• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Eurogenes Results through K15

Carlos

Carlos

Banned
Messages
2,647
Reaction score
701
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
E-V22/YF66572
mtDNA haplogroup
J1c5c1
Obtuvo estos resultados a través de Eurogenes K15. Nmontes. No hay oráculo.


[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Population[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"] [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]North_Sea[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]20.35 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Atlantic[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]31.76 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Baltic[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]4.75 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Eastern_Euro[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]2.31 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]West_Med[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]23.82 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]West_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]6.42 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]East_Med[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]3.13 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Red_Sea[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]3.37 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]South_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Southeast_Asian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Siberian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.99 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Amerindian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: right"]- [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Oceanian[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.16 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Northeast_African[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]2.55 Pct[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]Sub-Saharan[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: right"]0.41 Pct[/TD]
 
Last edited:
Nmontes

pen0-
[1] "distancia% = 0.4171"

X

French_Basque, 44.6
Orcadian, 25.8
Sardinian, 18.4
Ossetian, 7.4
Somali, 3.6
Evens, 0.2

pen0.001-
[1] "distance% = 0.5924"

X

Spanish_Cantabria, 86.4
French_Basque, 7.6
Francés, 1.8
orcadian, 1
Southwest_English, 1
Afghan_Uzbeki, 0.2
Chechen, 0.2
Ethiopian_Anuak, 0.2
Ethiopian_Oromo, 0.2
Hadjar, 0.2
Kanjar, 0.2
North_Dutch, 0.2
North_Osetia, 0.2
San, 0.2
Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha, 0.2
Sudanese, 0.2

pen0.01
1 0.5738 "

X

Spanish_Cantabria, 89,8
French_Basque, 5,8
Balkar, 0,6
francés, 0,6
checheno, 0,4
Southwest_English, 0,4
Afghan_Pashtun, 0,2
Ethiopian_Ari_cultivator, 0,2
Evenki, 0,2
Hadza, 0,2
irlandés, 0,2
North_Ossetian, 0,2
South_Dutch, 0,2
Southeast_English, 0,2
Spanish_Cataluna, 0,2
tabassaran, 0,2
West_Norwegian , 0.2
West_Scottish, 0.2
 
Last edited:
That's K13, not K15 :)
 
^^
The first post is now fixed. It's with K15
 
My Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 Oracle results:


Admix Results (sorted):

Population
Atlantic

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Percent [/TD]

[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]

[TD="width: 50, align: right"]27.8[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]North_Sea[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]22.55[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]West_Med[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]21.84[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]East_Med[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.23[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Baltic[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.97[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Red_Sea[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]5.04[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]West_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]3.79[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Amerindian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.82[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Southeast_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.46[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Eastern_Euro[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.46[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Siberian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.03[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Sub-Saharan[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.02[/TD]

Single Population Sharing:

Population (source)
Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Distance [/TD]

[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]

[TD="width: 50, align: right"]4.31[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Portuguese[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]4.88[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Galicia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]4.88[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Cataluna[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]5.02[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Extremadura[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]5.24[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Murcia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]5.86[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Cantabria[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.01[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.61[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Valencia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.71[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Andalucia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]8.2[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Aragon[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]8.52[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Southwest_French[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]8.83[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]North_Italian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.22[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]14[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]French[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.68[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]15[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]South_Dutch[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]14.71[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]16[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Tuscan[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.05[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]17[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]West_German[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]16.84[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]18[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Southwest_English[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]17.66[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]19[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]French_Basque[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]17.99[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]20[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Serbian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]18.74
[/TD]

These results are really odd, since my mother comes from Murcia-Andalusia (and all known ancestors from the same place) and my father, from Catalonia (all known ancestors also from Catalonia). Instead, the minimum distance is from Castilla y León, Portugal and Galicia, which are the places in Iberia farthest away from the family locations of my parents. I have no known relationship to these places. There was the Reconquista, but a paper I saw a few months ago showed the movement was north-south, so if any, I would expect aragonese or something like this.

Any idea?
 
OK, a friend has told me, off-Forum, that Eurogenes is way off for Eastern Iberians like myself, since the Spanish samples in Eurogenes are biased towards Galicians, so every Catalan or Valencian gets a huge proportion of Galician, Portuguese, Castilian, Cantabric, Extremadura ... But this is fake.

This is also consistent with my 23andme results, which show first Catalonia, then Andalusia, Murcia and Valencia, so I am purely "Mediterranean Iberian", according to 23andme, which is reasonable given my knowledge of my family.

Of course, it is true that it seems 23andme focuses on the last 2 or 3 centuries, and Eurogenes targets older events. But even though, I do not see a massive movement of population of Western to Eastern Iberia a thousand years ago.
 
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.280735
2 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 7.761991
3 Southwest_French @ 8.481945
4 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 8.488644
5 Spanish_Aragon @ 8.692999
6 Spanish_Cataluna @ 9.260433
7 Spanish_Extremadura @ 9.559198
8 Spanish_Andalucia @ 9.937961
9 Spanish_Valencia @ 9.954538
10 Portuguese @ 10.074296
11 Spanish_Murcia @ 10.178892
12 Spanish_Galicia @ 10.916896
13 French @ 14.676711
14 French_Basque @ 15.663252
15 North_Italian @ 16.065012
16 South_Dutch @ 19.052065
17 Southwest_English @ 21.704960
18 Tuscan @ 22.904907
19 West_German @ 23.140503
20 Southeast_English @ 23.450478

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Spanish_Cantabria +50% Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.280735


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Spanish_Cantabria +25% Spanish_Cantabria +25% Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.280735


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.280735
2 French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Galicia + Spanish_Galicia @ 6.395476
3 Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 6.399209
4 French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Galicia @ 6.403708
5 French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon + Spanish_Galicia @ 6.476579
6 French_Basque + Portuguese + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Galicia @ 6.479626
7 Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 6.483661
8 French_Basque + Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha + Spanish_Galicia + Spanish_Galicia @ 6.517900
9 French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Extremadura + Spanish_Galicia @ 6.533604
10 French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha + Spanish_Galicia @ 6.567818
11 French + French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.567858
12 French_Basque + Portuguese + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.642263
13 French + French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 6.642465
14 French_Basque + Portuguese + Portuguese + Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.651925
15 French + French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Extremadura @ 6.658022
16 Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Extremadura @ 6.664260
17 French_Basque + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cataluna + Spanish_Galicia @ 6.667257
18 French + French_Basque + Spanish_Andalucia + Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.669136
19 Spanish_Aragon + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.670503
20 Southwest_French + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria + Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.678367

Done.

Elapsed time 1.7156 seconds.


In MTA I have seen how the vettones get El Argar and vice versa, El Argar gets vascones and vicevers, Tartessos gets ilergetes and vice versa, e.t.c. so I have seen correspondences well before the reconquest and repopulation in which perhaps those correspondences between the different territories of Iberia were reinforced And all the ancient samples of Iberians and Basques are also obtained in considerable proportions.. I know a woman from Murcia who knows for sure that she descends from Cantabria, even has a manor house in Murcia, for the majority that memory is lost considering that in addition the majority of the old censuses were burned in the preambles of the war Spanish civilian


I only ask that all this of genetics be left out and not influenced by modern regionalist nationalisms because what I believe could have happened with Ibero-Basque and each region of Spain have their own piece of nationalist Iberian. If you make the effort you can get it. ha
 
Farstar said:
OK, a friend has told me, off-Forum, that Eurogenes is way off for Eastern Iberians like myself, since the Spanish samples in Eurogenes are biased towards Galicians, so every Catalan or Valencian gets a huge proportion of Galician, Portuguese, Castilian, Cantabric, Extremadura ... But this is fake.

This is also consistent with my 23andme results, which show first Catalonia, then Andalusia, Murcia and Valencia, so I am purely "Mediterranean Iberian", according to 23andme, which is reasonable given my knowledge of my family.

Of course, it is true that it seems 23andme focuses on the last 2 or 3 centuries, and Eurogenes targets older events. But even though, I do not see a massive movement of population of Western to Eastern Iberia a thousand years ago.
Click to expand...

You (and your friend) are misunderstanding how both things work, 23andme looks at segments shared with their references and assigns you to them. A K15 just calculates different components from your raw data and calculates a distance with each vector (from your components). There's a lot of variation and overlapping in Iberia, you don't have to be closest to your regional reference in K15 or in a PCA like G25. Also, different references in K15 would produce different results, that's just simple statistics. I'm Portuguese, my closest reference in K15 is Aragón. Portugal is 11th.

Code: 
[TABLE="class: distances"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(82.5352218744058, 100%, 50%)"]4.68309727[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Aragon[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(78.73604963167003, 100%, 50%)"]5.15799380[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(72.78393493735423, 100%, 50%)"]5.90200813[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Valencia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(71.39850208069714, 100%, 50%)"]6.07518724[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Andalucia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(63.26048290653156, 100%, 50%)"]7.09243964[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Cantabria[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(63.13434780115505, 100%, 50%)"]7.10820652[/TD]
[TD]Southwest_French[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(57.01372847992986, 100%, 50%)"]7.87328394[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(55.77305238453256, 100%, 50%)"]8.02836845[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Murcia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(50.268537947351206, 100%, 50%)"]8.71643276[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Extremadura[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(42.04637275918458, 100%, 50%)"]9.74420341[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Cataluna[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(33.98511756678384, 100%, 50%)"]10.75186030[/TD]
[TD]Portuguese[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(18.321825350766673, 100%, 50%)"]12.70977183[/TD]
[TD]France-South[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(16.53562545494222, 100%, 50%)"]12.93304682[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Galicia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: hsl(10.195664930750539, 100%, 50%)"]13.72554188[/TD]
[TD]French_Basque[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

My list is kind of similar to Carlos'...where are you from?
 
I am Catalan. My father is Catalan, and my mother from south east Spain. 23andme gives me ancestry results consistent with this. Other calculators do not. This suggests that, at least for me, 23andme technology is superior to the others, right? Are there other people with reverse experience? Granted, 23andme and eurogenes target different time stamps.
 
Ruderico said:
You (and your friend) are misunderstanding how both things work, 23andme looks at segments shared with their references and assigns you to them. A K15 just calculates different components from your raw data and calculates a distance with each vector (from your components). There's a lot of variation and overlapping in Iberia, you don't have to be closest to your regional reference in K15 or in a PCA like G25. Also, different references in K15 would produce different results, that's just simple statistics. I'm Portuguese, my closest reference in K15 is Aragón. Portugal is 11th.

Code: 
[TABLE="class: distances"]
[TR]
[TD]4.68309727[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Aragon[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5.15799380[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5.90200813[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Valencia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6.07518724[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Andalucia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7.09243964[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Cantabria[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7.10820652[/TD]
[TD]Southwest_French[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7.87328394[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8.02836845[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Murcia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8.71643276[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Extremadura[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9.74420341[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Cataluna[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10.75186030[/TD]
[TD]Portuguese[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]12.70977183[/TD]
[TD]France-South[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]12.93304682[/TD]
[TD]Spanish_Galicia[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]13.72554188[/TD]
[TD]French_Basque[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

My list is kind of similar to Carlos'...where are you from?
Click to expand...

I`m Andalusian
I almost always get Cantabria as the closest modern population, but in these new results I get Aragón and Huelva; although the Spanish regions are really close.

arag%25C3%25B3n.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Farstar said:
I am Catalan. My father is Catalan, and my mother from south east Spain. 23andme gives me ancestry results consistent with this. Other calculators do not. This suggests that, at least for me, 23andme technology is superior to the others, right? Are there other people with reverse experience? Granted, 23andme and eurogenes target different time stamps.
Click to expand...

That's the issue, you're comparing different things. 23andme also assigns me Portugal because I match segments with Portuguese individuals, but my results are unlike most Portuguese (~86% Iberian, 0% Italian, 0% West Asian, 0% SSA, etc)
 
The purpose of the commercial tests, other than to sell your data for research, create drugs etc., is to tell people, most of whom may not know their ethnic identity, to which modern populations they are closest.

These "amateur" tools are for people who want to know "ancient" ancestry, the population genetics of various groups, which is fine, but they are created by amateurs themselves who can be biased, may have massaged data or strategically included or not included certain samples, may have an imperfect understanding of the groups, or the programs, which they did NOT create, as is the case with many of the academics, and who in almost all cases have far more confidence in their understanding than is warranted.

Take it all with a truck load of salt, but the latter more salt than the former.
 
Angela said:
The purpose of the commercial tests, other than to sell your data for research, create drugs etc., is to tell people, most of whom may not know their ethnic identity, to which modern populations they are closest.

These "amateur" tools are for people who want to know "ancient" ancestry, the population genetics of various groups, which is fine, but they are created by amateurs themselves who can be biased, may have massaged data or strategically included or not included certain samples, may have an imperfect understanding of the groups, or the programs, which they did NOT create, as is the case with many of the academics, and who in almost all cases have far more confidence in their understanding than is warranted.

Take it all with a truck load of salt, but the latter more salt than the former.
Click to expand...

Yes, Angela, what you explain makes sense to me.

I hope some day, some tool will appear to show the ancestry composition, expliciting timing. In the end, all "pure" ancestry is in fact a previous admixture, just older. But I guess that to do that, one needs not only PCA or distances, but some kind of diffusion models for the populations. I am sure the next years and decades will be quite interesting on this regard.
 
Farstar said:
I am Catalan. My father is Catalan, and my mother from south east Spain. 23andme gives me ancestry results consistent with this. Other calculators do not. This suggests that, at least for me, 23andme technology is superior to the others, right? Are there other people with reverse experience? Granted, 23andme and eurogenes target different time stamps.
Click to expand...

I did it in FTDNA of course. I know of people with some of their Spanish parents who in 23 do not get Iberian.
 
[h=2]GedMatch - Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15[/h]
Code: 
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][B]#[/B][/TD]
[TD][B]Population (source)[/B][/TD]
[TD="align: right"][B]Distance[/B][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Portuguese[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.49[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Extremadura[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.07[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Galicia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.38[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.57[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Murcia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.58[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Cantabria[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.68[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Cataluna[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]8.03[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]8.78[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Andalucia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]8.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Valencia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Spanish_Aragon[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.86[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Southwest_French[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]10.37[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]North_Italian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]11.67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 40, align: center"]14[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]French[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]13.72[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

It's fun, but I agree with Angela:

Angela said:
The purpose of the commercial tests, other than to sell your data for research, create drugs etc., is to tell people, most of whom may not know their ethnic identity, to which modern populations they are closest.

These "amateur" tools are for people who want to know "ancient" ancestry, the population genetics of various groups, which is fine, but they are created by amateurs themselves who can be biased, may have massaged data or strategically included or not included certain samples, may have an imperfect understanding of the groups, or the programs, which they did NOT create, as is the case with many of the academics, and who in almost all cases have far more confidence in their understanding than is warranted.

Take it all with a truck load of salt, but the latter more salt than the former.
Click to expand...
 
You are potentially accusing them of being fraudulent, which is pretty serious (or would be, should any of this be official, but it isn't). The effects you mention can be problematic in supervised tests like K13/K15, etc, but in an unsupervised test like G25 that's not as much of an issue since the algorithm is left to create its structure. Here the biggest issue might be dimensionality, G25 might have been created with too many dimensions for the sample size used in its input and some minor issues occasionally pop up when using the data in certain ways (like nMonte3 models, eventhough it can me mitigated with a penalty), but even then the tool appears to be pretty good and relatively coherent with published data, at least for West Eurasia, I am not familiar with the rest of the world in this PCA data


Edit: On Iberians not matching their regional reference, it's unimportant. A reference changes once you change the samples used to calculate it, when there's a large overlap within different regions, and noticeable variation within that region, "matching" a different region in this K15 or K13 shouldn't be surprising. Iberia had a lot of population movements in the last millennia, some areas were left more isolated than others. This variation can see seen in studies of modern Iberian population, for example this K7 ADMIXTURE graph https://i.postimg.cc/446W4B58/k7admix.png
 
Ruderico said:
You are potentially accusing them of being fraudulent, which is pretty serious (or would be, should any of this be official, but it isn't). The effects you mention can be problematic in supervised tests like K13/K15, etc, but in an unsupervised test like G25 that's not as much of an issue since the algorithm is left to create its structure. Here the biggest issue might be dimensionality, G25 might have been created with too many dimensions for the sample size used in its input and some minor issues occasionally pop up when using the data in certain ways (like nMonte3 models, eventhough it can me mitigated with a penalty), but even then the tool appears to be pretty good and relatively coherent with published data, at least for West Eurasia, I am not familiar with the rest of the world in this PCA data


Edit: On Iberians not matching their regional reference, it's unimportant. A reference changes once you change the samples used to calculate it, when there's a large overlap within different regions, and noticeable variation within that region, "matching" a different region in this K15 or K13 shouldn't be surprising. Iberia had a lot of population movements in the last millennia, some areas were left more isolated than others. This variation can see seen in studies of modern Iberian population, for example this K7 ADMIXTURE graph https://i.postimg.cc/446W4B58/k7admix.png
Click to expand...

I am sure Angela knows how to defend herself, but it is obvious she is not accusing of fraud to anybody. Have you felt called in?

The issue of supervised or non-supervised is not the relevant point, if samples have been "massaged" ex-ante. For sure, misclassification is a serious issue, but if some samples that should be in, are not there, or viceversa, the unsupervised algorithm may fail to find the right structure. In fact, unsupervised algorithms tend to be "worse" than supervised ones (of course, lots of caveats here), so I am surprised that an unsupervised algorithm is seen as an evolution of supervised ones.

About Iberian regions: if there is so much overlap, maybe it would be interesting to have not only a measure of the distance, but also a measure of the error. For example, if all the first 5 estimated regions were within the error bands, one could not say that the first region is more important than the fifth. Now, most people believe that the first one is the most important one, and anything above the 2nd or 3rd is discounted. But the ranking could be purely due to noise, if the distance among regions is so overlapping.
 
Why should I be felt called in? That'd be ridiculous, I didn't even make any tool.


I don't know if the samples have been "massaged" or not and neither does anyone here. If there's evidence for that, I'd very much like to learn it. Edit: I'm referring to the tools us amateurs-at-best use, namely Eurogenes and Dodecad
We only know the samples used for the input in K13/15 (and probably G25, although I'm not certain whether ancient samples were used or not) were from HGDP. What we can see is that, as a tool used used to visualise data, G25 seems more than decent. My argument on supervised is that they are easier to mess up when it comes to what we do here, since these were done back in 2013 and our knowledge of population genetics has changed since then. I'm pretty sure that if people were to remake these tools probably new components would be used, for example the NEAfr and SSA are poor to represent north African ancestry in Europe.


As for Iberian regions, its study is best left for scientific studies in population genomics which is why I mentioned it. If what you want is to know a broad degree of similarity you can make statistical analysis yourself, there's plenty of public data in G25. People have been doing that since it was made available. If not, because you don't trust the tool, just read what we currently have, or wait for new studies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top