share your puntDNAL K11 results.

[Alan]

A New Calculator is around based on Lazaridis 2014. Share your results

Here the description from Gedmatch

This calculator utilizes public data from the Harvard study done by Lazaridis in 2014 as well as other publicly available data in order to create a calculator that has ancient components. These ancient components include: Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE), Early European Farmers (EEF), and West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG_UHG). For more information about these components and the study click HERE. Questions and comments about this calculator should be directed to Abdullahi Warsame at [email protected]

Population

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Oceanian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]-[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Near_East[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]19.71%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Eastern Farmer
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]36.66%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]E_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]-[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Beringian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.39%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Sub-Saharan[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.75%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Amerindian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]1.36%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Siberian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]-[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]ASI[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]5.45%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]EEF[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]29.64%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]WHG-UHG[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]6.03%[/TD]

 

[Maciamo]

Where can the calculator be downloaded ?

 

[Alan]

Where can the calculator be downloaded ?

It's on Gedmatch. If you have an account you can use the calculator. Unfortunately I don't know where it can be downloaded.

However you could mail them for further information.

 

[Alan]

the "Near Eastern" component must be DNA which does not fit quite well into the EEF cluster, most likely includes genes from Eastern/Teal farmers(without the ANE portion) from the Iranian plateau and/or Southern farmer DNA from Northwest Saudi Arabia.

 

[Goga]

Near_East seems to be at least partly Semitic.

My gedmatch is showing Caucas-Gedrosia instead of ANE. But I guess it's the same as ANE right?

Here are my results:

ANE : 38.09 %
EEF : 28.62 %
Near_East : 17.73 %
ASI : 7.64 %
WHG-UHG : 4,68 %

 

[RobertColumbia]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Population[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Oceanian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]-[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Near_East[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]1.63%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Caucas-Gedrosia[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]19.04%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]E_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]-[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Beringian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.26%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Sub-Saharan[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]-[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Amerindian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]1.15%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Siberian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.42%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]ASI[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.30%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]EEF[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]39.41%[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]WHG-UHG[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]37.79%[/TD]

I suppose these results make sense. I have a lot more WHG-UHG and a lot less Near_East than both of you.

 

[John Doe]

23andme


Population
Oceanian -
Near_East 15.20%
Caucas-Gedrosia 22.45%
E_Asian 0.60%
Beringian -
Sub-Saharan 1.37%
Amerindian -
Siberian 0.64%
ASI 0.23%
EEF 44.81%
WHG-UHG 14.70%




FTDNA


Population
Oceanian -
Near_East 14.62%
Caucas-Gedrosia 22.96%
E_Asian -
Beringian -
Sub-Saharan 1.83%
Amerindian -
Siberian 1.07%
ASI 0.20%
EEF 44.58%
WHG-UHG 14.72%

 

[Goga]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"][/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"][/TD]

I suppose these results make sense. I have a lot more WHG-UHG and a lot less Near_East than both of you.

Yeah, I don't think that Europeans have a lot Semtic DNA in them. I guess that Kurds have between 5 - 10 Semitic DNA in them. What is more interesting is that our Ashkenazi Jewish friend above has less Near_East component than me. I understand that Ashkenazi Jewish people are mixed with native Europeans, but as of the ancient Semitic origin they should also much of Semitic DNA in them.

While I, as a Kurds, have ancient Iranic (Iranid) origin and maybe even some Eastern Iranic (Parthian) influences, that's why high ANE and somehow high ASI from BMAC? But later a little bit mixed with Hurrians (full of ANE & WHG-UHG) from the Caucasus and Semitic folks, like Assyrians and Babylonians.


I don't think that Near_East component is from the Hurrians, because I guess that folks in the Caucasus have much less of Near_East component, but I can be wrong.

 

[Goga]

Basically, Kurds, Persians, Gilaki, Talysh, Mazanderani, Lur, Ossetians & Georgians do belong to the same race. I guess that Georgians, Ossetians (Alanians/Sarmatians), Persians and Kurds (Medes) are basically the same people, although Kurds & Persians have slightly more Semitic DNA in them (from Babylonians & Assyrians). Georgians have a lot of Iranic DNA in them, but somehow they don't speak Iranic but Kartvelian language instead.

But it has been said that that Proto-Kartvelian and Iranic/Indo-European languages are very similar and closely related to each other. And like ancient Iranic languages, Kurdish and Katvelian do have ergativity construction.

" The ablaut patterns of Proto-Kartvelian are highly similar to those of the Indo-European languages, and so it is widely thought that Proto-Kartvelian interacted with Indo-European at a relatively early date. This is reinforced by a fairly large number of words borrowed from Indo-European, such as the Proto-Kartvelian *mḳerd- (breast), and its possible relation to the Proto-Indo-European *ḱerd- (heart). Proto-Kartvelian *ṭep- (warm) may also be directly derived from Proto-Indo-European *tep- “warm”.^[1] It is also asserted that the name of wine in Indo-European languages is borrowed from Proto-Kartvelian *ɣwino, implicating quite close relations between these languages. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Kartvelian_language

 

[Alan]

There isn't any Caucaso_Gedrosia component there have you guys confused the calculator or did you confuse it with ANE? It can't be Caucaso_Gedrosia because usually I score 66% Caucaso_Gedrosia.

We shouldn't mix up ancient components with modern once that won't work because modern components are composed of 2 or 3 ancient once. That means you can't speak of Caucaso_Gedrosia, EEF and ANE in one calculator. This is why this calculator does not include Caucaso_Gedrosia, Mediterranean or North Europan.

"Near East" component is not Semitic. It is the farmer DNA that does not fit well into EEF cluster. Part of it came via Semites another part is basically Iranian Plateau/North Caucasus (Gedrosia) type farmer DNA.

For the last time Parthians are not an East Iranic people. They are Northwest Iranic people descend from Medes with a Scythian admixture.


Edit: I see the label has been changed to Caucaso_Gedrosia. Must have been a typo from the beginning. Eastern Farmer aka teal would have been a better fit as a name.

 

[Regio X]

Here are mine



Just 51432 SNPs used.

 

[Goga]

Look at the picture. Gedmatch is saying here Caucas-Gedrosia instead of ANE. First it was called ANE, but somebody changed the name.

That's why I was telling that Near_East is partly Semitic. Or BETTER, Semitic is partly Near_East...


Proto-Semitic = Near_East + some EEF + some East African?

 

[Angela]

It's definitely labeled Caucasus/Gedrosia, which is a modern component and contains more than ANE.

The Lazaridis analysis is based on a Stuttgart sample, Malta, and Loschbour. If the ancient genomes are available, and they go through the methodology as explained in the paper, it should be possible to create an accurate calculator for personal use.

The same goes for the Haak et al analysis. Just use the same ancient samples, if you can get access to them.

The problems start when the bloggers try to extrapolate "other" clusters, like ENF, when they don't have a sample, or WHG/UHG, or Basal Eurasian for that matter. All attempts to do this sort of thing have been proven wrong.

We now have an ENF from Anatolia, we also have an EHG genome. Once we get a "teal" genome, I'm sure the academics will provide national averages for that combination. The bloggers could then create a calculator for it. I'm particularly interested to see this because I think the "Yamnaya" percentages for certain areas may be inflated because of excess EHG.

Maybe if we get an early farmer from far eastern Anatolia, or Central Asia, and an ANE sample closer in time and from Central Asia, those could be used for more detailed clusters.

For really accurate calculators we're going to need to wait for those ancient samples, in my opinion.

That said, and reading the tea leaves here, I would guess that the Caucasus/Gedrosia cluster is similar to the one in the Genographic analysis, and probably most Europeans would get a similar number for that, or at least the variation would be very limited. I don't know, might it be an approximation of "teal", and the WHG/UHG number is the additional WHG/UHG (over and above what is in EEF and Caucasus/Gedrosia) and so would include the "WHG and EHG from Europe?

The major differences for Europeans will be the proportion of EEF versus WHG/UHG, and the amount of "Near East" in northern versus southern Europe. Any talk of "Near Eastern" meaning "Semitic" is anachronistic. Semitic is first of all a language designation, and even if stretched to mean an "ethnic" designation, is too modern. In terms of this analysis it may mean additional eastern farmer genes (not accounted for by Caucasus/Gedrosia) that entered Europe some time after the early Neolithic. Whether that means mid-to-late Neolithic transition/Bronze Age/ Iron Age, or Empire/early Medieval period is anyone's guess at this point. Without some "ancient" samples it's just speculation.

 

[Goga]

On MDLP 13 Ultimate, they make a differentiation between ANE and Caucas-Gedrosia.

There I do score slightly less ANE with 33.37 % . While on puntDNAL I do score 38.09 %. It's still the most frequent auDNA component, though. Caucas-Gedrosia is very closely second with almost the same amount, 33.26 % .

Most of Caucas-Gedrosia here became EEF on puntDNAL.

ANE : 33.37 %
Caucas-Gedrosia : 33.26
ENF : 13.61 %
Near East : 12.62 %

 

[Angela]

It's definitely labeled Caucasus/Gedrosia, which is a modern component and contains more than ANE.

The Lazaridis analysis is based on a Stuttgart sample, Malta, and Loschbour. If the ancient genomes are available, and they go through the methodology as explained in the paper, it should be possible to create an accurate calculator for personal use.

The same goes for the Haak et al analysis. Just use the same ancient samples, if you can get access to them.

The problems start when the bloggers try to extrapolate "other" clusters, like ENF, when they don't have a sample, or WHG/UHG, or Basal Eurasian for that matter. All attempts to do this sort of thing have been proven wrong.

We now have an ENF from Anatolia, we also have an EHG genome. Once we get a "teal" genome, I'm sure the academics will provide national averages for that combination. The bloggers could then create a calculator for it. I'm particularly interested to see this because I think the "Yamnaya" percentages for certain areas may be inflated because of excess EHG.

Maybe if we get an early farmer from far eastern Anatolia, or Central Asia, and an ANE sample closer in time and from Central Asia, those could be used for more detailed clusters.

For really accurate calculators we're going to need to wait for those ancient samples, in my opinion.

That said, and reading the tea leaves here, I would guess that the Caucasus/Gedrosia cluster is similar to the one in the Genographic analysis, and probably most Europeans would get a similar number for that, or at least the variation would be very limited. I don't know, might it be an approximation of "teal", and the WHG/UHG number is the additional WHG/UHG (over and above what is in EEF and Caucasus/Gedrosia) and so would include the "WHG and EHG from Europe?

The major differences for Europeans will be the proportion of EEF versus WHG/UHG, and the amount of "Near East" in northern versus southern Europe. Any talk of "Near Eastern" meaning "Semitic" is anachronistic. Semitic is first of all a language designation, and even if stretched to mean an "ethnic" designation, is too modern. In terms of this analysis it may mean additional eastern farmer genes (not accounted for by Caucasus/Gedrosia) that entered Europe some time after the early Neolithic. Whether that means mid-to-late Neolithic transition/Bronze Age/ Iron Age, or Empire/early Medieval period is anyone's guess at this point. Without some "ancient" samples it's just speculation.

I've just seen some more results. All the Europeans-Irish, English, French, Southeast French, German, Italian, have from 17-22 for the "Caucasus-Gedrosia" labeled element. I think the eastern Europeans would be similar. The only ones with much lover levels (10%) are Iberians from what I can see, who have levels closer to those of some North Africans. This is the same pattern that can be seen via the Genographic test.

If that cluster does correlate with "teal", and the Yamnaya were half "teal", either the actual number of "Celts" who reached Iberia were lower than we might think going solely by y Dna, or, by the time the "Celts" reached Iberia they were no longer as Yamnaya like or "teal" like as when they entered the rest of Europe, yes?

Oh, the southeast French and northern Italians seem to be very similar, which doesn't at all surprise me.

 

[Alan]

@Angela

Interesting, the name of the component has been changed. Must have been a typo before.


I find the name slightly unfitting, I wouldn't call it exactly Caucaso_Gedrosia but rather "Teal llike" here because includes some ANE derived North European ancestry and a good chunk of the Caucasus gets eaten up by "Near East" and EEF and some of Gedrosia gets eaten up by ASI.

But I have to say it fits with the Lazaridis paper and components. Just that I would call it Teal.

And it also makes more sense in that regard to use Teal (here labeled Caucaso_Gedrosian) EEF and WHG/UHG as components. Since ANE seems to be slightly too ancient to have played a role in any ethnicity in it's pure form. ANE rather mixed into various regions in connection with other components. In Western Asia in connection with farmer DNA (Teal). In Russia in combination with WHG (EHG) and in native Americans in combination with Siberian (Amerindian).

 

[Alan]

Proto-Semitic = Near_East + some EEF + some East African?

roughly and simply explained, yes. Thats close enough. But as I said "Near East" includes halfway Caucasus like ancestry, and the other half is rather "South Farmer" type ancestry and predates Semites. Yet large majority of it was probably distributed by Semites in the Near East. But as you pointed out Semites were not all "Near East" maybe majority but they also had probably a good amoung of EEF.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I'm confused how this guy made the calculator. It looks loosely based on ancient genomes.

My results.

Oceanian: 0.46%
Near East: 4.67%
Caucas-Gedorsia: 15.71%
East Asian 0%
Beringian: 0%
Sub Saharan: 1.35%
Amerindian: 3.75%
Siberian: 0.1%
ASI: 1.67%
EEF: 41.88%
WHG-UHG: 30.41%

 

[Fire Haired14]

It confirms what we already know. In "Steppe" has ancestry related to Northern West Asians and European hunter gatherers. If we didn't have EHG and MA1 we'd still be able to detect WHG and Amerindian-like stuff in Yamnaya.

WHG-UHG looks like it has EHG in it. Because Afanasievo is two-way mix of it and Caucasus-Gedorisa.

Stuttgart.

Near East: 13.87%
Caucas: 2.76%
EEF: 71.81%.
WHG-UHG: 11.04%

Afanasievo.
Caucas: 39.42%
Amerindian: 2.11%
EEF: 13.22%
WHG-UHG: 43.3%

Edit...

Copper age Hungary.
EEF: 69.32%.
WHG: 20.91%
Near East: 9.24%.
Caucas: 0.52%.

Funnel Beaker Sweden.
EEF: 59.24%.
WHG: 30.48%.
Near East: 6.25%
Caucas: 1.44%
Sub Saharan: 1.07%.

 

[Angela]

@Angela

Interesting, the name of the component has been changed. Must have been a typo before.


I find the name slightly unfitting, I wouldn't call it exactly Caucaso_Gedrosia but rather "Teal llike" here. But have to say it fits with the Lazaridis paper and components.

And it also makes more sense in that regard to use Teal (here labeled Caucaso_Gedrosian) EEF and WHG/UHG as components. Since ANE seems to be slightly too ancient to have played a role in any ethnicity in it's pure form. ANE rather mixed into various regions in connection with other components. In Western Asia in connection with farmer DNA (Teal). In Russia in combination with WHG (EHG) and in native Americans in combination with Siberian (Amerindian).

I think that may be right. (See post #15 above and the preceding post) I doubt the researchers are going to be using ANE based on Mal'ta from now on. It's too old. An EEF, (or West Anatolian farmer if they update it), Teal, Additional WHG/UHG, set of clusters is an interesting way of looking at the data. It would let us track how much inflow came into Europe with the Neolithic, how much ancestry went north onto the steppe by way of the Caucasus or East of the Caspian, and how much is, what, Gravettian in Europe? Of course, it would be nice to have the full set as well, West Anatolian farmer, Western European Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, EHG, eastern Anatolian farmer, Central Asian or at least more recent ANE. Who knows if we find the ANE in an unmixed state from a date closer to the admixture time, however, so "Teal" may be the best we can do. If we do get an eastern farmer, however, and someone who is "teal", it shouldn't be too speculative to just subtract it out.