K12 Dodecad project : highest percentage for each admixture

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,020
Reaction score
3,377
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
Matching phenotypes and genetic admixtures

I am really interested to see what people with a high percentage of one admixture look like.

The highest national average of "West European" is 68.5%, which is the average for Irish Dodecad members. But a handful of people listed in the spreadsheet exceed 70%, and one even reaches 75.1% (DOD298). This makes me wonder what is the highest percentage that a single individual could have (without resorting to intentional cross-breeding to recreate a 100% West European individual). If there was someone with over 90% of West European admixture, I infer that he or she would look quite close to the archetypal ancestral population of "West European" (read North-West European, or maybe R1b Proto-Indo-European).

The pure East European type is even more elusive. Lithuanians score the highest (61.5%). Only 4 project members exceed 60%, with a maximum of 67.8% (DOD468).

The Mediterranean admixture doesn't reach more than 55% of any individual's genes, and usually in the isolated Sardinians.

It's not the case of all admixtures. The 'Northeast Asian' reaches 98.5% in the Koryaks, the 'Southeast Asian" approaches 92% in the Dai and Lahu, the Mbuti Pygmies are 98.3% 'Paleo African', North Kannadi are 81.6% 'South Asian'. In all these populations it should be possible to find individuals with 100% of a single admixture element. In others, I expect to find individuals with over 90% of one component (e.g. the Mozabites who are 76.3% 'Northwest African', Georgians who are 72.3% 'West Asian', and Saudis who are 71.5% 'Southwest Asian'). So we can have a good idea of what phenotypes match these genetic components.

It's ironic that it is for the three European components that the maximum percentages are the lowest.

Looking for the origins of the three European populations

So how comes that Europeans are mixed, and who were the three original populations from whom we inherited most of our genome ?

Mediterranean

It's easy to see why no population has kept a high level of Mediterranean genes with all the migrations that took place from all sides the Mediterranean since the Mesolithic. One might wonder if this "Mediterranean" component is even a coherent genetic element, as it is found in such disparate populations as Moroccans, Sardinians, Scandinavians or Iraqi, and pretty much everywhere in between. If it is, it could be the remnant of an aboriginal Paleolithic European population, men carrying Y-haplogroup I lineages, or even an older population whose Y-DNA has all but disappeared (hg F or IJ ?) because their genes were passed only by women. It actually would make sense if the Mediterranean element represented the IJ branch of the Y-chromosomal tree, as it is as common in the Middle East as in Europe. In other words, it would be a very ancient population, perhaps encompassing all the mtDNA subclades of H and V (and perhaps other haplogroups too).

This would explain why the Mediterranean element is so widespread geographically, but also why it reaches such high levels in northern Europe: nearly 25% in the Dutch and Orcadians, 20-22% in the Irish, British and Germans, and around 15% among Scandinavians. If Neolithic farmers reached northern Europe, they were probably more West Asian, and the West Asian element ranges from 4 to 7% in Scandinavia and the British Isles, which fits better with the percentage of haplogroups G2a and J2.

Let's take a concrete example. Belarusians and Poles have considerably more Mediterranean admixture than Lithuanians (14% and 17% against 6.5%, respectively). They also have a bit more West Asian and Southwest Asian (total 2.3% for Belarusians, 3.8% for Poles and 0.5% for Lithuanians). All three have a lot of R1a and some R1b. The main difference is that Belarusians and Poles have considerably more haplogroup I2 and J (20.5% and 13.5% against 7% for Lithuanians) as well as Neolithic haplogroups G2a and E1b1b (total 10.5% and 7.5% against 1.5% for Lithuania). It doesn't match exactly, but there is a trend. Haplogroups G2a and E1b1b are higher than the autosomal DNA from the Middle-East, but that's probably because they were diluted on the way by mixing with other European populations in the Balkans, since it was typically hunter-gatherers who sent their women to marry male farmers rather than the other way round (therefore the Y-DNA remained Middle Eastern, but the mtDNA became European).

North-West European

The West European component of the Dodecad Project being really a North-West European (NWE) one, I will use this denomination here.

Based on my analysis, the NWE component correlates best with haplogroups R1b1b2a1 and I1.

Haplogroup I1 is a special case within haplogroup IJ because it experienced a dramatic bottleneck in the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age that surely had a serious impact on its autosomes. If the re-expansion of I1 with the flourishing of the early Germanic culture happened after the last I1 lineages blended with an R1b1b2a1 dominated population (such as in the Netherlands or Denmark, cradles of the Germanic civilisation), then it makes sense that we should see a correlation between the percentage of I1+R1b and the North-West European component.

In almost every case, we notice an imbalance towards a higher percentage of R1b than actual autosomes (except in Scandinavia and in Romania, where it is matches fairly well).

Ireland has 86% but 68.5% of NWE.
Britain has 81% of R1b+I1 but 66% of NWE.
Germany has 60% of R1b+I1 but 53% of NWE.
France has 70% of R1b+I1 but 52% of NWE.
Spain has 70% of R1b+I1 but 42% of NWE.
Portugal has 58% of R1b+I1 but 40% of NWE.

Why is that so ? I believe it has to do with the quick replacement of native lineages by R1b during the Bronze Age and the genetic predisposition of R1b to father more sons than other haplogroups.

This imbalance is particularly obvious in South Italy and Turkey, where the percentage of R1b is about twice higher than the NWE component. This is simply because a lot of R1b isn't R1b1b2a1, but older Middle Eastern subclades, that are not associated with the the spread of the same people (namely the Proto-Indo-Europeans).

The percentage of mtDNA lineages should balance the difference between autosomal and Y-DNA ratios.

Eastern Europe is the only region where the NWE autosomes exceed R1b+I1, and sometimes to a 3:1 ratio.

Belarus has 13% of R1b+I1 but 28% of NWE
Russia has 11% of R1b+I1 but 32% of NWE
Poland has 23% of R1b+I1 but 35% of NWE
Hungary has 25% of R1b+I1 but 37% of NWE

I believe this is because R1b1b2a1 originated in Eastern Europe, in the Pontic steppes north of the Black Sea, expanded to Central, Northern, Western and Southern Europe, but was ultimately replaced by R1a tribes from northern Russia (the Balto-Slavs) and Central Asia (Scythians, Bulgars, etc.), who killed many of the R1b men left in Eastern Europe, and took their women (the same process as R1b people did when they invaded Europe). This is why the percentage of R1b has diminished in Eastern Europe, but NWE autosomes survived through maternal lineages.


East European

The percentage of East European component matches almost exactly the frequencies for haplogroup R1a. It's truly amazing : 2-3% in Ireland, 5-6% in the Netherlands, 6-7% in Turkey, 12% in Greece, 17% in Germany, 22% in Romania, around 30% in Hungary, around 50% in Poland, Belarus and Russia... Only Scandinavia has a bit more R1a (28% in Norway, 19% in Sweden) than East European autosomes (9.5% and 13%), perhaps due to a founder effect.

The case of Finland

One major exception is Finland, which is a very peculiar case indeed. Finnish people are overwhelmingly European autosomally (93%, against 6% Siberian), and do look Northern European, but their Y-DNA is in great part the Siberian N1c1 (nearly 60%). The best explanation is that these N1c1 lineages were actually for the biggest part autosomally European when they arrived in Finland. As both R1a and R1b are low in Finland (7.5% and 3.5%) but the East European autosomes reach 33% and the North-West European 53%, it means that N1c1 lineages are hiding both East and North-West European autosomes.

It is usually assumed that N1c1 came to Finland from Siberia, but what if it first reach Fennoscandia, then recolonised Finland from northern Sweden, bringing I1, R1a, R1b and Swedish N1c1 in the operation ? The whole group would have been autosomally close to the Swedes, and a founder effect among the ruling class would have spread N1c1 with European autosomes. Sweden itself has only 0.5% of Northeast Asian/Siberian autosomes but 9% of N1c1, mostly concentrated in the north of the country, where an expansion towards Finland would have been most likely. The 6% of Siberian autosomes in Finland would represent the N1c1 that was already in Finland before the recolonisation from northern Sweden.
 
Last edited:
[SIZE="3"If it is, it could be the remnant of an aboriginal Paleolithic European population, men carrying Y-haplogroup I lineages, or even an older population whose Y-DNA has all but disappeared (hg F or IJ ?) because their genes were passed only by women. It actually would make sense if the Mediterranean element represented the IJ branch of the Y-chromosomal tree, as it is as common in the Middle East as in Europe. In other words, it would be a very ancient population, perhaps encompassing all the mtDNA subclades of H and V (and perhaps other haplogroups too).


I find quite fascinating and scarry the idea that whole Y-DNA lineages could disappear
 
I find quite fascinating and scarry the idea that whole Y-DNA lineages could disappear

Their disappearance doesn't necessarily mean that their carriers were driven to extinction. Every man is born with tiny mutations in his Y-chromosome compared to his father. Most of the time these have no obvious effect on fertility. But some mutations can lead to sterility (notably deletions), while others can lead to increased fertility (higher sperm production). A higher sperm count inevitably leads to a slight bias towards producing more boys.

The reason is that male spermatozoa are faster than female ones, but also weaker to "chemical aggressions" from vaginal fluids (acidity in particular weakens or kills male spermatozoa). The lower the number of spermatozoa during conception, the higher the chances that the "swimmers" that will reach the egg will be the most resistant (the female ones). That is why higher sperm count increases the chances of male spermatozoa to survive and get to the egg first. You may have noticed that some families with 3 or more children have only girls or only boys. Some women have a more acidic vaginal tract than others, which will naturally select in favour of baby girls. Others are more alkaline, and therefore encourage the conception of boys. Vaginal pH can be influenced by the type of foods consumed, but there is also a strong genetic predisposition, which is why some women will always have boys, or always girls, no matter how much they try to change their diet. I think that mtDNA, which produces and regulates the energy of body cells, plays a major role in determining vaginal pH. It would make sense that very common mtDNA haplogroups correspond to a lower pH (more acid), since they select for baby girls, and therefore become more common in the population (as mtDNA is only inherited through females). Rare mtDNA haplogroups, such as I, W and X, for instance, probably select for boys. Each subclade is of course unique, considering that a single mutation can potentially change everything. This is why some mtDNA lineages become more common (those selecting girls) and others progressively disappear (those selecting boys).

The sperm count of a woman's partner is also determinant. Obviously a woman whose body is naturally alkaline with a husband with a high sperm count will have very high chances or having mostly boys. Y-DNA haplogroups with higher sperm count consequently produce more boys and become quickly more common than other haplogroups. Eventually, haplogroups associated with low sperm count are disappear naturally.
 
It is quite convincing that the Y haplogroup IJ represents the mediterranean component - possibly one of the oldest european components. Starting from the Near East/ Mesopotamia the ( originally semitic) carriers could reach areas to the east - Iran, and to the north, where after the glacial period the climate improved.

I believe this is because R1b1b2a1 originated in Eastern Europe, in the Pontic steppes north of the Black Sea, expanded to Central, Northern, Western and Southern Europe, but was ultimately replaced by R1a tribes from northern Russia (the Balto-Slavs) and Central Asia (Scythians, Bulgars, etc.), who killed many of the R1b men left in Eastern Europe, and took their women (the same process as R1b people did when they invaded Europe). This is why the percentage of R1b has diminished in Eastern Europe, but NWE autosomes survived through maternal lineages.


There is evidence that R1a tribes settled in central - eastern Europe before R1b ( R1b1b2a1 ), e.g. Eulau, Germany, 3rd millenium BC, so they didn`t have to expel them from that area.
The routes of migration of the R1´s most probably differed from each other.
R1b, usually connected with protoceltic population - if they were indoeuropean at all - could penetrate East Europe most likely from the south ( Unetice?) and from the west.

One major exception is Finland, which is a very peculiar case indeed. Finnish people are overwhelmingly European autosomally (93%, against 6% Siberian), and do look Northern European, but their Y-DNA is in great part the Siberian N1c1 (nearly 60%). The best explanation is that these N1c1 lineages were actually for the biggest part autosomally European when they arrived in Finland. As both R1a and R1b are low in Finland (7.5% and 3.5%) but the East European autosomes reach 33% and the North-West European 53%, it means that N1c1 lineages are hiding both East and North-West European autosomes.

As indigenous population in that part of europe, the N- people could have received the european autosomes from the indigenous I- people.
It is interesting for me that the settlement of the N people reached once much further to the west, perhaps as far as the Oder? Later on, there are some mentions about them, e.g. Tacitus, Fenni. Their component must have contributed, beside the Corded Ware and the I2a- tribes, to the east european anthropological type.
[FONT=&quot]Languages like the Lithuanian must have assimilated some of the finno-ugric idiom[/FONT]
 
The Mediterranean component or Southern European genetic, it's obvious that is lower in Europe than the Northern one. This is evident if you see K=10, analysis where the Northern European component is clearly higher. If we look at the West and the East European, probably the West European is the highest, and the East European perhaps can be lower in average than the Mediterranean one, but I prefer to distinguish only Northern and Southern Europe.

Then, it's imposible to find a group of people showing an extremely high Southern European concentration, because a significant amount of this was replaced a long time ago by other influences. The best example are the Sardinians, but note the diference between K=10 and K=12 in them...their results seem to be absurd, there is very little coherency, so probably special tools are needed to analyse this population properly. Or ¿wich one is on the truth?, ¿K=10 or K=12?

Another thing to consider in Southern Europe is that is not the same an "Iberian Southern Europe" and a "Greek Southern Europe". The genetic isolation of the original populations on each place we must asume that was completely diferent, so the phenotypes of course won't be the same too.

As you can see, there is much to talk about this.
 
The Northwest European obviously includes also Norse ancestry, because Norwegians are second after Irish. This component has little to do with the West-European of Eurogenes that peaks in N.Spaniards/S.French

The mediterranean component seems to be associated with paleolithic I2 south-europeans. After peaking in Sardinians the second are North-Italians and then Iberians, so it's definately Southwest European.
 
The mediterranean component seems to be associated with paleolithic I2 south-europeans. After peaking in Sardinians the second are North-Italians and then Iberians, so it's definately Southwest European.

The Mediterranean component is as common in Southeast Europe as in Southwest Europe. It's also very common all over the Middle East and North Africa. So it cannot be just I2, but more probably all the macro-haplogroup IJ and its mtDNA equivalents.
 
The Mediterranean component includes Southwest and Southeast Europe, I'm sure about this. Obviously, an hypothetical Southwest European component would peak in Basques, Southern French and Northern Spaniards, and doing the same with the Southeast European, probably Greeks would get the highest score. Sardinians, of course, are a mistery since they get quite diferent results depending on the test.
 
Last edited:
This Mediterranean component is obviously not "European" but just "Mediterranean" as its name implies. Indeed if we look athe Genetic distances Fst provided by Dienekes we can clearly see that "West_Asian" is closer to "West_European" (0.048) than "Mediterranean" is (0.058) is!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw7x-HD7ON0/TgJS__AvriI/AAAAAAAAAiU/44-iorvZqS0/s1600/fst.png

West_European vs East_European 0.044
West_European vs West_Asian 0.048
West_European vs Mediterranean 0.058
West_European vs Southwest_Asian 0.065
West_European vs Northwest_African 0.073
West_European vs South_Asian 0.083

West_European vs East_African 0.125
West_European vs Southeast_Asian 0.142
West_European vs Northeast_Asian 0.143

West_European vs Neo_African 0.211
West_European vs Palaeo_African 0.255

This "Mediterranean" component is also the closest to "North African" (0.067) just after "SouthWest Asian" (0.066)...

North African vs SouthWest Asian: 0.066
North African vs Mediterranean: 0.067
North African vs West Asian: 0.068
North African vs West European: 0.073
North African vs East European: 0.081

So definitely not "European" but just "Mediterranean"....
 
I know who you are now. The only t.r.o.l.l. posting at 23andme now decided to join Eupedia. Very ill mental health.

Mediterranean means Southern European (Southwest + Southeast Europe). The way you post the distances it's absolutly WRONG. You must take all clusters as reference, and if you look carefully, you'll see that West Asian is closer to Neo African, Paleo African, and some other non European clusters than the Mediterranean is. That's easy to understand, since West Asian is one of the near eastern clusters, and Mediterranean is the 3rd European cluster. Even West European is closer to Paleo African than the Mediterranean is.

Time to accept the facts and treat your Ibero-Phobia :LOL:
 
How can it be not european, when Germans, Brits, and Orcadians have more than 20% ? Come on.
 
That's easy to understand, since West Asian is one of the near eastern clusters, and Mediterranean is the 3rd European cluster. Even West European is closer to Paleo African than the Mediterranean is.

Time to accept the facts and treat your Ibero-Phobia :LOL:
???

The Mediterranean borders to Africa! Between West Asia and Africa there is South West Asia! West Asia doesn't border with Africa!!!

Between Europe and Africa there is the Mediterranean. Spain, Greece are North Mediterranean European countries. Algeria, Tunesia , Lybya are South Mediterranean African countries.


Spain, Greece, Italy etc. do border with Africa.
 
???

The Mediterranean borders to Africa! Between West Asia and Africa there is South West Asia! West Asia doesn't border with Africa!!!

Between Europe and Africa there is the Mediterranean. Spain, Greece are North Mediterranean European countries. Algeria, Tunesia , Lybya are South Mediterranean African countries.


Spain, Greece, Italy etc. do border with Africa.
What ? Have you seen the table of Fst distances ? It's very clear.
 
The West Asian GENETIC component it's closer to Africans than the Mediterranean one. That's fact, you are twisting things.
 
What ? Have you seen the table of Fst distances ? It's very clear.
Yes, it's also very clear that Africa and the Mediterranean are neighbours!
 
The West Asian GENETIC component it's closer to Africans than the Mediterranean one. That's fact, you are twisting things.
??? WHAT??

Kurds, Georgians, Persians have nothing to do with Africans!!
 
We are talking about genetics here, not geography. Plus, West-Asia is connected to Africa by land, while the mediterranean is not.
the Mediterranean have MUCH more AFRICAN hg. 'E' than West Asia.
 

This thread has been viewed 132292 times.

Back
Top