(NEW) GenePlaza K25 and K29 Modern Calculator Results

[Johane Derite]

It’s about the way you use a duality Innuendo at times, as an example : “Come out” “Apple of the same Tree” today, and a few more.
Example of a Duality Innuendo: “The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.”
It could be Positive, or Negative.

For me it was clear entirely that he was shocked at the test for not showing Sicilian for a south Italian. I didn't see it as an insult or innuendo in the slightest.

Here are my results Shqipe. Not sure how accurate. \
Me(23andme)

52% Greek-Albanian
9.8% Sardinian-Sicilian
36.5% Percent Southern Slavic
1.7% Caucasian

My Father(23andme)(Diber Vogel)

48.2% Greek-Albanian
17.2% Sardinian-Sicilian
33.3% Southern Slavic
1.1% Caucasian

My Mother(Ancestry)(Puka, Shkodra, Mali Zi) - My mothers Paternal grandmother, and maternal grandfather were from Montenegro. The Paternal Grandmother was Montenegrin, and the maternal Grandfather was Albanian from Montenegro. Could explain why she gets more than Albanian? Unless its not exactly accurate. On Ancestry she gets 75 percent Albania/Greece/Turkey, 20 percent northeast Italy/Croatia/Bosnia and 5 percent Caucasian.

53.7% Percent Southern Slavic
32% Greek-Albanian
7.2% Sardinian-Sicilian
6% Caucasian
.5% Bedouin
.7% East African

Thanks Dibran, if these are the parameters of the test then that makes sense to a degree.
Although Sardinians and Sicilians in my mind differ quite a bit, as do south Slavs so I don't know if something ends up getting jumbled in there.

[Jovialis]

I’m the “Apple of the same tree” I’m really, very much, Big Time South Italian, probably Sicilian too. But, I also get on some other results, besides my usual Italian percentages like this:
Swallow the “Apple” @davef

I'm doing LivingDNA too. I'm waiting for my kit to arrive.

I get that every test gives different results. But this K25 calculator seems to give the most radically different results I've seen thus far. All in all, I would say 23andme was the most accurate using modern populations, in terms of making sense according to where I'm actually from. Nevertheless, if Kurd reads this post; I not trying to trash his test. But perhaps, he will fix it with an update.

I think the K25 calculator probably works better for certain ethnicities, because the components they would get are better arranged. It also seems to be producing some small percentages of totally inaccurate results.

[Dibran]

For me it was clear entirely that he was shocked at the test for not showing Sicilian for a south Italian. I didn't see it as an insult or innuendo in the slightest.


Thanks Dibran, if these are the parameters of the test then that makes sense to a degree.
Although Sardinians and Sicilians in my mind differ quite a bit, as do south Slavs so I don't know if something ends up getting jumbled in there.

I think the test is highly flawed. A good majority of northern Gheg Albanians are getting higher south slavic than south slavs. That literally makes no sense at all. My guess is there is a spillover effect of allells some of them probably from paleobalkan peoples. Otherwise, south slavs should score more south Slavic than northern Albanians. I specifically noticed Albanians from Montenegro and Kosova are getting more south slavic than Albanian. My mother being a good example. Angela has a point, they should have split the components more carefully.

Also some south slavs are not even scoring south slavic. Bosniensis from Apricity, gets mostly Greek-Albanian with East Slavic. Not a drop South Slavic. And hes never scored greek-Albanian. I guess our component is a proxy for neolithic ancestry and southslavic paleo balkan steppe?

Otherwise its ridiculous that Albanians score south slavic more than actual south slavs, and some south slavs more greek-albanian than Albanians and Greeks. So far, Greeks and Albanians have higher south slavic percentages. Something is way off with it. I know it does'nt work well with LivingDNA, but i think most these users were using 23andme.

[Dibran]

I'm using 23andme V5.

The results from this calculator seems like a far cry from what other tests have told me, including 23andme. I'm a fan of Kurd's ancient calculator; this one, not so much.

Now that a couple Albanians posted their results I agree. I figured mine were more reasonable, bur more norther albanian clans who should be less admixed, are scoring more South Slavic than the Southern Slavs that posted their results. So, there clearly is some major discrepancy, or spillover of genes.

[Jovialis]

This is from the sample populations, you can see from the excel sheet on the app page.
https://www.geneplaza.com/app-store/65
Why does the sample population, "German 1" get 21.43% South Slavic (even higher than west Slavic 17.45%) 0.18% West African, and 0.11%
Oceania/Papuan/Aboriginal???
Also, Greek-Anatolia is way more Caucasus than most people from the Caucasus according to this test..

[davef]

It’s about the way you use a duality Innuendo at times, as an example : “Come out” “Apple of the same Tree” today, and a few more.
Example of a Duality Innuendo: “The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.”
It could be Positive, or Negative.

Yes,I used it as another way to say that southern Italians and Sicilians are extremely close genetically.

[Angela]

I think the test is highly flawed. A good majority of northern Gheg Albanians are getting higher south slavic than south slavs. That literally makes no sense at all. My guess is there is a spillover effect of allells some of them probably from paleobalkan peoples. Otherwise, south slavs should score more south Slavic than northern Albanians. I specifically noticed Albanians from Montenegro and Kosova are getting more south slavic than Albanian. My mother being a good example. Angela has a point, they should have split the components more carefully.

Dibran, why do you think Gheg Albanians shouldn't get higher South Slavic than Tosks? Tosks are closer to Greeks geographically so it makes sense to me that they're closer genetically too.

It also makes sense to me that Bulgarians and Romanians indeed are mirror images of the Albanians. In terms of ancient populations I think what it might be saying is that these groups were highly related and have just drifted apart. They were perhaps separated by a Slavic movement that moved in between them and then diffused out from there, affecting some groups more than others. I don't know enough about the specific migration paths of the specific sub-groups of Slavic speaking peoples to know if that's completely accurate. I'm just throwing that out there. I can understand why he's not including Croatians. I think they're slightly more "Central European" and "Slavic" than the rest of the Balkans, although only slightly. The Serbs are probably in between the Croatians and the rest.

I think the real problem is with the Italians, again. :) The more I think about it I think it's really not helpful to group Sardinians with Sicilians. There's no way Southern Italians should be getting 0 Sicilian. Dienekes knew more about Southern Europeans than anyone who has ever done a calculator, and he could barely tell them apart. Under this clustering, Northern Italians and Tuscans are going to get high Sicilian/Sardinian scores not because they're close to Sicilians, but because they're close to Sardinians.

If you're not going to use an Italian cluster, then it does make sense to me to group Southern Italians/Sicilians, Greeks and Albanians. I would predict that in those situations Northern Italians would come up as a mix of "South Slavic", that southern group, and perhaps some Iberian, at least for Northwestern Italians.

[Jovialis]

Dibran, why do you think Gheg Albanians shouldn't get higher South Slavic than Tosks? Tosks are closer to Greeks geographically so it makes sense to me that they're closer genetically too.
It also makes sense to me that Bulgarians and Romanians indeed are mirror images of the Albanians. In terms of ancient populations I think what it might be saying is that these groups were highly related and have just drifted apart. They were perhaps separated by a Slavic movement that moved in between them and then diffused out from there, affecting some groups more than others. I don't know enough about the specific migration paths of the specific sub-groups of Slavic speaking peoples to know if that's completely accurate. I'm just throwing that out there. I can understand why he's not including Croatians. I think they're slightly more "Central European" and "Slavic" than the rest of the Balkans, although only slightly. The Serbs are probably in between the Croatians and the rest.
I think the real problem is with the Italians, again. :) The more I think about it I think it's really not helpful to group Sardinians with Sicilians. There's no way Southern Italians should be getting 0 Sicilian. Dienekes knew more about Southern Europeans than anyone who has ever done a calculator, and he could barely tell them apart. Under this clustering, Northern Italians and Tuscans are going to get high Sicilian/Sardinian scores not because they're close to Sicilians, but because they're close to Sardinians.
If you're not going to use an Italian cluster, then it does make sense to me to group Southern Italians/Sicilians, Greeks and Albanians. I would predict that in those situations Northern Italians would come up as a mix of "South Slavic", that southern group, and perhaps some Iberian, at least for Northwestern Italians.

However, there are also these issues as well.

Why does the sample population, "German 1" get 21.43% South Slavic (even higher than west Slavic 17.45%) 0.18% West African, and 0.11% Oceania/Papuan/Aboriginal???
Also, Greek-Anatolia is way more Caucasus than most people from the Caucasus according to this test.

[Angela]

However, there are also these issues as well.

" Originally Posted by JovialisWhy does the sample population, "German 1" get 21.43% South Slavic (even higher than west Slavic 17.45%) 0.18% West African, and 0.11% Oceania/Papuan/Aboriginal???
Also, Greek-Anatolia is way more Caucasus than most people from the Caucasus according to this test."

I wonder if German 1 is Southern Germany. If so, what it's picking up is the more Med and Celtic alleles. If there were an Italian cluster I bet it would pick up an Italian percentage.

As to the Greek-Anatolia thing maybe it has to do with him having creating a Kurd cluster? Do the Caucasus populations have more of that?

Every decision you make on these things has a domino effect.

[Dibran]

Dibran, why do you think Gheg Albanians shouldn't get higher South Slavic than Tosks? Tosks are closer to Greeks geographically so it makes sense to me that they're closer genetically too.

It also makes sense to me that Bulgarians and Romanians indeed are mirror images of the Albanians. In terms of ancient populations I think what it might be saying is that these groups were highly related and have just drifted apart. They were perhaps separated by a Slavic movement that moved in between them and then diffused out from there, affecting some groups more than others. I don't know enough about the specific migration paths of the specific sub-groups of Slavic speaking peoples to know if that's completely accurate. I'm just throwing that out there. I can understand why he's not including Croatians. I think they're slightly more "Central European" and "Slavic" than the rest of the Balkans, although only slightly. The Serbs are probably in between the Croatians and the rest.

I think the real problem is with the Italians, again. :) The more I think about it I think it's really not helpful to group Sardinians with Sicilians. There's no way Southern Italians should be getting 0 Sicilian. Dienekes knew more about Southern Europeans than anyone who has ever done a calculator, and he could barely tell them apart. Under this clustering, Northern Italians and Tuscans are going to get high Sicilian/Sardinian scores not because they're close to Sicilians, but because they're close to Sardinians.

If you're not going to use an Italian cluster, then it does make sense to me to group Southern Italians/Sicilians, Greeks and Albanians. I would predict that in those situations Northern Italians would come up as a mix of "South Slavic", that southern group, and perhaps some Iberian, at least for Northwestern Italians.

Well, historically, Northern Albanians were far less admixed than southern Albanians. Like Northern Greeks, Southern Albanians had far more slavic input due to medieval settlements as opposed to the more isolated mountain domains of the Ghegs. With exception of some Albanian clans from Montenegro, they don't really intermarry with Slavs.

Additionally, all the Southern Slavs to post their results so far, are either getting very little or no south Slavic at all. In fact, Bosniensis who's from Bosnia, is getting Greek-Albanian, more than actual northern Albanians, and East Slavic, with no South Slavic.

Perhaps its due to similitudes in the genome. I can understand Albanians maybe scoring between 20-30s south Slavic as a proxy for steppe. But, there is no reasoning behind the calculator when Albanians are getting 50-70 percent South Slavic. So far Albanians and Greeks come up with more South Slavic ancestry than South Slavs on this calculator.

[Angela]

Dibran, why do you think Gheg Albanians shouldn't get higher South Slavic than Tosks? Tosks are closer to Greeks geographically so it makes sense to me that they're closer genetically too.

It also makes sense to me that Bulgarians and Romanians indeed are mirror images of the Albanians. In terms of ancient populations I think what it might be saying is that these groups were highly related and have just drifted apart. They were perhaps separated by a Slavic movement that moved in between them and then diffused out from there, affecting some groups more than others. I don't know enough about the specific migration paths of the specific sub-groups of Slavic speaking peoples to know if that's completely accurate. I'm just throwing that out there. I can understand why he's not including Croatians. I think they're slightly more "Central European" and "Slavic" than the rest of the Balkans, although only slightly. The Serbs are probably in between the Croatians and the rest.

I think the real problem is with the Italians, again. :) The more I think about it I think it's really not helpful to group Sardinians with Sicilians. There's no way Southern Italians should be getting 0 Sicilian. Dienekes knew more about Southern Europeans than anyone who has ever done a calculator, and he could barely tell them apart. Under this clustering, Northern Italians and Tuscans are going to get high Sicilian/Sardinian scores not because they're close to Sicilians, but because they're close to Sardinians.

If you're not going to use an Italian cluster, then it does make sense to me to group Southern Italians/Sicilians, Greeks and Albanians. I would predict that in those situations Northern Italians would come up as a mix of "South Slavic", that southern group, and perhaps some Iberian, at least for Northwestern Italians.

I don't think that people should get fixated on the "South Slavic" label. Slavic is just a language. Who knows what genetic mix those people were when they arrived. As I said, on a calculator with no Italian cluster North Italians would come out as highly "South Slavic" and we have no Slavic at all except maybe a bit in Friuli. Think of it as Bulgarian/Romanian, Montenegrin, whatever. If Tosks are closer to Greeks genetically, then by default Ghegs are going to be closer to Bulgarians, Romanians, Montenegrins, whatever.

[Angela]

Well, historically, Northern Albanians were far less admixed than southern Albanians. Like Northern Greeks, Southern Albanians had far more slavic input due to medieval settlements as opposed to the more isolated mountain domains of the Ghegs. With exception of some Albanian clans from Montenegro, they don't really intermarry with Slavs.

Additionally, all the Southern Slavs to post their results so far, are either getting very little or no south Slavic at all. In fact, Bosniensis who's from Bosnia, is getting Greek-Albanian, more than actual northern Albanians, and East Slavic, with no South Slavic.

Perhaps its due to similitudes in the genome. I can understand Albanians maybe scoring between 20-30s south Slavic as a proxy for steppe. But, there is no reasoning behind the calculator when Albanians are getting 50-70 percent South Slavic. So far Albanians and Greeks come up with more South Slavic ancestry than South Slavs on this calculator.

Dibran, I don't think this has anything to do with amounts of actual "Slavic" ancestry, as I pointed out in the post above. The calculator is not tracking "Slavic" or "steppe" ancestry. You'd need ancient samples for that. Maybe a different name should have been chosen for that cluster. It has to do with overall similarity to a Bulgarian/Romanian (plus additional) type of gene set compared to Greek/Albanian.

[Angela]

This is from the sample populations, you can see from the excel sheet on the app page.
https://www.geneplaza.com/app-store/65
Why does the sample population, "German 1" get 21.43% South Slavic (even higher than west Slavic 17.45%) 0.18% West African, and 0.11%
Oceania/Papuan/Aboriginal???
Also, Greek-Anatolia is way more Caucasus than most people from the Caucasus according to this test..

Thanks, Jovialis. I just saw this. I guess my prediction was right about how North Italians would score using these clusters.

[Dibran]

I don't think that people should get fixated on the "South Slavic" label. Slavic is just a language. Who knows what genetic mix those people were when they arrived. As I said, on a calculator with no Italian cluster North Italians would come out as highly "South Slavic" and we have no Slavic at all except maybe a bit in Friuli. Think of it as Bulgarian/Romanian, Montenegrin, whatever. If Tosks are closer to Greeks genetically, then by default Ghegs are going to be closer to Bulgarians, Romanians, Montenegrins, whatever.

Maybe, maybe not. But, assuming the component is south Slavic then south slavs should at least score higher percentages than Albanians, they are not. Thats the discrepancy. If there was no Albanian Greek like component, it would make sense scoring 50-60 south slavic. It does not make sense when there is an Albanian that would score 60 percent South Slavic, and South Slavs only little or none. I am the only case where I score lower south slavic, but still more than the south slavs who have posted. There just seems to be major discrepancies.

[Dibran]

Dibran, I don't think this has anything to do with amounts of actual "Slavic" ancestry, as I pointed out in the post above. The calculator is not tracking "Slavic" or "steppe" ancestry. You'd need ancient samples for that. Maybe a different name should have been chosen for that cluster. It has to do with overall similarity to a Bulgarian/Romanian (plus additional) type of gene set compared to Greek/Albanian.

Yea I get that, my point is, South Slavs even from the countries that are included in south slavic are getting little or no ancestry in that component. A Bosnian user getting more Greek-Albanian than the aforementioned, and no South Slavic just seems like something with the algorithm is off. Renaming it would be a good start.

[Promenade]

Im guessing south Slavic is a proxy for LBK or "east European farmer" ancestry

[Dibran]

Im guessing south Slavic is a proxy for LBK or "east European farmer" ancestry

hmm, do score roughly 34-36 percent east euro farmer in the K12 one. maybe it is. idk.

[Angela]

Maybe, maybe not. But, assuming the component is south Slavic then south slavs should at least score higher percentages than Albanians, they are not. Thats the discrepancy. If there was no Albanian Greek like component, it would make sense scoring 50-60 south slavic. It does not make sense when there is an Albanian that would score 60 percent South Slavic, and South Slavs only little or none. I am the only case where I score lower south slavic, but still more than the south slavs who have posted. There just seems to be major discrepancies.

The reason that's happening, from that chart Jovialis posted that I just saw, is because it's picking up the North Italian/Bulgarian, Romanian similarity.

I admit it's a problem.

Maybe it's better to have clusters like Med, Northwest. I don't know.

Like I said, I don't like calculators based on modern populations. They obscure more than clarify.

[Jovialis]

" Originally Posted by JovialisWhy does the sample population, "German 1" get 21.43% South Slavic (even higher than west Slavic 17.45%) 0.18% West African, and 0.11% Oceania/Papuan/Aboriginal???
Also, Greek-Anatolia is way more Caucasus than most people from the Caucasus according to this test."
I wonder if German 1 is Southern Germany. If so, what it's picking up is the more Med and Celtic alleles. If there were an Italian cluster I bet it would pick up an Italian percentage.
As to the Greek-Anatolia thing maybe it has to do with him having creating a Kurd cluster? Do the Caucasus populations have more of that?
Every decision you make on these things has a domino effect.

Idk, the thing is, if it was Mediterranean or Celtic alleles, the "N Italian" sample looks nothing like it though.

I apologize if we're miscommunicating, but you think Papua and West African would give off that frequency in the Germans? That's what i was most surprised by.

On top of that Papua goes from Germany, and skips all the way to Pastun-Afg 1 before it comes up again.

Nevertheless, like you said this is probably from some anomaly in the algorithm from creating the Kurdish cluster. As well as the confusion cause by using modern populations.

[Dibran]

The reason that's happening, from that chart Jovialis posted that I just saw, is because it's picking up the North Italian/Bulgarian, Romanian similarity.

I admit it's a problem.


Maybe it's better to have clusters like Med, Northwest. I don't know.

Like I said, I don't like calculators based on modern populations. They obscure more than clarify.

I mean mine isnt grossly inaccurate, but I see what you mean. Maybe that would be a better bet.

[Angela]

Idk, the thing is, if it was Mediterranean or Celtic alleles, the "N Italian" sample looks nothing like it though.

I apologize if we're miscommunicating, but you think Papua and West African would give off that frequency in the Germans? That's what i was most surprised by. I can see how the Greek-Anatolian would have high Caucasus since they're in turkey.

I hadn't seen the chart so I was just speculating. Sorry if I misled anyone. People are posting so quickly that if you don't scroll back you'll miss something.

Those admixtures for German 1 are very odd, unless maybe it's East Germans? I've often thought that they probably skew pretty far "east".

Those are very small percentages for Papuan. It's just "noise" I think. If that SSA percentage showed up on 23andme I'd take it seriously. Here, I don't know. There's something "off" perhaps.

As I said, this is why I don't like calculators based on modern populations. Northern Italians getting a big percentage of "South Slavic" on here, as in Bulgarian/Romanian/Montenegrin, whatever, absolutely doesn't mean that they have ancestry from people from those areas within even the last 1600 years or longer. It's just vaguely similar alleles from ancient migrations which hit both areas. It emphatically doesn't mean people from Bergamo, for example, ever got impacted by the "Slavic" migrations.

[Jovialis]

^^
That's what I chalk it up to as well.
And you haven't misled :)



Another issue I spotted, Romanians getting 0% Caucasus admixture. When they Do have some respectable amounts. If there's going to be a component for solely Caucasus, it should represent the amount that's in all populations that have it. Seems like it's only visible for certain groups.

[Angela]

^^
That's what I chalk it up to as well.
And you haven't misled :)



Another issue I spotted, Romanians getting 0% Caucasus admixture. When they Do have some respectable amounts. If there's going to be a component for solely Caucasus, it should represent the amount that's in all populations that have it. Seems like it's only visible for certain groups.

Right again. In most calculators they have more than Northern Italians and Tuscans, for example.

Making Greeks/Albanians have 45% "Caucasian", but Northern Italians 5% seems a bit off too. I know they don't have much, but that kind of disparity seems extreme from the Greek/Albanian end.

Oh, dear, I hope "Kurd" isn't taking this the wrong way. He's very intelligent, capable, and honest. It's just that Southern European ancestry is really complicated.

[Salento]

Yes,I used it as another way to say that southern Italians and Sicilians are extremely close genetically.

I agree that Southern Italians and Sicilians are Genetically close.
That said, AncestryDNA separates us:

[Angela]

I agree that Southern Italians and Sicilians are Genetically close.
That said, AncestryDNA separates us:

It looks like it's mainly the Salento that is separate, not all of Puglia, Salento. :) It probably makes sense.

Is there a link to Ancestry's divisions, and maybe a spreadsheet of populations?