K12 Autosomal map : European admixture (from Dodecad)

[Knovas]

You don't understand Zanipolo. 23andme tests 1.000.000 SNP's (similar to Family Finder data file), but they only provide a simple ancestry painting: European, Asian and African.

Gedmatch admixture tools are what they are thanks to Eurogenes, Dodecad and other genetic projects...so Gedmatch it's just a copy, they don't provide nothing concerning this (except for the ancestry painting). Supportmix it's just a software Davidski used to generate ancestry paintings, the same as when he uses the admixture program to obtain clusters and different figures. So with the 23andme raw data (or Family Finder instead), you can obtain all these results, but not without it.

 

[zanipolo]

You don't understand Zanipolo. 23andme tests 1.000.000 SNP's (similar to Family Finder data file), but they only provide a simple ancestry painting: European, Asian and African.

Gedmatch admixture tools are what they are thanks to Eurogenes, Dodecad and other genetic projects...so Gedmatch it's just a copy, they don't provide nothing concerning this (except for the ancestry painting). Supportmix it's just a software Davidski used to generate ancestry paintings, the same as when he uses the admixture program to obtain clusters and different figures. So with the 23andme raw data (or Family Finder instead), you can obtain all these results, but not without it.

i do not understand your concerns, I only stated what davidski wrote on the link provided. He says there is a difference. So how I read it , he prefers gedmatch and supportmix as they go back and include neolithic data.
The new Geno 2.0 will be something different I presume. Maybe somrthing between 23 and Ged

I am not saying anything bad about Gedmatch as I retracted my comments. I am just stating what people want to obtain for their own needs. I do understand that we all came out of africa, so I have no issue ATM.

Q- does gedmatch show your african genes?

regards

 

[Dorianfinder]

Q- does gedmatch show your african genes?

Gedmatch is an independent site that makes the ancestry calculators of Davidski, Dodecad and a few others available to people who have a Relative Finder (23andMe) or Family Finder (FTDNA) data file but have not been able to figure out how to use the software themselves. Gedmatch is user-friendly and quick, it uses the same data that Davidski uses for his calculator, that Dienekes uses for the Dodecad ancestry project etc. The only difference is it's set at lower number of iterations to decrease computation time, making it more user-friendly.

 

[wormhole]

Tuscans have substantial near eastern influence (not the same as Asian or African). Is what decreases the European average, but of course this admixture is mainly Caucasoid and the repercussion in phenotype is not drastic.

They don't have "substantial" at all. The mixture rate is over exaggerated. Their mixture is from Europeans who were in the Near East a while ago. It doesn't make them any "less European". That's stupid. They're pretty much on par with the rest of Northern Italians. In either case, it doesn't matter. Europeans originate in Mesopotamia for the most part anyways. Where do you think R1b/R1a originates? Western/Central Asia.

What is the map that the OP posted even mean? It's obviously bias against Southern Europeans. Italy is WAY more European than Spain/Portugal since Iberia received lots of SSA admixture through the Atlantic Slave trade.

 

[Knovas]

That's not true, you won't find any reliable source confirming your claims. For the same reason, I could argue that SSA admixture in Italy is really significant due to the Romans, since we all know they traded African slaves. Let's stop with the nonsense.

By the way, I know perfectly where R1b and R1a originated. As someone mentioned above, the map only shows the most common genes in Europe nowadays, represented mostly by 3 clusters taking the v3 analysis as reference. Even the mentioned clusters ARE admixed, they're basically a mix of Neolithic superposed to a Meso-Paleolilithic substratum. When I said Near Eastern I only pretended to distinguish both West Asian and Southwest Asian, since they're not between the most common genes in Europe according to this analysis. You can find other interpretations if you want, it's up to you.

 

[julia90]

only spaniards belive on this map... inferiority complex

 

[MOESAN]

That's not true, you won't find any reliable source confirming your claims. For the same reason, I could argue that SSA admixture in Italy is really significant due to the Romans, since we all know they traded African slaves. Let's stop with the nonsense.

By the way, I know perfectly where R1b and R1a originated. As someone mentioned above, the map only shows the most common genes in Europe nowadays, represented mostly by 3 clusters taking the v3 analysis as reference. Even the mentioned clusters ARE admixed, they're basically a mix of Neolithic superposed to a Meso-Paleolilithic substratum. When I said Near Eastern I only pretended to distinguish both West Asian and Southwest Asian, since they're not between the most common genes in Europe according to this analysis. You can find other interpretations if you want, it's up to you.

I suppose you did not understand very well what Knovas was writing... read again

 

[julia90]

I suppose you did not understand very well what Knovas was writing... read again

i agree that caucasian admixture was the last to come in europe; but the map titled european admixture is misleading...
for example we could consider "west mediterranean" admixture wich peaks in sardineans and it's an important part of today iberian genes not european proper because you find it also at substantial levels in north africa and the middle east..

and both caucasian and northern european admixture are very near to each other, while west med admixture is way much more distant to northern european admixture than caucasian is...
certainly both northern european and caucasian admix are more near to south asian admixt than west med is.

and sometimes genitcally distant population like aborigines and west african show similar look, without being genetically near.. so caucasian admix that evolved in the caucasus a place with climatic condition and solar irradiance very similar to southern europe, the people there look europoid


i don't why knovas and many other spaniards are obsessed with this map, and its misleading title; for the rest i'm ok with the spaniards memnber here, and i don't have anything against them; but with this map they are showing an inferiority complex, otherwise if they were ok, they wouldn't create this map

 

[Knovas]

this map has just to be taken as it is: a map about distribution of the more common geographically European genes according to a restricted meaning given to the name 'Europe': it is just an approach to genetic distirbution not trying to determine the most important and distinctive traits of far previous origin - so there are 'caucasian' types very close to most of the Europeans that bear some geographically different genes according to selection -
the panneling of the chosen genes is partially arbitrary and doesn't determine which are the more important genes for a "racial" discrimination - nobody has to be offensed and everybody on this thread holds a part of truth

I don't see why you say I did not understand, maybe you should explain it better. There are obviously 3 main clusters in Europe according to this.

An by the way, Julia, there's no obsesion concerning the v3 analysis. As I pointed above, all the clusters ARE admixed, and there are other genome interpretations by Dodecad and Eurogenes. If the map is discussed here, I think it's only due to the fact that this analysis are mentioned here in Eupedia too (autosomal maps). Of course West Asian, Southwest Asian and North African are mainly Caucasoid (who said the opposite?), but they obviously deviate more towards inner African and East Asian populations. So what's exactly your point? It seems to me you see strange things everywhere, and there's no need to.

 

[Knovas]

and both caucasian and northern european admixture are very near to each other, while west med admixture is way much more distant to northern european admixture than caucasian is...
certainly both northern european and caucasian admix are more near to south asian admixt than west med is.

Oh, and telling only half of the info does not help you. It's logical that Mediterranean appears more isolated, because that's what the Fst distances show. West Asian converges with Northern European, but again, it also shifts inner African and East Asian results more than the Mediterranean related clusters.

There you are the explanation by Dienekes'. I think it's not surpirising at all that Mediterranean afected a lot more the European gene pool than West Asian did:

The Mediterranean components appear to be the most remote ones overall (also evidenced by the fact that Basques and Sardinians nearly always form the peak in the West/East Eurasian/African triangle), which makes sense since the region where the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med component is modal is most remote from both Africa and Asia along the land migration routes.

 

[MOESAN]

I don't see why you say I did not understand, maybe you should explain it better. There are obviously 3 main clusters in Europe according to this.

Sorry, I was supporting your point of view but I posted my post in the wrong "window" - I was trying to put it as a response to Julia90 preceding post - no problem with what you was telling her in previous post

buenas nochas

 

[Knovas]

I suppose you did not understand very well what Knovas was writing... read again

No, my apologies. Now I see it was me the one who didn't read properly XD

 

[wormhole]

That's not true, you won't find any reliable source confirming your claims. For the same reason, I could argue that SSA admixture in Italy is really significant due to the Romans, since we all know they traded African slaves. Let's stop with the nonsense.

By the way, I know perfectly where R1b and R1a originated. As someone mentioned above, the map only shows the most common genes in Europe nowadays, represented mostly by 3 clusters taking the v3 analysis as reference. Even the mentioned clusters ARE admixed, they're basically a mix of Neolithic superposed to a Meso-Paleolilithic substratum. When I said Near Eastern I only pretended to distinguish both West Asian and Southwest Asian, since they're not between the most common genes in Europe according to this analysis. You can find other interpretations if you want, it's up to you.

Why is a Spaniard telling me about Slave holding and African admixture? You should be the last one to talk about that. Lots of European countries held slaves and went through admixture. The admixture of the Roman Empire in modern day populations is MINIMAL in Italian populations as results have shown, meanwhile, L mtDna frequencies can go up to 20% in parts of Spain and Portugal. You can't argue the point of SIGNIFICANT SSA admixture in modern Italian populations at all since it's incredibly minimal.

Take a look at this graph: Italians and Tuscans show >98% Caucasoid component along with other Europeans.
http://racialreality.110mb.com/italians.html
http://racialreality.110mb.com/references.html#Rosenberg_2005

You'd have more ground talking about this issue concerning Sicilians only. Even Sicilians don't have as much SSA as Iberians.

 

[Knovas]

I can't believe what I'm reading LOL

You are not showing nothing based in population genes and the sources are extremely outdated. 2005? What the ****...?

I mean nothing in the sense that there are only a few samples in the Rosenberg et al study but, furthermore, the Caucasoid component looks like the 23andme ancestry painting, where almost all people of European descent comes out 100% European. So it's telling nothing, and Basques (from Iberia LOL) and Sardinians still get the highest Caucasoid.

This are the technical details of the Rosenberg study: 52 world populations, including three Italian samples, were typed for 993 autosomal polymorphisms and subjected to a clustering algorithm.

You should know that 993 autosomal markers = joke.

In year 2005 it was even believed that R1b originated in Europe and expanded after the last glacial age, while Dodecad's v3 analysis belong to year 2011 and it's really based in a large population dataset (more than a hundred populations/thousands of individuals used) and checks more than 150.000 autosomal markers. So stop with your nonsensical agenda about the MtDna L, which no way reaches 20% in Spain (nowhere) and in Portugal I think only a small village shows a significant % of this haplogroup (not representative at all of the main Portuguese people, basically the same as if you collect samples from the Azores or the Canary Islands). Check the Eupedia haplogroup table, which is by far the most accurate on the net, and you'll see you are the one who CAN'T continue with such an embarassing nonsense. The difference if you are able to understand my previous reply, is that I never thought there was significant SSA input in Italy, while you are still explaining fairy tales.

According to Eupedia (MtDNA other category):

The "Other" category includes mostly the older haplogroups N, R, pre-HV and HV, but also occasionally a few African (L) or Asian haplogroups (A, B, C, D, M, Z).

Italy: 15%
Portugal: 7%
Spain: 7%

L is not significant anywhere as noted above. However, let me remind that we are dealing with autosomal, not with haplogroups.

And by the way, I don't consider myself Spanish because my culuture is Catalan and most of my ancestors were Catalans. What I don't see is why are you so obsessed now in darkering Iberians if you have nothing to do with both Spanish and Portuguese. And posting doubtful sources, YOU should be the last one trying to teach something. Well, enough of this empty discussion, at least it was funny xd

 

[wormhole]

I can't believe what I'm reading LOL

You are not showing nothing based in population genes and the sources are extremely outdated. 2005? What the ****...?

I mean nothing in the sense that there are only a few samples in the Rosenberg et al study but, furthermore, the Caucasoid component looks like the 23andme ancestry painting, where almost all people of European descent comes out 100% European. So it's telling nothing, and Basques (from Iberia LOL) and Sardinians still get the highest Caucasoid.

This are the technical details of the Rosenberg study: 52 world populations, including three Italian samples, were typed for 993 autosomal polymorphisms and subjected to a clustering algorithm.

You should know that 993 autosomal markers = joke.

In year 2005 it was even believed that R1b originated in Europe and expanded after the last glacial age, while Dodecad's v3 analysis belong to year 2011 and it's really based in a large population dataset (more than a hundred populations/thousands of individuals used) and checks more than 150.000 autosomal markers. So stop with your nonsensical agenda about the MtDna L, which no way reaches 20% in Spain (nowhere) and in Portugal I think only a small village shows a significant % of this haplogroup (not representative at all of the main Portuguese people, basically the same as if you collect samples from the Azores or the Canary Islands). Check the Eupedia haplogroup table, which is by far the most accurate on the net, and you'll see you are the one who CAN'T continue with such an embarassing nonsense. The difference if you are able to understand my previous reply, is that I never thought there was significant SSA input in Italy, while you are still explaining fairy tales.

According to Eupedia (MtDNA other category):

The "Other" category includes mostly the older haplogroups N, R, pre-HV and HV, but also occasionally a few African (L) or Asian haplogroups (A, B, C, D, M, Z).

Italy: 15%
Portugal: 7%
Spain: 7%

L is not significant anywhere as noted above. However, let me remind that we are dealing with autosomal, not with haplogroups.

And by the way, I don't consider myself Spanish because my culuture is Catalan and most of my ancestors were Catalans. What I don't see is why are you so obsessed now in darkering Iberians if you have nothing to do with both Spanish and Portuguese. And posting doubtful sources, YOU should be the last one trying to teach something. Well, enough of this empty discussion, at least it was funny xd

Regarding the Rosenberg study, either way, with the amount of markers given, no matter how small, Italians show a consistent overlap with other Europeans and are 98% Caucasoid. I wonder why they didn't test Spanish or Portuguese people XD The results would have been funny.

You're incredibly stupid. But it's funny, so I'll keep on going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa...logroup_L_lineages_frequencies_.28.3E_1.25.29

Look at Spain/Portugal compared to Italy: These are Haplogroup L lineage frequencies.

[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
[TR]
[TD]Iberia[/TD]
[TD]South Iberia[/TD]
[TD]310[/TD]
[TD]Casas et al. (2006)[/TD]
[TD]7.40%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]All regions[/TD]
[TD]312[/TD]
[TD]Alvarez et al. (2007)[/TD]
[TD]2.90%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]496[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2005)[/TD]
[TD]1.61%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]Galicia[/TD]
[TD]92[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2005)[/TD]
[TD]3.30%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]North East[/TD]
[TD]118[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2005)[/TD]
[TD]2.54%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]Zamora[/TD]
[TD]214[/TD]
[TD]Alvarez et al. (2010)[/TD]
[TD]4.70%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]Sayago[/TD]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]Alvarez et al. (2010)[/TD]
[TD]18.18%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]Cordoba[/TD]
[TD]108[/TD]
[TD]Casas et al. (2006)[/TD]
[TD]8.30%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]Catalonia[/TD]
[TD]101[/TD]
[TD]Alvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009)[/TD]
[TD]2.97%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]Balearic Islands[/TD]
[TD]231[/TD]
[TD]Picornell et al. (2005)[/TD]
[TD]2.20%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD]Canary Islands[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD]Brehm et al. (2003)[/TD]
[TD]6.60%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]594[/TD]
[TD]Achilli et al. (2007)[/TD]
[TD]6.90%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]North[/TD]
[TD]188[/TD]
[TD]Achilli et al. (2007)[/TD]
[TD]3.19%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]Center[/TD]
[TD]203[/TD]
[TD]Achilli et al. (2007)[/TD]
[TD]6.40%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]South[/TD]
[TD]203[/TD]
[TD]Achilli et al. (2007)[/TD]
[TD]10.84%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]549[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2005)[/TD]
[TD]5.83%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]North[/TD]
[TD]187[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2005)[/TD]
[TD]3.21%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]Center[/TD]
[TD]239[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2005)[/TD]
[TD]5.02%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]South[/TD]
[TD]123[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2005)[/TD]
[TD]11.38%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]North[/TD]
[TD]100[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2010)[/TD]
[TD]5.00%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]Center[/TD]
[TD]82[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2010)[/TD]
[TD]9.70%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]South[/TD]
[TD]59[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2010)[/TD]
[TD]6.80%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]Alcacer do Sal[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2010)[/TD]
[TD]22%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]Coruche[/TD]
[TD]160[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2010)[/TD]
[TD]8.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]Pias[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[TD]Pereira et al. (2010)[/TD]
[TD]3.9%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]Madeira[/TD]
[TD]155[/TD]
[TD]Brehm et al. (2003)[/TD]
[TD]12.90%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal[/TD]
[TD]Azores[/TD]
[TD]179[/TD]
[TD]Brehm et al. (2003)[/TD]
[TD]3.40%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Those are INCREDIBLY high for European populations

Onto Italy: as you can see L haplogroup frequencies are incredibly small and in certain regions, thus suggesting 98% of Italians don't carry an L mtDNA
[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
[TR]
[TD]Italy[/TD]
[TD]Latium[/TD]
[TD]138[/TD]
[TD]Achilli et al. (2007)[/TD]
[TD]2.90%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italy[/TD]
[TD]Tuscany[/TD]
[TD]114[/TD]
[TD]Achilli et al. (2007)[/TD]
[TD]2.63%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italy[/TD]
[TD]Basilicata[/TD]
[TD]92[/TD]
[TD]Ottoni et al. (2009)[/TD]
[TD]2.20%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italy[/TD]
[TD]Sicily[/TD]
[TD]154[/TD]
[TD]Ottoni et al. (2009)[/TD]
[TD]2.00%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Ancestry Informative Markers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_admixture_in_Europe#Autosomal

A 2009 autosomal study by Moorjani et al. that used between 500K and 1.5 Million SNPs estimated that the proportion of sub-Saharan African ancestry is 2.4% in Spain, 1.9 % in Greece and 1.5% in Tuscany. According to the authors, this is consistent in the case of Spain, with the historically known movement of individuals of North African ancestry into Iberia, although it is possible that this estimate also reflects a wider range of mixture times.^[36] According to the authors, application of f4 Ancestry Estimation, a method which produces accurate estimates of ancestry proportions, even in the absence of data from the true ancestral populations,^[38] suggests that the "highest proportion of African ancestry in Europe is in Iberia (Portugal 3.2±0.3% and Spain 2.4±0.3%)

As you can see, the Iberian penninsula is the most spoiled by SSA admixture as a consequence of Moorish Invasion and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

 

[Knovas]

You're incredibly stupid. But it's funny, so I'll keep on going:

Hope moderators will do their job with you. This is my last answer dedicated to your baseless claims.

1. The Rosemberg study is not able to show nothing for more you repeat it like a parrot.

2. Why posting Wikipedia's figures where everyone can post info when there are reliable figures here in Eupedia?...to my knowledge only ignorants or t.r.o.l.l.s do so.

3. Congratulations, you posted another study which has been largely debunked: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html

Enjoy your life, it's time to go

 

[wormhole]

Hope moderators will do their job with you. This is my last answer dedicated to your baseless claims.

1. The Rosemberg study is not able to show nothing for more you repeat it like a parrot.

2. Why posting Wikipedia's figures where everyone can post info when there are reliable figures here in Eupedia?...to my knowledge only ignorants or t.r.o.l.l.s do so.

3. Congratulations, you posted another study which has been largely debunked: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html

Enjoy your life, it's time to go

Do their job with me? For what? Telling the truth?

1. You keep telling yourself that. There's ample evidence on Dienekes's blog, but then again, you'd find someway of convincing yourself otherwise.

2. Where do you think the wikipedia figures come from? A black hole. I even attatched the studies to the Wikipedia figures.

3. Even though Dienekes debunked some of the study, the end will always result in the Iberian Penninsula being "blacker" than Italy despite people thinking the opposite.

 

[Wilhelm]

That Wikipedia article on mtDNA L is stupid, since it inlcudes only Iberia or Italy, in fact there is mtDNA L in all of Europe, as shown in plenty of studies, and the article "forgets" the biggest study done on mtDNA in Spain, with a sample of 686 people, and 0% of mtDNA L (Rhouda et al. 2006), now look at this other blog :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html

 

[Knovas]

The only fact is that there's no point supporting significant amounts of inner African contribution in mainland Europe (nowhere):

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/dual-origins-of-sub-saharan-africans.html

there is evidence for variable affiliation of Sub-Saharans with West Eurasians, but no real evidence for variable affiliation of West Eurasians with Sub-Saharans, except for the Mozabites and HGDP Arabs, with their well-known African admixture.

Nor can the results be explained in terms of more recent common ancestry of African farmers with Eurasians in general, because African populations fall in a clear cline towards West Eurasian populations.

 

[Vallicanus]

That Wikipedia article on mtDNA L is stupid, since it inlcudes only Iberia or Italy, in fact there is mtDNA L in all of Europe, as shown in plenty of studies, and the article "forgets" the biggest study done on mtDNA in Spain, with a sample of 686 people, and 0% of mtDNA L (Rhouda et al. 2006), now look at this other blog :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html

Indeed, and Casas et alia (2006) stated that only the L1 and L2 mtdna haplogroups were specifically Subsaharan and not L3.

Maca-Meyer (2001) stated that L3 was more Eurasian and it was the haplogroup from which all modern non-African humans derive.