| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
In this case above is my hidden kit and the old man's kit. In his example are his two kits.
In this box I have put 0.1
Size (in SNPs) of Mismatch-Bunching
limit. (Leave blank for default
mismatch eval window / 2)
Thank you Duarte. :)Originally Posted by Duarte
too bad there isn't any Ötzi Kit, it would have been very interesting running a 1/1 Comparison with the Iceman.
I not know what happened dear friend, but the results are not consistent. They indicate that the Celtic is their identical twin. Check out chromosome 1 and you'll find that there are much more regions where there are no mach in the top row (red color), than regions with where there are match (green color). The bottom bar could not be all blue, indicating a complete match of your chromosome with the Celtic’s chromosome. Even if, by hypothesis, we admit that the algorithm is correct, the final result is very far from anything that could be called logic. Just to reason by extremes: It's the same as saying that you're a clone of the Celtic man. Something went very wrong. What was, I do not know. Big hug my dear friend. Try to run again leaving all boxes blank or just fill with the number 1 only the box that requests the minimum size that should be considered in centimeters, otherwise the number 7 will be selected automatically.
In this case above is my hidden kit and the old man's kit. In his example are his two kits.
In this box I have put 0.1
Size (in SNPs) of Mismatch-Bunching
limit. (Leave blank for default
mismatch eval window / 2)
From MDLP k11
1 Armenia_MLBA + Bell_Beaker + British_Roman + Tyrolean_Iceman_EN @ 2.321840
maybe he’s the Brits-Roman as above:
Kit F999925 (Hinxton-4, UK, 2ky)
Precision: 30.0
cM threshold: 1.0
Maximum cM: No Limit
Gap threshold: 2.0 cm's
All SNPs used.
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 1 9,510,150 10,484,416 162 1.16 31.0 1 35,373,374 36,789,546 166 1.18 40.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 2 148,453,079 149,858,734 192 1.32 18.0 2 219,187,603 219,912,758 139 1.26 17.0 2 239,211,380 239,638,300 122 1.33 5.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 3 25,548,555 26,258,075 146 1.06 16.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 4 33,116,246 34,534,283 133 1.05 20.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 5 4,803,549 5,161,189 125 1.30 6.0 5 74,328,068 74,988,369 116 1.24 2.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 7 6,213,396 7,129,858 140 1.43 6.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 11 19,057,767 19,427,092 141 1.25 10.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 12 946,878 1,524,144 118 1.48 0.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 15 65,564,595 66,333,100 120 1.13 7.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 16 5,628,300 5,848,496 121 1.02 3.0
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n SNPs Centimorgans (cM) Q 17 13,801,591 14,110,852 125 1.65 5.0 17 75,761,949 76,160,881 114 1.33 5.0
Total cM: 20.21
Largest segment cM: 1.65
Total segments: 16
Total gap-induced breaks: 0
Top 10 Q scores:
Q-score: 40.00
Q-score: 31.00
Q-score: 20.00
Q-score: 18.00
Q-score: 17.00
Q-score: 16.00
Q-score: 10.00
Q-score: 7.00
Q-score: 6.00
Q-score: 5.00
Can you remove one of your samples and add another one
... Who’re you talking to?
There are many match of an ancient British with a modern Italian. It is really possible that this Breton has DNA from the Italian peninsula, or vice versa, it is really possible that you have Breton blood, and this second hypothesis is more plausible if we consider that Romanized Bretons may have gone to Italy in the Roman period.
I believe zanipolo is referring to the post below, and not to your post :)
In this case above is my hidden kit and the old man's kit. In his example are his two kits.
In this box I have put 0.1
Size (in SNPs) of Mismatch-Bunching
limit. (Leave blank for default
mismatch eval window / 2)
In this case above is my hidden kit and the old man's kit. In his example are his two kits.
In this box I have put 0.1
Size (in SNPs) of Mismatch-Bunching
limit. (Leave blank for default
mismatch eval window / 2)
Do not do it the way above, Carlos:
Size (in SNPs) of Mismatch-Bunching
limit. (Leave blank for default
mismatch eval window / 2)0.1
Field should be blank.
If You do so, the result will be the same highlighted below, my Kit with LBK Stuttgart. Genesis would do the same with any other old sample:
Kit [FTDNA] and F999916 (LBK, Stuttgart, 7ky) [GEDmatch Xfer]
Segment threshold size will be adjusted dynamically between 200 and 400 SNPs
Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 7.0 cM
Mismatch-bunching Limit will be adjusted dynamically to 60 percent of the segment threshold size for any given segment.
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs 1 752,566 13,176,463 29.1 3,190 1 13,775,122 120,526,982 120.0 24,229 1 149,815,536 249,198,060 128.6 23,293
(...)
Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs 22 17,073,066 51,181,759 79.9 8,899
Largest segment = 151.8 cM
Total Half-Match segments (HIR) = 3559.7 cM (99.255 Pct)
Estimated number of generations to MRCA = 1.0
46 shared segments found for this comparison.
607322 SNPs used for this comparison.
54.700 Pct SNPs are full identical
Comparison took 0.359 seconds.
CPU time used: 0.060 cpu seconds.
can you remove a sample in trueancestry and place another person if you have paid for more than the free test... Who’re you talking to?
i have my grandfather and my father......i want to remove my grandfather and test my sample
Yes you can.
Delete your Grandfather, and upload your Raw-Data. Wait for your results.
After that, if you want, delete your data, and put back your Grandfather again.
Somehow the Site works better with Chrome (browser) on my PC.
i also think they’re updating the site.
grandfather above and mine below
Your closest Archaeogenetic matches...
1. Cisalpine Gaul (590 AD) (8.252) - [Upgrade for more details]
2. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) (8.921) - [Upgrade for more details]
3. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1200 BC) (9.498) - [Upgrade for more details]
4. Iberian / Piedmont (670 AD) (9.723) - [Upgrade for more details]
5. Medieval Piedmont (670 AD) (9.779) - [Upgrade for more details]
6. Medieval Iberian (670 AD) (10.35) - [Upgrade for more details]
7. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1600 BC) (11.38) - [Upgrade for more details]
8. Thracian Bulgaria (450 BC) (11.38) - [Upgrade for more details]
9. Central Roman (670 AD) (12.07) - [Upgrade for more details]
10. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (12.14) - [Upgrade for more details]
11. Medieval Frank (670 AD) (12.81) - [Upgrade for more details]
12. Central Roman (590 AD) (12.95) - [Upgrade for more details]
13. Medieval Tyrolian (670 AD) (13.2) - [Upgrade for more details]
14. Scythian Moldova (270 BC) (13.26) - [Upgrade for more details]
15. Central Roman (590 AD) (13.43) - [Upgrade for more details]
16. Central Roman (590 AD) (13.71) - [Upgrade for more details]
17. Medieval Hungary / Balkan (1244 AD) (13.83) - [Upgrade for more details]
18. Frankish-Gaul / Lombardy Italy (670 AD) (14.31) - [Upgrade for more details]
19. Swiss Germanic (670 AD) (15.0) - [Upgrade for more details]
20. Roman Soldier Germany (300 BC) (15.09) - [Upgrade for more details]
21. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (15.13) - [Upgrade for more details]
22. Scythian Moldova (300 BC) (17.79) - [Upgrade for more details]
23. Hellenic Roman (670 AD) (18.69) - [Upgrade for more details]
24. Celt / Hungary (590 AD) (19.96) - [Upgrade for more details]
25. Scythian Ukraine (600 BC) (20.01) - [Upgrade for more details]
26. Roman Soldier Freiham-Nord Germany (300 BC) (20.08) - [Upgrade for more details]
27. Alemannic Bavaria (450 AD) (20.16) - [Upgrade for more details]
28. Gaulic Gladiator York (250 AD) (20.24) - [Upgrade for more details]
29. Frankish / Hungary (590 AD) (20.39) - [Upgrade for more details]
30. Frankish / Hungary (590 AD) (20.46) - [Upgrade for more details]
31. Bell Beaker Scotland (2145 BC) (20.69) - [Upgrade for more details]
32. Bell Beaker Poland (2500 BC) (20.79) - [Upgrade for more details]
33. Hungary Iron Age (800 BC) (20.8) - [Upgrade for more details]
34. Czech Velke Prilepy (0 AD) (21.38) - [Upgrade for more details]
35. Gepid / Goth (450 AD) (21.78) - [Upgrade for more details]
36. Germano-Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (22.24) - [Upgrade for more details]
37. Halstatt (775 BC) (22.36) - [Upgrade for more details]
38. Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (22.38) - [Upgrade for more details]
39. Central Roman / Mixed (590 AD) (23.02) - [Upgrade for more details]
40. Crete Armenoi (1370 BC) (23.32) - [Upgrade for more details]
.
.
deep dive
Alemannic Bavaria
450 AD
Total cM=10.82
Largest segment=5.56 cM (5 shared. Sample quality: 9)
.
.
Illyrian / Dalmatia
1200 BC
Total cM=1.66
Largest segment=1.66 cM (1 shared. Sample quality: 40)
.................................................. .................................
my father was updated to
Roman + Illyrian (4.913)
Gallo-Roman + Roman (6.367)
Gallo-Roman (7.349)
Illyrian (7.471)
Roman (9.665)
..
Roman Soldier Freiham-Nord Germany
300 BC
Total cM=4.36
Largest segment=4.36 cM (1 shared. Sample quality: 81)
.
Mycenaean
1350 BC
Total cM=1.83
Largest segment=1.83 cM (1 shared. Sample quality: 9)
.
Germano-Celtic Gladiator York
250 AD
Total cM=1.24
Largest segment=1.24 cM (1 shared. Sample quality: 18)
For general knowledge:
MyTrueAncestry.com has changed the "Deep Dive" functionality algorithm and the numbers that are now appearing look more realistic. I recommend everyone to review their numbers since they are probably going to be downgraded in "Deep Dive". Look at my case.
Before:
Now:
So Duarte.... who was right since the begining?:) Even Mytruancestry now finally must reduce cM values and must admit they were utterly wrong:)
But still some of those values are somewhat too big, unless they checked them in lowest treshold on something like Gedmatch one-to-one tool.
Also I'm interested how they explain their total fail with those very high matches? Of course it isn't question to Duarte, but general.
Hello mlukas,
I'm not acknowledging that you're 100% correct. As you yourself say, in your understanding, matches are still very high. They have corrected the algorithm and now the results are more consistent with Genesis GEDmach in the default selections. In that sense, if they should explain, Genesis GEDmatch should also :)
Big hug and have a nice weekend
My case.
MyTrueAncestry.com X Genesis GEDmatch:
@MLukas,
It would be very nice if you re-uploaded all the Collegno and Szolad samples which you removed. Thanks in advance.
It still remains to be explained by someone at gedmatch why we get such incredibly high matches with really old samples like Loschbour, LBK, NE1, BR2, and others.
The fact that mytrueancestry made such an egregious error is concerning, as is the fact it all seems to be based on work by Eurogenes, which is always suspect until proven otherwise imho. (On the K15 upon which it seems to be based my closest fits are a 5 and a 6, perhaps the worst fits I've ever gotten on any calculator, and I know my ancestry for the last 500 years at least. MDLP is much better.)
I'll stick with my free version even if it's just for fun.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
There are two new functionalities in MyTrueAncestry.com: The "Deep Dive Euro Map" and the "Deep Dive Asia Map".
Also, data in the Archaelogical Maps (Europe and Asia), was actualizized.
See some of my data below. I recomend that all who payed for the service, do the same.
Seems to be a slight change from the new update at the bottom:
In your case the mainly matches are with more recent samples (1600 AD and 1000 AD, high quality: 89). The quality of sample Bell Beaker (2050 BC ) is 35, much more low. Big Hug :)
Seems to be a slight change from the new update at the bottom:
I removed them few months ago because as there didn't have full snps number they were marked as damaged by Gedmatch after migration to Genesis.
Uploading all takes much time. Maybe just upload those which are most popular in people results?
E-Mail received now from MyAncestry.com:
Thank you for your response, MLukas.
Anything you can do would be great. :)
Deep-Dive Map:
Archaeological Map:
Premium Map:
ILLYRIAM/DALMATIA 1200 BC - I1333 - Genesis GEDmatch - mine:Deep-Dive Map:
Archaeological Map:
Premium Map:
THRACIAN BULGARIA 450 BC - I5769 - Genesis GEDmatch - mine:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
