Role of recent admixture in last 1500 years

This is what the paper says:
" We can infer the date of admixture by modeling the decay of LD between ancestral chunks, which decreases more rapidly the longer ago admixture occurred." I didn't find anything more specific.
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2036746823/2051577514/mmc1.pdf

From page 23 of the supplement, this is what they see as the "challenges" (among others) for their program:
3.even in theory our approach finds it challenging to distinguish distinct continuous “pulses” of admixture and continuous migration over some time frame, because of the difficulty of separating exponential mixtures [S? If the time frame were narrow, we expect to infer a single admixture time within the range of migration dates. Where we infer two admixture dates, in particular with the same source groups, the exponential decay signal could also be consistent with more continuous migration, and so we conservatively refer to this as admixture at multiple dates".

Oh, I forgot to mention this doozy of a comment, after all these graphs and percentages etc:
"When we compare the relative differences between pre- and post-admixture groups, we observe no appreciable difference between them, suggesting that admixture has not had a significant impact on genetic variation in West Eurasia (Figure 4G)."

HUH? Then what was this all about, and how valid were their "admixture" numbers?
Thanks for finding it, cause I didn't have time to look for. I was suspecting something in line of mutation of segments and comparing them between populations. It is a valid idea and might serve as a supplementary tool in population genetics, when of course, improved greatly eliminating many uncertainties. However, at the moment, we should view it as an interesting experiment with good potential.
 
Can someone point me to a table or area of the paper and/or supplements where the precise amount of admixture is given for some of these events? I can't find it anywhere.

I'm going blind trying to use a ruler, and it would all be rough estimation at best. Plus, there seem to be differences between what I would estimate about Levant admixture, for example, from Figure 2b versus Figure 4. In figure 2b it looks as if Italy North is at about 2%?, TSI maybe 5%?, and Italy South 10% -12%, while Sicily extraordinarily, by contrast, seems to have none. On Figure 4 a circle at about 18%? value seems to cover all of southern Italy/Sicily, and for TSI it seems to be about 10%. Can somebody explain that to me? Am I just estimating incorrectly from Figure 2b?

As you did, one can just take a ruler and measure the size of the circles for each country/area and then compare them with the percentages they assigned to 3 different-sized circles on the legend on the right. Zooming at 200% into the PDF document the diameters of the three circles are roughly:

7 mm = 5%

1.5 cm = 20%

2.2 cm = 50%

Keeping in mind these measurements and comparing them to the circles on the map, the estimates they seem to give for France are somewhere between 5% and 20% "Levant" (the circle is about 1 cm in diameter, so more than 5%, but since it is smaller than the 20% circle then it also follows that it is less than 20%)

The estimates they give for Romania are less than 5% India (circle is about 6 mm in diameter)

The estimates they give for Italy are roughly more than 5% (circle is about 8 mm) "Levant" in Tuscany, less than 20% (circle is about 1.2 cm) "Levant" and less than 5% (circle is about 4 mm) "West Africa" for southern Italy, while Sicily is given two "West Africa" circles of less than 5% (both circles are about 6 mm), and Sardinia is given 3 circles of less than 5% "Levant", North Africa and "West Africa".

The estimates they give for Spain are less than 5% "West Africa" for the Basque region (circle is about 3 mm), and for the rest about 5% "West Africa" (circle is about 7 mm) and less than 5% Levant (circle is about 5 mm)

Notice that I put "West Africa" and "Levant" in quotation marks because unlike the category labelled "North Africa", these other categories include samples from regions that one would not normally consider as such. The "West Africa" category includes North African samples, and the "Levant" category not only includes Egypt but it should probably more appropriately be called "Middle East", as it includes samples which fall outside what is normally thought of as the "Levant".

Some things in the paper give me pause. On Figure 4 there's no recent "Levantine" flow into northern Italy, or maybe 2% if we go by Figure 2b, but maybe 15% in France? How did France get all that recent Levantine flow. It apparently didn't come by way of northern Italy. Was it by way of Spain? I don't know of any first millennium AD movements from Iberia into France other than through the Moorish forces. Maybe Charles Martel didn't arrive in time? :)

Not likely, considering that Spain also has much less "Levantine" than France.

I'm also confused by the fact that while in the text the authors seem to be proposing the invasions by the Moors as the vector for SSA, the figures show that the North African into some of the areas with the higher SSA is quite low. On Figure 2b, it shows North African only going into Sardinia, yet the West African goes not only into Sardinia but into Italy, Spain and France. How is that possible? The SSA is there, at about 5% if I'm estimating correctly from Figure 4? Wouldn't the SSA have been transmitted by means of people who were largely North African? Don't the proportions seem off? Perhaps the non SSA portion of the Moors is so EEF like that it doesn't register in their algorithm, but doesn't that call into question the ability of their method to "see" not only the date of the admixture but the admixture itself?

They included North African samples in the "West Africa" category. The "Levant" category also has Egyptian samples and from many other places that are not technically the "Levant" either. Not sure why they did this.

I really had hopes that this paper might clarify some of the outstanding questions about the population history of Italy, but I have to say I'm more confused now than I was before. Just in terms of this "Levantine" flow that they're proposing into Italy, I could see it as a result of the Moorish invasions, but they're proposing that the "Levantine" admixture came during the Roman era if I'm reading it correctly, so probably tied somehow to Roman slavery I would think. Fine if that's the case, but weren't the Gauls and the Germans and the British manumitted and allowed to "admix"? Why only the eastern Mediterraneans?

Very likely because they were more numerous than those coming from other areas of the empire. Also, the authors do not specifically mention slaves as the sole cause, so they could also be taking into account the role of all the free foreigners who migrated to Rome from the eastern provinces.
 
As to the amount of West African sub-Saharan DNA, their previous paper shows 0.2% in Spain and 1.2% in southern Italy. Very small, and in Spain's case practically negligible. In fact, I was surprised to see that most of the small amount of sub-Saharan DNA they found in Spain was actually East African. So this can't possibly have much to do with the transatlantic slave trade, as some people have suggested, which was almost exclusively West African.

Well, let us take a look at Spain's Sub-Saharan (Black) ancestry concerning Hellenthal et al 2014;
It equals to 3.0% which is the highest amount in all of Europe; Most prolific is Spain's BANTU-Kenya heritage: 2.5% !

Now, who are these Bantu-Kenyans you might ask; well acc. to Shriner et al 2014 they are 55.3% West-Africa (Niger-Congo) and 24.4% Anuak (Nilo-Saharan) - the rest is Pygmy and undefined;

The Anuaks (from east Africa - same as the Dinka)
125210229.jpg


And you are correct, this substantial Bantu admixture has little to do with the Atlantic-slave trade, it is proper Moorish legacy/heritage (to look up Zanj); As also this K=4 analyses (Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012) reveals using Luhya as the sub-saharan proxy;
0% in Tuscans (Italian group) and French but quite noticeable in Spain and Portugal; Including separated Spanish groups like Catalan etc.;
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047765

In Hellenthal et al 2014 South Italians and Sicilians equal to 1.8% - 1.9% sub-Saharan - while Spaniards top with a solid 3.0% sub-saharan (Greece 0%, Tuscany 0%, North Italy 0.1%pygmy); As also this recent study - further illustrates the Moorish legacy in Spain: K=6 Admix. Analysis - Kushniarevich et al 2015 (Sept.)
http://postimg.org/image/u4ekdbc11/

What was also revealed in Shriner et al 2014 was that Mozabites and Saharawi (close relatives of the Spaniards [Botigue et al 2013]) have no European admixture; So how is it possible for Spaniards, to be than so closely related [Botigue et al 2013] to these African groups? The study gives the answer, by correctly suggesting - it was due to massive Gene-flow from Africa into Spain; Almoravid Dynasty?

This new study (Busby et al - incl. Hellenthal et al) seems to be based on the Hellenthal et al 2014 results - in detail available here;
http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/
 
Well, let us take a look at Spain's Sub-Saharan (Black) ancestry concerning Hellenthal et al 2014;
It equals to 3.0% which is the highest amount in all of Europe; Most prolific is Spain's BANTU-Kenya heritage: 2.5% !

Now, who are these Bantu-Kenyans you might ask; well acc. to Shriner et al 2014 they are 55.3% West-Africa (Niger-Congo) and 24.4% Anuak (Nilo-Saharan) - the rest is Pygmy and undefined;

The Anuaks (from east Africa - same as the Dinka)
125210229.jpg

The quoted analysis shows that Bantu-Kenyans are obviously not purely West African. Also, that very same study found no sub-Saharan African DNA in Spain.

And you are correct, this substantial Bantu admixture has little to do with the Atlantic-slave trade, it is proper Moorish legacy/heritage (to look up Zanj); As also this K=4 analyses (Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012) reveals using Luhya as the sub-saharan proxy;
0% in Tuscans (Italian group) and French but quite noticeable in Spain and Portugal; Including separated Spanish groups like Catalan etc.;
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047765

Hardly had much of it, specially the Galician, Andalusian and "Spain" samples, and they also found a small amount of it among Basques, Greeks and Yugoslavians. Plus the only Italians sampled were Tuscans.

Also, according to Hellenthal et al. 2014 the majority of the sub-Saharan DNA found in places like Morocco is West African, properly. That the "Moors" should leave 2.5% of DNA hailing from East Africa in Spain and yet should only leave a measly 0.2% West African DNA is quite the paradox. By the same token, the 1.2% West African found among southern Italians must be the legacy/heritage of Roman slavery and immigration... never mind the paradox that the Roman empire never reached into sub-Saharan West Africa, yet it did have indirect connections with sub-Saharan East Africa (mostly via Egypt.)

In Hellenthal et al 2014 South Italians and Sicilians equal to 1.8% - 1.9% sub-Saharan -

Most of which is West African.

while Spaniards top with a solid 3.0% sub-saharan (Greece 0%, Tuscany 0%, North Italy 0.1%pygmy);

The historical sub-Saharan admixture figures according to that study are 2.9% (most of which is East African) for Spain, 1.9% (the majority of which is West African) for South Italy, 1.7% (the majority of which is West African) for East Sicily, and 1.8% (all of which is West African) for West Sicily.


As also this recent study - further illustrates the Moorish legacy in Spain: K=6 Admix. Analysis - Kushniarevich et al 2015 (Sept.)
http://postimg.org/image/u4ekdbc11/

That study does not seem to say anything about any "Moorish legacy", so that's likely just your wishful thinking, plus they also found some "African" among the Greeks and French.

What was also revealed in Shriner et al 2014 was that Mozabites and Saharawi (close relatives of the Spaniards [Botigue et al 2013]) have no European admixture; So how is it possible for Spaniards, to be than so closely related [Botigue et al 2013] to these African groups? The study gives the answer, by correctly suggesting - it was due to massive Gene-flow from Africa into Spain; Almoravid Dynasty?

No, what Shriner et al. really showed is that it is not entirely reliable to base conclusions on something like IBDs, since the authors clearly imply that their autosomal analysis does contradict Botigue et al.'s claims when it comes to North Africans and Southern Europeans. They did not find any significant North African DNA among Spaniards, and they in fact labelled it zero in the admixture table. The only European population sampled in that study that had a noticeable North African component were the Sardinians (6.1%). However, they did find plenty of Middle Eastern DNA in Italy, so in this case they did not contradict Botigue et al.'s claims of increasing Middle Eastern DNA the more east you go into Southern Europe: Romanians had more Middle Eastern DNA than Italians, who in their turn had more than Spaniards. This does not contradict Botigue et al.'s claims regarding Middle Eastern DNA in Southern Europe but supports it. Very different from the North African results.
 
Spaniards from all the regions have about 14.8% of African blood (12.6% Mozabite and 2.2% Mbuti/Yoruba). Other Southern Euros have none. See the Supp Info of Lazaridis et al p. 85. Considering that Mozabites are about 25% SSA, that would make Spaniards as whole about 5.35% SSA. Southern and Western Spaniards have surely way more than that.
 
Last edited:
Spaniards from all the regions have about 14.8% of African blood (12.6% Mozabite and 2.2% Mbuti/Yoruba). Other Southern Euros have none. See the Supp Info of Lazaridis et al p. 85. Considering that Mozabites are about 25% SSA, that would make Spaniards as whole about 5.35% SSA. Southern and Western Spaniards have surely way more than that.

You already tried these dishonest manipulations and tactics before, "Joey". They did not work then, they won't work now either. Here is what Lazaridis et al. actually says about African DNA in other parts of Europe:

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/04/02/001552.DC2/001552-3.pdf

"It is possibly that this is due to the presence of low levels of Sub-Saharan ancestry in the Mediterranean or of North African admixture as has been reported previously. Such ancestry has also been suggested to occur at low levels in other European populations, and perhaps the Spanish stand out in our analysis because of their large sample size."

So no, Spain is hardly the only place in Europe where this DNA has been found, as you would wish it was the case. And since you like so much to use Mozabites to try to inflate sub-Saharan DNA in Spain, you should employ your same tactic to your fellow Italians, who also have been shown to have this DNA, as shown here (Atzmon et al., working with Sardinian and northern Italian samples):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TAirf0c_k3I/AAAAAAAACaw/M8qf6gJN4GM/s1600/structure-jews.jpg

or here (Lopez-Herraez et al., working with Sardinian, northern Italian and Tuscan samples):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6Hzs-1W_Qwg/TI3feAbSt9I/AAAAAAAAABQ/uIHv3vlsRXM/s1600/LopezHerraez2009.png

And then again we should also employ your same tactic with all the much larger Middle Eastern DNA in Italy as well, seeing as Middle Easterners too have substantial amounts of sub-Saharan DNA.
 
You already tried these dishonest manipulations and tactics before, "Joey". They did not work then, they won't work now either. Here is what Lazaridis et al. actually says about African DNA in other parts of Europe:

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/04/02/001552.DC2/001552-3.pdf

"It is possibly that this is due to the presence of low levels of Sub-Saharan ancestry in the Mediterranean or of North African admixture as has been reported previously. Such ancestry has also been suggested to occur at low levels in other European populations, and perhaps the Spanish stand out in our analysis because of their large sample size."

Perhaps...suggested...It is a possibly... yeah you have convinced me. LOL

So no, Spain is hardly the only place in Europe where this DNA has been found, as you would wish it was the case. And since you like so much to use Mozabites to try to inflate sub-Saharan DNA in Spain, you should employ your same tactic to your fellow Italians, who also have been shown to have this DNA, as shown here (Atzmon et al., working with Sardinian and northern Italian samples):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TAirf0c_k3I/AAAAAAAACaw/M8qf6gJN4GM/s1600/structure-jews.jpg

or here (Lopez-Herraez et al., working with Sardinian, northern Italian and Tuscan samples):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6Hzs-1W_Qwg/TI3feAbSt9I/AAAAAAAAABQ/uIHv3vlsRXM/s1600/LopezHerraez2009.png

And then again we should also employ your same tactic with all the much larger Middle Eastern DNA in Italy as well, seeing as Middle Easterners too have substantial amounts of sub-Saharan DNA.

LOL There are no Iberians over there to compare with. By the way in the k=2 ADMIXTURE analysis of Atzmon, Italians are the Europeans with the least non caucasoid admixture.
 
What a disheartening beginning to a Sunday. It makes me sorry I had a relatively heavy brunch.

I'm going to warn you both. Any name calling and particularly any distortion of data will result in infractions.

Drac, you were already issued an infraction for misrepresenting the findings of the Hellenthal et al data. If you're doing it again, you'll get another one for resisting moderation.

To wit, from post #44..
"Also, that very same study found no sub-Saharan African DNA in Spain."

WHICH study found no SSA in Spain?

I already proved that Hellenthal et al did indeed find SSA in Spain and you were already issued an infraction for misrepresenting that fact.

"Spain: Mediterranean Analysis:
First Event-
Yoruba: 1.6
Mandenka: .6
Bantu South Africa: .5
Pygmy: .2

Spain: Mediterranean Analysis:
2nd Event-
Yoruba: .7
Mandenka: .6
Bantu speakers South Africa: .4
Bantu Speakers Kenya: .4
Pygmy: .5
San: .2

Full Analysis-First Event:
Bantu speakers Kenya-2.5
Mandenka .2

Full Analysis-Second Event:
Yoruba .9
Mandenka .7
Bantu Speakers Kenya 1.8
Bantu speakers South Africa .9
Biaka Pygmies .5
Mbuti Pygmies .4"

So, if Shriner et al shows SSA in Spaniards, and obviously Hellenthal et al shows the same thing, then you are once again misrepresenting the facts.

I suggest you edit your post.
 
OMG Yoruba, Mandenka, Mbuti, Bantu, Biaka,... ROFL. And those are all Spaniards. Guess for Southerners/Westerners only.
 
Shall we list the Hellenthal et al percentages for Italians?

Have you guys no other interests?
 
Because comparing the whole of Spain, with the usual oversampling of Basques, Catalans, Aragonese,... with single coast cities in the far south of Italy is fine, isn't it? Just for the info those S Italians over there are all from Crotone, it's even showed on the map.
 
Because comparing the whole of Spain, with the usual oversampling of Basques, Catalans, Aragonese,... with single coast cities in the far south of Italy is fine, isn't it? Just for the info those S Italians over there are all from Crotone, it's even showed on the map.

I'm aware that there's an awful lot of comparing of the figures for all of Spain (and sometimes of northern parts of Spain) to a few cities in the far south of Italy. I've pointed out to Drac that he does this all the time. It's some sort of quest to find somewhere in Europe that has more or comparable SSA even if it's only one city.

The point remains, however, that there are places in Italy as well that have some insignificant percentages of SSA. Maybe not all of southern Italy, and certainly not all of Italy as a whole, but there are places where you can find it. Honest discussion and analysis would acknowledge that. But then honest analysis isn't what this is all about.

Oh, and what's wrong with taking samples in Crotone now, if that's actually where they were taken and the authors didn't just randomly put the circle in that spot? It had an illustrious history as a major city-state of Magna Graecia (settled from Achaea, if some of our readers don't know). Something wrong with the ancient Greeks now? The Brutii (Italics) were there too, of course, some Ostrogoths if I remember correctly, the Byzantines, the Saracens for a few years, then the Normans. It seems a rather unremarkable sequence of events for southern Italy and Sicily.

What precise area do you want to use to represent all southern Italians or all Italians? The Trentino?
 
Perhaps...suggested...It is a possibly... yeah you have convinced me. LOL

The "perhaps" part is in fact about their results for Spain, which they themselves questioned and then dismissed as "not significant"... "LOL", indeed. And "suggested" is putting it mildly. As you can see, it is not difficult at all to find genetic studies that have found African (both North and sub-Saharan) among other Europeans.

LOL There are no Iberians over there to compare with.

Do they have to be? The fact is that studies have found African DNA among Italians and other Europeans, which you were trying to deny earlier.

By the way in the k=2 ADMIXTURE analysis of Atzmon, Italians are the Europeans with the least non caucasoid admixture.

At K=2 the lowest were the Sardinians and Basques, not the continental Italians.
 
I'm aware that there's an awful lot of comparing of the figures for all of Spain (and sometimes of northern parts of Spain) to a few cities in the far south of Italy. I've pointed out to Drac that he does this all the time. It's some sort of quest to find somewhere in Europe that has more or comparable SSA even if it's only one city.

But it is in fact many geneticists who love to split up Italy into several parts and give separate figures for each, while Spain they usually lump it all together minus the Basques. It is rather more unfair for Spain than Italy.
 
What a disheartening beginning to a Sunday. It makes me sorry I had a relatively heavy brunch.

I'm going to warn you both. Any name calling and particularly any distortion of data will result in infractions.

Drac, you were already issued an infraction for misrepresenting the findings of the Hellenthal et al data. If you're doing it again, you'll get another one for resisting moderation.

You gave me an (undeserved) infraction for having failed to notice a tab for older DNA that is only provided for some countries in that study. If you want to give sanctions for purposeful misrepresentations you should give it to "Joey", who besides having been banned a whole bunch of times already is obviously lying about African DNA supposedly only being found in Spain out of all Europe. He is fully aware that this is not the case at all. Now that is truly malicious "misrepresentation".

To wit, from post #44..
"Also, that very same study found no sub-Saharan African DNA in Spain."

WHICH study found no SSA in Spain?

The one that was quoted to assess the genetic composition of Bantu-Kenyans: Shriner et al. 2014. That study not only found no sub-Saharan DNA in Spain, it also did not find any significant amount of North African DNA either and simply labelled it as 0 on the ancestral component table:

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/srep/2014/140813/srep06055/extref/srep06055-s1.pdf


I already proved that Hellenthal et al did indeed find SSA in Spain and you were already issued an infraction for misrepresenting that fact.

The other tab where you are getting those figures from represents things that the authors considered could be as old as many thousands of years ago (2530 BCE), they put it separately from the DNA they considered to be of more recent origin. And this thread is about recent/historical admixture, not things that can be as old as 4500+ years.

So, if Shriner et al shows SSA in Spaniards, and obviously Hellenthal et al shows the same thing, then you are once again misrepresenting the facts.

Shriner et al. does not show any sub-Saharan (or North African, for that matter) for Spain.
 
Because comparing the whole of Spain, with the usual oversampling of Basques, Catalans, Aragonese,... with single coast cities in the far south of Italy is fine, isn't it? Just for the info those S Italians over there are all from Crotone, it's even showed on the map.

If we take the map locations shown in their companion web site to be without doubt the location where the samples for each region/country came from, then their Spanish samples must be from Madrid. So much for "oversampling of Basques, Catalans, Aragonese..."
 
It seems that some other people have started to notice "odd" things regarding this threads' main paper, particularly regarding the "West African" (which included some North African samples for some reason) and "Levantine" (which for some reason included a whole lot more than just the Levant) components:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5878295/1/

Also, as was pointed out by one the posters there, their admixture runs do not seem to show what their admixture "map" suggests:

http://i.imgur.com/965oLAq.png

For example, the Spanish and most of the Italian samples have some North African (yellow) component and little to no "West African" (brownish-orange) properly, yet the "map" suggests the opposite: no North African (except Sardinians, who ironically enough seem to have no North African at all in the admixture runs!) and some "West African". Maybe they got the colors of the circles confused in the map???

Another thing: the French do not seem to have such a noticeably larger amount of "Levantine" (green colors) than the Spanish, in fact the Greeks are shown as having more of it than either, unlike the "map" suggests.
 
Perhaps...suggested...It is a possibly... yeah you have convinced me. LOL



LOL There are no Iberians over there to compare with. By the way in the k=2 ADMIXTURE analysis of Atzmon, Italians are the Europeans with the least non caucasoid admixture.

exactly;
Atzmon doesnt even have a Mozabite component it is a Berber component and every European has admix. of that K=6 (incl. many Russian samples); Lopez-Herraez et al shows Mozabite admixture at K=5 by Italian groups yet none at K=6 (figure 4); As you have mentioned no Iberians were tested but recently Gunther et al (Atapuerca study) sequenced many Spaniards and they are riddled (K=15) with Mozabite admixture (none in Italian groups); In Pardo-Seco et al 2014 Spaniards were the only Europeans with Black sub-Saharan admixture [K=4] so much so that the entire EUR sample turned out as 0.2%; Spanish samples i.e. IBS (IberiansSpain) and SPA (spain) are obviously located on the far right of the EUR samples (K=4 figure3);

TSI (North Italians and Tuscans) = 0.0%
EUR (GBR/CEU/FIN/IBS/SPA) = 0.2%
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920

In 2007 Frudakis tested many European groups based on 171 AIMs and the result was this:
http://postimg.org/image/na6d2z0tx/

Lazaridis et al 2013 made it quite clear why Spaniards stick in comparison to other Europeans (12.6% Mozabite and 2.2% Yoruba/Mbuti) and Mozabites have no European admixture!
 
exactly;
Atzmon doesnt even have a Mozabite component it is a Berber component and every European has admix. of that K=6 (incl. many Russian samples);

The Berber component is from the Mozabites, marked purple on the graph and very clearly labelled "Mozabite". And yes, many Europeans have it in different proportions, unlike your strange obsession of trying to make it look as if the Spanish are the only ones who do.

As you have mentioned no Iberians were tested but recently Gunther et al (Atapuerca study) sequenced many Spaniards and they are riddled (K=15) with Mozabite admixture (none in Italian groups);

Even the Greeks had some at K=15. Plus some of the Spanish groups were hardly "riddled" with it. The Aragonese, for example, barely had any.

In Pardo-Seco et al 2014 Spaniards were the only Europeans with Black sub-Saharan admixture [K=4] so much so that the entire EUR sample turned out as 0.2%; Spanish samples i.e. IBS (IberiansSpain) and SPA (spain) are obviously located on the far right of the EUR samples (K=4 figure3);

TSI (North Italians and Tuscans) = 0.0%
EUR (GBR/CEU/FIN/IBS/SPA) = 0.2%
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920

Maybe, but that graphic has no such specific labels on the EUR section, so you would have to show where in the study does it clearly show this.

In 2007 Frudakis tested many European groups based on 171 AIMs and the result was this:
http://postimg.org/image/na6d2z0tx/

The West African component was also found among Italians, Greeks and Irish:

http://thenewinquiry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/dna-map.jpg

Do you also need to be reminded of the AIMs results of Brisighelli et al. 2012?

Lazaridis et al 2013 made it quite clear why Spaniards stick in comparison to other Europeans (12.6% Mozabite and 2.2% Yoruba/Mbuti) and Mozabites have no European admixture!

A study that questioned its own results in this regard, and then labelled the African component "not significant".

BTW, guess who among the European groups sampled had the largest West African (brownish-orange) component in this admixture run of the study that is the subject of this thread:

http://i.imgur.com/965oLAq.png
 
Last edited:
There are three Tuscan groups in the admixture: the one with 70 samples has zero amount of SSA, while the ones with 3 and 4 samples have few points. Obviosly they are either outliers or recently mixed.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 33709 times.

Back
Top