Dodecad Dodecad euro7

Here I have the data for two anonimous Algerians, wich clarify several things:

Algerian 1
9.86% Caucasus
16.75% Northwestern
0.21% Northeastern
29.89% Southeastern
15.48% African
2.72% Far_Asian
25.09% Southwestern

Algerian 2
13.13% Caucasus
16.50% Northwestern
2.93% Northeastern
30.15% Southeastern
11.19% African
4.08% Far_Asian
22.01% Southwestern

Results could be a bit noisy in this case for the lack of African clusters, but it's significant the amount of African they get considering the actual cluster includes mostly East African and Sub-Saharan (or simply reads substantial amounts of different African ancestries). Southwestern, as expected, is quite high, just slightly lower than French, but Southeastern is even higher. Nothing surprising, since the last cluster includes many different influences. For a predominatly Caucasoid population makes sense, although there are obviously things to fix for North Africans. The analysis were designed mainly for Europeans, and it's important to keep this in mind.
 
You are assuming SE European means Arabian from the Arabian peninsula. I am sure the Greeks, the Bulgarians and other SE Europeans would be pleased to have you locate them to Mecca. SE European also includes most of the Italians.

I have always considered that the Arabians are a recent people, a post Neolithic people who lived on the edges of the Sumerian civilization. The Caucasus probably contributed more to Arabians and Europeans than vice versa considering most of the domestic species used by Neolithic farmers actually came from the northern edge of the Middle East or the southern parts of the Caucasus. Even the vine comes from the Caucasus. Where would the Spanish, French, Italians and Greeks be without their vines?
 
Isn't the Far Asian too high for North Africans? Sure you copied the results properly?

By the way, it probably is not good form to publish the results of people you don't know or who haven't given you permission. Think about it. Some twerp referred to my STR results and kit number on dna forums. The results were in my surname project to which he did not belong. I was not pleased and complained to him via 23andMe. One reason I won't publish my results here.
 
I listed the results anonimous, I don't see the problem. I did it because some people was curious about what North Africans could get, so in my opinion was useful to post. I could post a lot more results but I didn't, it was just to have a North African reference (note there aren't listed in the spreadsheet).

And yes, the results are copied properly. Not sure the Far Asian what kind of alleles is detecting...could be perfectly noise. The Southeastern as I said includes European and other influences. Quite of the Southwest Asian has been included in it, but it doesn't mean that if you get some Southeastern you must put it at the same level. It depends on the person or population we are looking. In other words, it could mean East Med or Middle Eastern, so we'll have to wait if one day Dienekes' makes the division.
 
This caluculator has an evident problem with the Caucasus component and the Southeastern. Southeastern is mostly European, but includes some other influences, and I think sometimes admixture confuses the data with the West Asian. Quite difficult to determine exactly what they mean, we just can infer it aproximately knowing wich country or person is under the analysis.

By the way, here are mine:

59.70% Southwestern
32.65% Northwestern
4.91% Southeastern
2.67% Northeastern
0.05% Caucasus
0.01% Far Asian
0.00% African

I am mostly Catalan, and it seems is what I inherited in great part. My results are fairly different from the Spanish average, possibly I am the only one in the project getting such reports. The non European, as usual, is very low or plain noise, depending how you interpret the Southeastern, but I was 0% West Asian and Southwest Asian.

The African has been a bit underestimated in my case, while the Far Asian is noise (more or less the same as Caucasus). Incredibly low and insignificant.

PD: The results for Sardinians make sense, it was obvoius they must have substantial Southeastern. I expected Basques less Southeastern, more or less like me. Interesting.

Thank-you for sharing Knovas. The African in the euro7 calculator is the total of Palaeo-African, Neo African and East African. The unique characteristic of euro7 is that Northwest African has been added to Southwestern. Does this make sense to you or is there another possible explanation? I have come across the same thing a number of times now, NW African disappears in euro7 every time, I believe it gets merged with the Southwestern admixture component.
 
I did not see your reply here Dorian.

Well, we have discussed this in the other thread without a total agreement. I think the fact North Africans seem to have more Southeastern than Southwestern indicates what I said about the ambiguousness of the first one, including many different influences which could perfectly include Northwest African as a whole of Med/South Euro, Near Eastern and small Sub-Saharan. It would clarify more if we could see the results of ethnic Berber individuals scoring near 100% Northwest African component in the v3 run, but at the moment this is not possible.

According to the distances the Southwestern seems to be very well defined, and it peaks in Northeast Iberia where the African admixture is less present (in both haplogroup frequencies and admixture averages). So my point now that I have done many analysis on myself, is that the Southeastern masked this Nortwest African, but if you want an intermediate point I propose the following:

According to the v3 run I was 2.2% North+East African. I must say this is the maximum score I ever get in such clusters (and it's still very low), so the real number must be something between 0-2%. Anyways, if we assume it's correct, taking the v3 run as reference we can say both Southwestern and Southeastern should reduce in my case 1.1% to take out this African scores with strong Caucasoid element. And the same could be applied to other Iberians in consonance with their personal scores.

I'm willing to see this in a K=12 style to see a "real" Southeastern cluster, since it's obvious (I think you agree here) that it's the worst defined of all. The figure for Armenians it's enough evidence to note there's something rare.

With all said, ¿do you like the intermediate solution? Regards.
 
According to the v3 run I was 2.2% North+East African

Your proposal depends on your other admixture percentages in the v3 run. Could you pm your results for the v3 run so I can see the values for Northwest African, East African, Neo African and Palaeo-African. If my observations are correct then you should have 0% Palaeo-African with a little Neo-African if your 2.2% is related to your Northwest African admixture that comes from West Africa. On the other hand, if you have 0% Neo-African and a little Palaeo-African admixture then you may have a significant Southeastern admixture that is pretty out of the ordinary in Iberian individuals.

My v3 results are 0% Neo-African, 0.28% East African, 0.90% Northwest African and 1.19% Palaeo-African. This makes sense as the Eastern Mediterranean and Northeast African populations show Palaeo rather than Neo African trace amounts. As I explained in the other thread, I believe this is due to a different source for the introduction of African admixture in Southeastern Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern countries compared to Northwest Africa.

My Northwest African score converges with my Mediterranean component rather than Neo-African, which I'm guessing is not the case in Iberians. If anything I anticipate Iberian individuals to have a Northwest African admixture that lacks the Palaeo-African elements?
 
Last edited:
I told you North + East African, because I have 0% in both Neo African and Palaeo African. The exact percent is 1.6% Northwest African and 0.6% East African for me, which is total 2.2%. My K=10 for you to have another reference, showed only 0.3% East African.

I compared My Euro7 results with a lot of people, and there's nobody showing such low Southeastern without having any Caucasian like I do. I haven't tested my mother who is absolutely 100% Catalan from a single town, but I bet she would show even lower Southeastern, being the rest more or less the same. Your hipothesis that I sholud really have more Southeastern doesn't work for me, since many analysis tell the contrary: EuroDNACalc, Eurogenes runs showing me as 100% Western European, and the Intra Southern European K=3 with a Southeastern/Anatolian cluster, saying 0% for me. This analysis were erased though, but I saved all my personal results.

In my opinion is not surprising I usually show 0% in Sub-Saharan clusters with figures like this, only a few times I got 0.1% in the Eurogenes Project and the last Eurasia7 said 0.4%. Well, It's still very low, at a reasonable level of ressolution I come out 0%.

And the Iberian averages it's true that show more Neo African than Palaeo African as you pointed, but we are talking about percents less than 1% putting them together. I know the Iberian results, and there's no one showing more than 0.2-0.3% Palaeo African, so you are right in considering the component lacks.
 
I told you North + East African, because I have 0% in both Neo African and Palaeo African. The exact percent is 1.6% Northwest African and 0.6% East African for me, which is total 2.2%. My K=10 for you to have another reference, showed only 0.3% East African.

v3 Admixture Components:
East_European
West_European
Mediterranean
0% Neo_African
Very low West_Asian
South_Asian
Northeast_Asian
Southeast_Asian
0.6% East_African
Southwest_Asian
1.6% Northwest_African
0% Palaeo_African


Alright, so you say that your results show no Neo-African and no Palaeo-African.

there's nobody showing such low Southeastern without having any Caucasian like I do

You say you have very low Southeastern without any Caucasian? This sounds normal as Southeastern usually converges with Caucasian/Anatolia. This suggests that you have no Palaeo-African which is correct.

How do you understand your 2.2% African v3 result?

Using methods that can infer admixture proportions in the absence of accurate ancestral populations, we estimated that the proportion of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Spain is 2.4 +/- 0.3%, in Tuscany 1.5 +/- 0.3%, and in Greece 1.9 +/- 0.7% (1 standard error). We also studied the decay of admixture linkage disequilibrium with genetic distance, which provided a preliminary estimate of the date of African gene flow into Spain of roughly 60 generations ago, or about 1,700 years ago assuming 28 years per generation. This date is consistent with the historically known movement of individuals of North African ancestry into Spain, although it is possible that this estimate also reflects a wider range of mixture times (Moorjani et al.).
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/09/estimate-of-sub-saharan-autosomal.html

The above abstract appears to suggest that certain Sub-Saharan elements are to be found in patches throughout the Southern European coastline.

At 23andMe, East Africans come out largely "European" on the Ancestry Painting, which shows that African components can be missed when largely Eurasian reference groups are used.
 
2.4% Sub-Saharan in Spain is completely exagerated. I don't know the pattern used in the study, but even the figures for Tuscany and Greece are too high. The WEAC Calculator with very low ressolution (4 groups), showed 1% aprox in Spain, and when including North+East African the figure goes near 0%. There was a post made by Dienekes' critisizing a similar study showing Sub-Saharan percents in Italy, Spain, Sardinia, etc, telling how more or less they could have obtained the figures (in the same line of what you posted). The methodology seems very similar in this one due to the high percents, I'm sure he would say the same thing. Anyways, it's true there's some Sub-Saharan element in almost all Southern Europe, but It's not significant in average.

And about the 23andme's ancestry painting, it's an error to interpret it literally. What it really means is the following: European = Caucasoid, Asian = Mongoloid and African = Negroid. No surpise that East Africans show substantial "European", but at the correct level of ressolution we see they have mostly Southwest Asian in regards for Eursian admixtures. And we must keep in mind that their main component in the v3 run is East African, which deviates a lot towards Eurasia. So I don't think the 23andme ancestry painting is missing something, it just says what this population is in a simple way if you forget the names.

Perhaps it's gonna surprise you, but Iberians come out 100% European (Caucasoid) almost all times there. In my opinion there's no mistery, since the vast majority of this scores are North+East African, which include very strong Caucasoid element (precisely attested by the East African example you mentioned).

Finally, about me, I understand my result with very insignificant Sub-Saharan element. I don't think it's rare most times I come out 0%, and doesn't matter...in my opinion it's not relevant if I'm 0 or 0.4% Sub-Saharan. I really don't see the "difference".

Also, in the K=12 v3 and other experiments from the Eurogenes project, I showed 0% West Asian and Southwest Asian. Only a figure of 0.6-0.8% South Asian seems to be recurrent, and sometimes with 0.2% Northeast Asian or Southeast Asian, but this looks much noisy. The rest goes always distributed in the main clusters found among Europeans, called in different ways depending on the project.

And about genetic plots, it's difficult to find one including a lot of samples to show the exact position. The best one I saw was the West Eurasian one (PNG image) from the Eurogenes Project, and I clustered alone between Basques and Spaniards. It's exactly where I think ethnic Catalans should cluster, but I'm willing to see more global experiments to get a better idea.
 
2.4% Sub-Saharan in Spain is completely exagerated. I don't know the pattern used in the study, but even the figures for Tuscany and Greece are too high. The WEAC Calculator with very low ressolution (4 groups), showed 1% aprox in Spain, and when including North+East African the figure goes near 0%. There was a post made by Dienekes' critisizing a similar study showing Sub-Saharan percents in Italy, Spain, Sardinia, etc, telling how more or less they could have obtained the figures (in the same line of what you posted). The methodology seems very similar in this one due to the high percents, I'm sure he would say the same thing. Anyways, it's true there's some Sub-Saharan element in almost all Southern Europe, but It's not significant in average.

I understand the reservations and tend to remain somewhat undecided regarding the Moorjani et al. figures and cannot help but notice that the same snps are found in significant frequencies within NW African (Mozabite) and Palaeo-African population groups used in Dodecad. There is even overlap between Middle Eastern and African snps, it's very messy but illustrative of the fact that people do not stay put for very long. You can see this for yourself by comparing African to NW African in the SNP Map based on Dodecad. The analysis highlights all snps that are found in an individual and compares their frequencies in the population groups chosen. If one choose African, you will find the relevant snps highlighted. If you input NW African the same happens, with mostly the same snps as the African run. There appears to be a significant amount of overlap with regards to African components, despite the impressive amount of diversity within the African continent.

If you want, try doing a 'bychr' Weac run to view individual chromosomes. You may see something interesting with the fluctuations of admixture percentages.

The Moorjani et al. 2.4% is a mean with a standard deviation of 0.3%, additionally I would think that the Sub-Saharan they refer to includes all African snps, irrespective of whether they may be found elsewhere in high frequencies. They mislead the reader somewhat but the point is still the same, they simply overemphasized the African element a bit. I'm not concerned about this.
 
My data according to this calculator (I tested my dna through Geno 2.0), in descending order:

Northwestern 26.50
Southeastern 25.99
Southwestern 23.89
Northeastern 14.53
Caucasus 7.94
African 1.16
Far_Asian 0.00

Are they typical for a northern italian, or not? My haplogroups are common.
 
My data according to this calculator (I tested my dna through Geno 2.0), in descending order:

Northwestern 26.50
Southeastern 25.99
Southwestern 23.89
Northeastern 14.53
Caucasus 7.94
African 1.16
Far_Asian 0.00

Are they typical for a northern italian, or not? My haplogroups are common.
Do you prefer to be special or you want to blend in?
 
My data according to this calculator (I tested my dna through Geno 2.0), in descending order:

Northwestern 26.50
Southeastern 25.99
Southwestern 23.89
Northeastern 14.53
Caucasus 7.94
African 1.16
Far_Asian 0.00

Are they typical for a northern italian, or not? My haplogroups are common.

Its a calculator from an internet Blog and you can find all its results on p.1;
(incl. two North Italian results);
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F9XoyN2wE-w/ToZBZZT7jdI/AAAAAAAAAmI/qwmGu64Xvwk/s1600/admixture.png
 
Thanks. It seems I'm quite average.

Actually, although your numbers definitely have a "Northern Italian" look to them, they are a bit different from the published averages for northern Italians.

Your Northeastern number is very high, for example, especially for someone from Liguria, and yet the Caucasus number is a little high for a northerner as well, and I've never seen a Ligurian or Lombard or Tuscan for that matter score an African number. The only "northern Italian" group that seems to score an African percentage is the OT group. (They get .8 for it as an average.) I just assumed that was a group of mixed southern and northern Italians, but Sile posted that they're from the far northeastern mountainous areas, near Austria. I have no idea what population movement could have been responsible for it, but the neighboring Tyrol also harbors some rather "exotic" clusters for that geographical area. I mention it because I think I recall that you posted that one of your grandparents is from the northeast? Perhaps from that area?

Here are the actual averages from Dodecad "Euro 7" for the northern Italians.

HGDP sample/Bergamo
SW 34.3
NW 31
SE 27.9
NE 4.8
Caucasus 2
Far Asia 0
Africa 0

Dodecad Project North Italians
NW 31.4
SE 28.8
SW 27.9
NE 9.4
Caucasus 2.5
Far Asia 0
Africa 0

For comparison, these are the numbers for the HGDP Tuscans (not the Firenze sample)
SE 35.2
SW 30.2
NW 24.1
NE 4.7
Caucasus 5.6
Far Asia .2
African 0

My personal opinion is that the Dodecad numbers seem accurate for the Italians if consistency of result and the clines generated are any indication. If you go to the spreadsheet and look at the numbers for all the Italian groups, you can see how the averages reflect very well the differing histories of the various areas.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Gd1UEFIbzVlUEtpbTd0S0RLcnVYTEE&hl=en_US#gid=0

Btw, I can't explain it, but I don't think the .2 Far Asian for the Tuscans is a fluke. I've seen Tuscans and part Tuscans get .2 Far Asian on 23andme as well. I get it myself.
 
Btw, I can't explain it, but I don't think the .2 Far Asian for the Tuscans is a fluke. I've seen Tuscans and part Tuscans get .2 Far Asian on 23andme as well. I get it myself.

Every 5th person on the planet is Chinese;

And that is what Sile posted about the 5 O_Italians:

As for the O_Italian_D population, it stands for Other Italian. Thus it consists of all ethnic Italian Dodecad participants who don't belong to a regional Italian Dodecad population (e.g., C_Italian_D).
 
Every 5th person on the planet is Chinese;

And that is what Sile posted about the 5 O_Italians:

As for the O_Italian_D population, it stands for Other Italian. Thus it consists of all ethnic Italian Dodecad participants who don't belong to a regional Italian Dodecad population (e.g., C_Italian_D).

I'm afraid I have to say that is a singularly silly and rude response, especially coming from a poster like you. While one fifth of the world may indeed be Chinese, most Europeans DO NOT score significant Far Asian percentages, just as most Chinese do not score Southwest European, as just one example. In terms of Italians, we VERY RARELY get Far Asian percentages, unlike northeastern Europeans, and if we do they're at lower levels. Are we clear?

As for the composition of the OT, Dienekes has always refused to comment. The statement I quoted about them was indeed made, if not by Sile, by someone else who claimed to know the members of that group. Since you question it, I will attempt to find the source. I AM NOT in the habit of making up facts. I remember it precisely because it seemed so strange. If it isn't true, that actually would make more sense.
 
I'm afraid I have to say that is a singularly silly and rude response, especially coming from a poster like you. While one fifth of the world may indeed be Chinese, most Europeans DO NOT score Far Asian percentages, just as most Chinese do not score Southwest European, as just one example. In terms of Italians, we VERY RARELY get Far Asian percentages, unlike northeastern Europeans. Are we clear?

O5GvQdv.gif


As for the composition of the OT, Dienekes has always refused to comment. The statement I quoted about them was indeed made, if not by Sile, by someone else who claimed to know the members of that group. Since you question it, I will attempt to find the source. I AM NOT in the habit of making up facts. I remember it precisely because it seemed so strange. If it isn't true, that actually would make more sense.

Than ask Sile himself;
And all of those samples/groups marked with a _D are not from an academic data source to begin with but from an internet Blogger - in opposition to those samples without the _D (who are from an academic source); So i wouldnt get so serious over them either way ... ..... ....
 

This thread has been viewed 61979 times.

Back
Top