerning the 7.1% (of which acc. to Fig. 2 NW Spain is much higher.)
The point is, if you want to uphold this study, than uphold it as it is. Italy average 9.2% and NW Spain and Portugal average 7.1% with NW Spain clearly higher due to Fig.2.
And also the other FACTS from that study: mtDNA = 1%-2% / as low as in all other studies [0%-2.9% range]
Those are the facts from that study.
The conclusion is that mtDNA is truly low in Italy (1%-2% Confirmed) while in Spain it reaches up to 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and Portugal 22% Pereira et al. (2010)

"Y-Chromosomes and mtDNA are not very good for admixture estimates,"
Yes and we all know the admixture estimates from Moorjani and Cerezo. They paint a complete diff. picture than Brisighelli.

 

[Drac II]

No, your spinning things around concerning the 7.1% (of which acc. to Fig. 2 NW Spain is much higher.)
The point is, if you want to uphold this study, than uphold it as it is. Italy average 9.2% and NW Spain and Portugal average 7.1% with NW Spain clearly higher due to Fig.2.
And also the other FACTS from that study: mtDNA = 1%-2% / as low as in all other studies [0%-2.9% range]
Those are the facts from that study.
The conclusion is that mtDNA is truly low in Italy (1%-2% Confirmed) while in Spain it reaches up to 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and Portugal 22% Pereira et al. (2010)

"Y-Chromosomes and mtDNA are not very good for admixture estimates,"
Yes and we all know the admixture estimates from Moorjani and Cerezo. They paint a complete diff. picture than Brisighelli.

The spinning is all yours.

Once again: where in figure 2 does it say that NW Spain bears the brunt of this 7.1% figure? The figure is clearly for Portuguese and NW Spanish samples combined, not for these two separate areas individually.

Cerezo et al. study is about mtDNA lineages. Moorjani et al. was autosomal, and you already know what it says. Southern Italy alone had more than all of Spain put together.

Once again conveniently "forgetting" mtDNA results that do not go well with your agenda either, such as Plaza et al. (2003): 8.1% for Southern Italy, not just a county like in Alvarez et al. (2010)

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

That doesnt even make any sense, how can mtDNA be blown away when its non-recombining (like Y-DNA) and therefor pretty stationary as a mean of a population (internal). And all those mtDNA and Y-DNA studies are spot on and still count, but good to know that your the decider.
Apart from that, Moorjani et al. (2011) and Auton et al. (2008) clearly state that autosomalDNA is a mirror of mtDNA and Y-DNA gene flow.
So get your facts straight. and whats your point anyways? i just made a comment about a dubious study that contradicts its own statements and own results and is in-off with other studies. but good to know they are all blown away.
keep blowing buddy.

My friend, aDNA research always extensively trumps Y or mtDNA results. Haplogroups are a very tiny fraction of ancestry, while autosomal + full heritage gives you the most accurate picture possible of one's genome. You're the one playing games... and on a treadmill. Talk to a real population geneticist. Have a nice night.

 

[Nobody1]

In Fig.2, i believe its 14 with an asterisk that is all (only) NW Spain.
Yes correct, Moorjani figures are autosomal and they are as i have twice already posted: 1.1% N.Italy - 2.7% S.Italy - 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal. And Moorjani and Auton clearly state that aDNA must mirror mtDNA and Y-DNA gene flow. So thats why i consider the Brisighelli numbers (No method, No explanation) highly dubious. If you want to uphold them, than uphold them, but than uphold all the facts from that study (mtDNA, Y-DNA, NW Spain sample etc. etc.) and dont just cherry pick.
"Once again conveniently "forgetting" mtDNA results that do not go well with your agenda either, such as Plaza et al. (2003): 8.1 for Southern Italy,"
No, im not forgetting anything. in fact im not familiar with this study, so if you have a link please post. Apart from that there are many studies after Plaza (2003); Pereira, Ottoni, Achilli, Cerezo and even Brisighelli that have complete diff. figures (1.3%-2.9% South Italy) than your supposed 8.1% from Plaza.

 

[Nobody1]

On what level does aDNA trump Y or mtDNA?
"while autosomal + full heritage gives you the most accurate picture possible of one's genome."
Correct, ones personal genome, not that of an entire population. And what exactly is +Heritage, isnt that the direct Paternal and Maternal lines? I think it is, and thats called Y-DNA and mtDNA

and again, your talking to the wrong dude. I have nothing against aDNA tests or the results of. But to completely (like you did) create a ranking of most valuable DNA is nonsense. there all equally valuable, if not mtDNA and Y-DNA more because of direct lineage and aDNA being recombining thus kicking out markers every generation. Thats my take.

 

[zanipolo]

Are you kidding me?
from what planet did you drop from? In order for a study to be Outdated or Debunked, another study must actually OUT DATE IT with NEW Data or actually Debunk it. Im not aware that thats the case with Achilli, Pereira, Gonzales, Cerezo, Moorjani, Ottoni etc. If you posses such links to studies that clearly "outdate them" than please post them.

Other than that its just wishful thinking calling Genetic studies Outdated because they bust your fantasy.

And mtDNA is just a sprecise and important as AutosomalDNA. If not even preciser, because an AIM cannot be a substitute for a haplotype.

This is logical and I agree.....until someone states that the new study is wrong, then the new study supercedes the old ones......better technology and science over time

 

[Drac II]

In Fig.2, i believe its 14 with an asterisk that is all (only) NW Spain.
Yes correct, Moorjani figures are autosomal and they are as i have twice already posted: 1.1% N.Italy - 2.7% S.Italy - 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal. And Moorjani and Auton clearly state that aDNA must mirror mtDNA and Y-DNA gene flow. So thats why i consider the Brisighelli numbers (No method, No explanation) highly dubious. If you want to uphold them, than uphold them, but than uphold all the facts from that study (mtDNA, Y-DNA, NW Spain sample etc. etc.) and dont just cherry pick.
"Once again conveniently "forgetting" mtDNA results that do not go well with your agenda either, such as Plaza et al. (2003): 8.1 for Southern Italy,"
No, im not forgetting anything. in fact im not familiar with this study, so if you have a link please post. Apart from that there are many studies after Plaza (2003); Pereira, Ottoni, Achilli, Cerezo and even Brisighelli that have complete diff. figures (1.3%-2.9% South Italy) than your supposed 8.1% from Plaza.

Figure 2 clearly shows where the non-Italian Mediterranean samples came from: Portugal and NW Spain (bot have * identifying them as the "Mediterranean" areas in the study besides Italy.) It is two separate places, not just one. That is where their 7.1% figure comes from and they chose it (not quite satisfactorily, I may add, for reasons already explained: Portugal is not the average representative of the Euro-Mediterranean zone in this regard) to represent the rest of the Euro-Mediterranean zone minus Italy. The Italian figure is for all Italy by itself. So Italy by itself had more of this ancestry (9.2%) than Portugal and NW Spain combined (7.1%)

Moorjani et al. says that their results agree with Y-Chromosome and mtDNA data, but this is partly just an empty claim on their part. Geneticists often do this to be in good terms with other colleagues and their results, even if it is actually at odds with their own results. For example, mtDNA data also shows sub-Saharan L sequences clearly present in what Moorjani et al. consider "Northern Europe", yet they state that their results showed that "northern Europeans" do not show evidence of sub-Saharan African gene flow and that this agrees with Y-Chromosome/mtDNA data. A totally false statement.

Plaza et al. 2003 is a very well-known study and easily found online, here:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb...elamaza/PDF/Desde_los_pilares_de_Hercules.pdf

 

[Vallicanus]

Where does it say 8.1pc SS African in South Italy in Plaza's survey?

Where does it say Italians have more African mtDNA than Iberians?
Thank you.