K36 from Eurogenes

Eurogenes might be a mere internet blog, the guy behind it happens to know stuff about population genetics, biostatistics and results interpretation. Just because it's a DIY project doesn't mean it has no value.

As its author explains somewhere in said blog, the Ashkenazi population is in itself an admixture of other populations. What K36 is showing you are the populations your Ashkenazi admixture is made of. If you want to get tested by another institution, your only realistic other choice would be FTDNA, whose new MyOrigins tool shows very interesting results, which can then be compared to 23andme's and Gedmatch's (you can upload your 23andme data to FTDNA - for a price - or order a new sample kit if you want to start over from scratch).
You might get apparently contradictory results (i, for one, did), but it's mainly because the reference populations they chose are different to begin with. If you want to get an example of this, do the Jtest and EUtest on Gedmatch: the only difference is that there is an Ashkenazi group in Jtest, everything else is the same: all your percentage which were grouped under Ashkenazi in Jtest will be added to a number of other groups in Eutest, showing which populations their reference Ashkenazi admixture is made of.

I hope this makes things a bit more clear.
 
Eurogenes might be a mere internet blog, the guy behind it happens to know stuff about population genetics, biostatistics and results interpretation. Just because it's a DIY project doesn't mean it has no value.

As its author explains somewhere in said blog, the Ashkenazi population is in itself an admixture of other populations. What K36 is showing you are the populations your Ashkenazi admixture is made of. If you want to get tested by another institution, your only realistic other choice would be FTDNA, whose new MyOrigins tool shows very interesting results, which can then be compared to 23andme's and Gedmatch's (you can upload your 23andme data to FTDNA - for a price - or order a new sample kit if you want to start over from scratch).
You might get apparently contradictory results (i, for one, did), but it's mainly because the reference populations they chose are different to begin with. If you want to get an example of this, do the Jtest and EUtest on Gedmatch: the only difference is that there is an Ashkenazi group in Jtest, everything else is the same: all your percentage which were grouped under Ashkenazi in Jtest will be added to a number of other groups in Eutest, showing which populations their reference Ashkenazi admixture is made of.

I hope this makes things a bit more clear.

The "scene" of human genomics would be poorer without enthusiast bloggers. The admixture maps Maciamo has put on this site are based on Dodecad calculators of Dienekes, those are another hobbyist project comparable to Polako's Eurogenes.
 
The "scene" of human genomics would be poorer without enthusiast bloggers. The admixture maps Maciamo has put on this site are based on Dodecad calculators of Dienekes, those are another hobbyist project comparable to Polako's Eurogenes.

No, they are not comparable. Dodecad provides sourcing for each and every single sample used, and a detailed, exhaustive description of the methodology used so that anyone can verify the findings. That is not the case for Eurogenes.
 
No, they are not comparable. Dodecad provides sourcing for each and every single sample used, and a detailed, exhaustive description of the methodology used so that anyone can verify the findings. That is not the case for Eurogenes.

They both use the same programs and same academic samples. The only difference is that Dodecad includes project members (marked as Country_D) in the calculators besides academic samples. Dodecad's been on hold since 2012 so if anything those calculators are now the less comprehensive of the two - certainly so for any non-member because the "calculator effect" makes their results divergent from the population averages of the original run. ADMIXTURE program is ADMIXTURE program and HGDP Sardinians are HGDP Sardinians whether used by Dienekes or Polako, and you can test the validity of both equally by downloading the samples and the programs. I don't see what's the big deal here, as far as I know there isn't some specific instance of trickery that Polako is guilty of but Dienekes isn't.
 
Population
Amerindian0.11%
Arabian-
Armenian-
Basque4.40%
Central_African-
Central_Euro8.74%
East_African-
East_Asian-
East_Balkan1.98%
East_Central_Asian-
East_Central_Euro3.91%
East_Med-
Eastern_Euro4.06%
Fennoscandian15.25%
French8.55%
Iberian14.52%
Indo-Chinese-
Italian1.30%
Malayan-
Near_Eastern-
North_African-
North_Atlantic18.22%
North_Caucasian0.81%
North_Sea16.83%
Northeast_African-
Oceanian-
Omotic-
Pygmy-
Siberian-
South_Asian-
South_Central_Asian-
South_Chinese-
Volga-Ural-
West_African-
West_Caucasian-
West_Med1.31%
 
They both use the same programs and same academic samples. The only difference is that Dodecad includes project members (marked as Country_D) in the calculators besides academic samples. Dodecad's been on hold since 2012 so if anything those calculators are now the less comprehensive of the two - certainly so for any non-member because the "calculator effect" makes their results divergent from the population averages of the original run. ADMIXTURE program is ADMIXTURE program and HGDP Sardinians are HGDP Sardinians whether used by Dienekes or Polako, and you can test the validity of both equally by downloading the samples and the programs. I don't see what's the big deal here, as far as I know there isn't some specific instance of trickery that Polako is guilty of but Dienekes isn't.

Validity of samples comes in academic studies but not in hobby blogs; Ramming whatever unconfirmed data through a "calculator" with no validation/supervision is the essence of a hobby blog along with premium skatchy self-creations; In reality its just complete kiddy nonsense (bloggers pretending to be scientists or even legit sources) and not even worth mentioning; Especially in the light of academic data (which are either confirmed or obscured by other academic data/studies) for Hobby Blogs are in fact just Hobby Blogs (aka Eurogense) no matter how much in a frenzy you are for that blogger;
 
Ethnicity: Ashkenazi Jewish
K36 results:


Population
Amerindian-
Arabian2.43%
Armenian6.08%
Basque1.91%
Central_African-
Central_Euro1.74%
East_African-
East_Asian-
East_Balkan3.11%
East_Central_Asian-
East_Central_Euro1.11%
East_Med15.86%
Eastern_Euro-
Fennoscandian-
French4.88%
Iberian13.16%
Indo-Chinese-
Italian17.43%
Malayan-
Near_Eastern12.77%
North_African2.08%
North_Atlantic6.17%
North_Caucasian6.93%
North_Sea-
Northeast_African-
Oceanian-
Omotic-
Pygmy-
Siberian-
South_Asian-
South_Central_Asian-
South_Chinese-
Volga-Ural-
West_African-
West_Caucasian1.59%
West_Med2.73%



I seem to have a lot of Iberian admixture, what could that mean?

don't bother with k36 eurogenes, it was something done by davidski to incorporate more iberian people into the "american" testers in gedmatch( they never saw much iberian in their autosomal ), so he "tweaked" his formula............but he has always ensured that his personnel AuDNA remains Polish.

I never have any "iberian" in my AuDna in any/all gedmatch tests ( except K36 ) , no iberian in Ftdna, nil in 23andme, nil in Natgeno2, nil in Interpretome, nil in Yhrd ............but have aragon and valencia as 3rd and 4th for K36

I have no issue in being iberian if I am Iberian, but.............we want the truth
 
Validity of samples comes in academic studies but not in hobby blogs; Ramming whatever unconfirmed data through a "calculator" with no validation/supervision is the essence of a hobby blog along with premium skatchy self-creations; In reality its just complete kiddy nonsense (bloggers pretending to be scientists or even legit sources) and not even worth mentioning; Especially in the light of academic data (which are either confirmed or obscured by other academic data/studies) for Hobby Blogs are in fact just Hobby Blogs (aka Eurogense) no matter how much in a frenzy you are for that blogger;

Calculators like ones that can be found in Gedmatch are one thing, software like ADMIXTURE used by bloggers like Dienekes and Polako is a program used in academic studies, and the genetic samples they use are also used in academic studies - like the HGDP samples. Genome bloggers are indeed outside academic process and their final products aren't something that gets published in academic journal, but their methods aren't obscure. This is my point about the issue.

You can dismiss their results of course - that is your right - but remember that this very site uses data produced by one such hobby blog, Dodecad, for "admixture maps". Would you say putting them up hurts Maciamo's credibility?
 
don't bother with k36 eurogenes, it was something done by davidski to incorporate more iberian people into the "american" testers in gedmatch( they never saw much iberian in their autosomal ), so he "tweaked" his formula............but he has always ensured that his personnel AuDNA remains Polish.

I never have any "iberian" in my AuDna in any/all gedmatch tests ( except K36 ) , no iberian in Ftdna, nil in 23andme, nil in Natgeno2, nil in Interpretome, nil in Yhrd ............but have aragon and valencia as 3rd and 4th for K36

Absolutely;
Its just a pathetic sad charade and the Credibility for such an "ambitious" hobby blog speaks for itself - hardly any; No supervisions no verifications so whats even the point; All just self-created data by the blogger who owns it;
 
Eurogenes might be a mere internet blog, the guy behind it happens to know stuff about population genetics, biostatistics and results interpretation. Just because it's a DIY project doesn't mean it has no value.

As its author explains somewhere in said blog, the Ashkenazi population is in itself an admixture of other populations. What K36 is showing you are the populations your Ashkenazi admixture is made of. If you want to get tested by another institution, your only realistic other choice would be FTDNA, whose new MyOrigins tool shows very interesting results, which can then be compared to 23andme's and Gedmatch's (you can upload your 23andme data to FTDNA - for a price - or order a new sample kit if you want to start over from scratch).
You might get apparently contradictory results (i, for one, did), but it's mainly because the reference populations they chose are different to begin with. If you want to get an example of this, do the Jtest and EUtest on Gedmatch: the only difference is that there is an Ashkenazi group in Jtest, everything else is the same: all your percentage which were grouped under Ashkenazi in Jtest will be added to a number of other groups in Eutest, showing which populations their reference Ashkenazi admixture is made of.

I hope this makes things a bit more clear.

Alright, thanks.
 
Absolutely;
Its just a pathetic sad charade and the Credibility for such an "ambitious" hobby blog speaks for itself - hardly any; No supervisions no verifications so whats even the point; All just self-created data by the blogger who owns it;

Which DNA company is credible?
 
Which DNA company is credible?

Harvard Medical School, Stanford Uni. or any Uni and Uni Clinic.
Or basically everything that does not have Blog in its title and is in fact not a blog; For blog screams Nonsense and is just silly iss (but to each his own); Proper academic refs. cost money but they are proper academic refs. and not whatever a blogger pulls out of his ... (i.e. "logic");
As for companies i dont get payed for doing commercials so;

Salbrox434107 said:
You can dismiss their results of course - that is your right - but remember that this very site uses data produced by one such hobby blog, Dodecad, for "admixture maps". Would you say putting them up hurts Maciamo's credibility?

No;
Because the data for these maps are given i.e. clearly labeled; Thus the source and its credibility are known (whatever it is);
 
Harvard Medical School, Stanford Uni. or any Uni and Uni Clinic.
Or basically everything that does not have Blog in its title and is in fact a blog; For that screams Nonsense and is just silly iss (but to each his own); Proper academic refs. cost money but they are proper academic refs. and not whatever a blogger pulls out of his ... (i.e. "logic");
As for companies i dont get payed for doing commercials so;


Alright, How much does it cost to get an Autosomal/Mtdna/Y chromosome test with Stanford uni? Does 23andme count as credible? What about Geno 2.0?
 
You seem fit enough to do a phone call or correspondence on your own;

Alright, thanks. Are 23andme and Geno 2.0 considered credible?
 
Eurogenes might be a mere internet blog, the guy behind it happens to know stuff about population genetics, biostatistics and results interpretation. Just because it's a DIY project doesn't mean it has no value.

As its author explains somewhere in said blog, the Ashkenazi population is in itself an admixture of other populations. What K36 is showing you are the populations your Ashkenazi admixture is made of. If you want to get tested by another institution, your only realistic other choice would be FTDNA, whose new MyOrigins tool shows very interesting results, which can then be compared to 23andme's and Gedmatch's (you can upload your 23andme data to FTDNA - for a price - or order a new sample kit if you want to start over from scratch).
You might get apparently contradictory results (i, for one, did), but it's mainly because the reference populations they chose are different to begin with. If you want to get an example of this, do the Jtest and EUtest on Gedmatch: the only difference is that there is an Ashkenazi group in Jtest, everything else is the same: all your percentage which were grouped under Ashkenazi in Jtest will be added to a number of other groups in Eutest, showing which populations their reference Ashkenazi admixture is made of.

I hope this makes things a bit more clear.

you are correct for the jtest and Eutest............but is the program accurate, the last tweak of these, left me puzzled.
Besides, what will it give, 1 to 2% here or there .........let him test!

He can try Interpretome if he has done 23andme ...........its the only program that matches ( for me ) with ysearch people , gedmatch triangulation and Yhrd people............but none really explain the jewish component. You need to communicate with these people matches
 
I tried all the different calculators at GEDmatch. Eurogenes was most in accordance with my myOrigins results at FTDNA for myself and two of my closest relatives. Dodecad was the least accurate, possibly because it is not updated.
 
I tried all the different calculators at GEDmatch. Eurogenes was most in accordance with my myOrigins results at FTDNA for myself and two of my closest relatives. Dodecad was the least accurate, possibly because it is not updated.
I agree with you. Dodecad seems quite odd, actually. Eurogenes hunter-gatherers vs farmers, for example, matched well with myOrigins results, in my case.
 
My results according to the test (run through GEDmatch):
Amerindian-
Arabian0.41%
Armenian3.32%
Basque2.73%
Central_African-
Central_Euro4.83%
East_African-
East_Asian-
East_Balkan5.24%
East_Central_Asian-
East_Central_Euro3.19%
East_Med10.43%
Eastern_Euro-
Fennoscandian3.64%
French4.26%
Iberian13.97%
Indo-Chinese-
Italian26.21%
Malayan-
Near_Eastern3.11%
North_African-
North_Atlantic2.13%
North_Caucasian-
North_Sea7.00%
Northeast_African-
Oceanian-
Omotic-
Pygmy-
Siberian-
South_Asian-
South_Central_Asian-
South_Chinese-
Volga-Ural-
West_African-
West_Caucasian1.97%
West_Med7.56%
 
I'm Ashkenazi Jewish by ethnicity, here are my K36 and Hunter gatherer vs farmer results, are these calculators accurate?

K36:

Population
Amerindian-
Arabian2.43%
Armenian6.08%
Basque1.91%
Central_African-
Central_Euro1.74%
East_African-
East_Asian-
East_Balkan3.11%
East_Central_Asian-
East_Central_Euro1.11%
East_Med15.86%
Eastern_Euro-
Fennoscandian-
French4.88%
Iberian13.17%
Indo-Chinese-
Italian17.43%
Malayan-
Near_Eastern12.76%
North_African2.08%
North_Atlantic6.17%
North_Caucasian6.93%
North_Sea-
Northeast_African-
Oceanian-
Omotic-
Pygmy-
Siberian-
South_Asian-
South_Central_Asian-
South_Chinese-
Volga-Ural-
West_African-
West_Caucasian1.59%
West_Med2.73%






Farmer vs hunter gatherer:


Population
Anatolian Farmer28.09%
Baltic Hunter Gatherer17.52%
Middle Eastern Herder16.68%
East Asian Farmer0.34%
South American Hunter Gatherer-
South Asian Hunter Gatherer-
North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer-
East African Pastoralist0.36%
Oceanian Hunter Gatherer0.23%
Mediterranean Farmer35.72%
Pygmy Hunter Gatherer-
Bantu Farmer1.07%

 

This thread has been viewed 188576 times.

Back
Top