Similarity rate with different ancient genomes

my Eurogenes K36,Croatia and Montenegro seems to have the highest double digit values. What do you think JajarBingan still a coincidence the Croatian connection :) ?
Edit: 23andme v5 chip



 
Mine:
The high Portugal number (Lusitanian and Ligurian similarities?) and the high Catalan number aren't really a surprise. I didn't think the German and especially French Swiss and Austrian numbers would be that high. The Cornwall number is a bit off?

Anyway:

tGQ6h2L.png
[/IMG]

Ed. to adjust zoom function.

Makes more sense now. The 55 is Brittany. The 76 was Balearics, not Catalonia. I guess Corsica really is Tuscany. :)
 
Last edited:
Carlos and Fernando in this order

_C__Users_JUANCARLOS_Downloads_admixPaintDiff1Chr.cgiX1CROMOSOMA5.html.png


Z061309_3_EB4566X1CROMOSOMA3.gif

Z061309_3_BB23C5X1CROMOSOMA2.gif


Z061309_21_EB4566.gif

Z061309_21_BB23C5.gif


I have chosen two random chromosames, 3 and 22 to compare them with Fernando's.
 
Mine:
The high Portugal number (Lusitanian and Ligurian similarities?) and the high Catalan number aren't really a surprise. I didn't think the German and especially French Swiss and Austrian numbers would be that high. The Cornwall number is a bit off?

Anyway:

I think 23andme is considering Swiss ancestry as Italian, wich could tell that swiss peoples have something to do related with italian peoples.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think 23andme is considering Swiss ancestry as Italian, wich could tell that swiss peoples have something to do related with italian peoples.

It doesn't matter what 23andme thinks or doesn't think. That has to do with interpretation.

This algorithm just uses the raw data, the snps, and clearly, going by Salento's results, they have both Ticino and German Swiss reference samples, and from my results they also have French Swiss reference results.

Sorry if that disappoints.:grin:

Cheer up. You're still 84% similar to some Germans.
 
It doesn't matter what 23andme thinks or doesn't think. That has to do with interpretation.

This algorithm just uses the raw data, the snps, and clearly, going by Salento's results, they have both Ticino and German Swiss reference samples, and from my results they also have French Swiss reference results.

Sorry if that disappoints.

Disspaointed about what?
 
Comparison of my kit with ZZ2243872 (Morisco of the ancient kingdom of Granada)


ZZ2243872_EB4566MORISCOGRANADA.jpeg
 
KSY56bN - Imgur.jpg And the winners are Alpine Germans!
 

Attachments

  • KSY56bN - Imgur.jpg
    KSY56bN - Imgur.jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 77
Intuitively, some of these comparative results look so weird. I mean, less similarity with Minoans from the BA Aegean (18) than with Paleolithic Ust' Ishim, who barely contributed anything to the modern European population? Ust'Ishim looks much closer than Mal'ta (3), which is demonstrably connected to the ANE that does exist in most modern Europeans via the steppe ancestry. There are other strange results like that. Or are each of these groups (e.g. Paleolithic before glaciation, Northwestern Europe, etc.) to be judged on their own, that is, their results would not be comparable with those included in another group, only with those under the same label?
Indeed. But the cool thing, I guess, is the big number of clusters in the calculator the similarity rate and map are based on, which serves the purpose of these tools, rather than being informative per se, in isolation. In fact, the tools work like an Oracle more or less, and they have a decent use for comparisons, making more sense when analysed as a whole. Plus, I guess a high rate tends to evidence, comparatively, a real high similarity. It's just that there must be a margin of error for them, naturally. Still, it's a nice reference, as we can observe empirically. Not perfect, of course.
As for Minoans etc., the similarity rate uses a calculator with modern references, meaning the DNA of ancient samples are categorized in clusters based on modern individuals, and it doesn't matter the "distance" of each fit. So it's inverted. The purpose of calculators is to find how the individual is mixed, either using contemporary references or ancient. But ok.
It seems K36, as all of its kind, calculates which cluster is the closest to a certain segment, and once it finds one, all the others are despised (zero fit). What matters are the overlaps of the results themselves, or if you prefer, the differences (100 - <differences>). So, if you get a relatively good fit of 5% of certain cluster, and the ancient sample gets, say, a bad fit of 10% (but still a fit; it will be forcibly categorized anyway), you'd get 5% more of "similarity" rate. As an extreme example, imagine a Denisovan against these tools. Let's hypothesize he gets some relatively high % related to certain Austronesians. The result is that the similarity rate between these Austranesians and a Denisovan could be higher than between the former and, say, the Sardinians(?).
In short, the clusters are mutually exclusive. They become more informative when well chosen, as the reference samples.

As you said in another thread, the results are not a given truth. A last example, practical, and not so extreme, are the Basques, a somewhat drifted pop. I'm not sure they get more Neolithic DNA than North Italians in admixture tests, for example. Probably not. However, Sardinians and Basques, "more than any other populations in Europe", would be those who best "preserved the 'original' widespread early Neolithic population component". Then I think we could say Basques are the second more similar to early farmers genetically, according to f-statistics. But not necessarily according to admixture. ;)

@Angela
I just checked my K36 results. I see some inconsistence just in Eastern_Euro and West_Caucasian clusters. Mine are higher than the sum of my parents'. That's using just 23andMe data. This fact could in theory result in a higher score than the sum of my parents', yes. I haven't checked if it happened though.

Btw, the numbers in your similarity map above are a bit offset. It's likely a browser issue. Perhaps it has something to do with the zoom? Anyway, again, it's somewhat similar to mine, for obvious reasons. :)
 
Indeed. But the cool thing, I guess, is the big number of clusters in the calculator the similarity rate and map are based on, which serves the purpose of these tools, rather than being informative per se, in isolation. In fact, the tools work like an Oracle more or less, and they have a decent use for comparisons, making more sense when analysed as a whole. Plus, I guess a high rate tends to evidence, comparatively, a real high similarity. It's just that there must be a margin of error for them, naturally. Still, it's a nice reference, as we can observe empirically. Not perfect, of course.
As for Minoans etc., the similarity rate uses a calculator with modern references, meaning the DNA of ancient samples are categorized in clusters based on modern individuals, and it doesn't matter the "distance" of each fit. So it's inverted. The purpose of calculators is to find how the individual is mixed, either using contemporary references or ancient. But ok.
It seems K36, as all of its kind, calculates which cluster is the closest to a certain segment, and once it finds one, all the others are despised (zero fit). What matters are the overlaps of the results themselves, or if you prefer, the differences (100 - <differences>). So, if you get a relatively good fit of 5% of certain cluster, and the ancient sample gets, say, a bad fit of 10% (but still a fit; it will be forcibly categorized anyway), you'd get 5% more of "similarity" rate. As an extreme example, imagine a Denisovan against these tools. Let's hypothesize he gets some relatively high % related to certain Austronesians. The result is that the similarity rate between these Austranesians and a Denisovan could be higher than between the former and, say, the Sardinians(?).
In short, the clusters are mutually exclusive. They become more informative when well chosen, as the reference samples.

As you said in another thread, the results are not a given truth. A last example, practical, and not so extreme, are the Basques, a somewhat drifted pop. I'm not sure they get more Neolithic DNA than North Italians in admixture tests, for example. Probably not. However, Sardinians and Basques, "more than any other populations in Europe", would be those who best "preserved the 'original' widespread early Neolithic population component". Then I think we could say Basques are the second more similar to early farmers genetically, according to f-statistics. But not necessarily according to admixture. ;)

@Angela
I just checked my K36 results. I see some inconsistence just in Eastern_Euro and West_Caucasian clusters. Mine are higher than the sum of my parents'. That's using just 23andMe data. This fact could in theory result in a higher score than the sum of my parents', yes. I haven't checked if it happened though.

Btw, the numbers in your similarity map above are a bit offset. It's likely a browser issue. Perhaps it has something to do with the zoom? Anyway, again, it's somewhat similar to mine, for obvious reasons. :)

Dear Regio X.
They recommend not zooming if you're using Chrome because the small squares appear offset from the geographic region they're referring to. I saw that Angela found her result of Cornwall low. In fact, on her map (map of Angela), the result refers to Brittany, France, and was moved upward, appearing to be from Cornwall probably by the use of zoom. They recommend using Mozilla Firefox in case you want to zoom.
Big Hug :)
 
I changed the map zoom and edited my post. Thanks, guys. :)
 
@Sile knock knock

I noticed that I only have one or two reds on the K36 Sim Map.
I wonder if there’s a connection with the low frequency of the Y Haplogroup.
I know that autosomal and haplogroups don’t necessarily relate.

just wondering if you get low reds too. :)
 
It's funny how most of you ethnic Italians seems to have more match with Neolithic Europe, Mediterranean Metal Ages and Mediterranea in general. While i have huge matches with something Bell Beaker ancestry. But on the K36, my biggest score of like 18.something is Italy. How's that translating in real hypothesis?
Genetics and geography singing virtually in unison? :)
That would be courtesy of the Alps mainly, hindering the gene flow. Anyway, that's why we're "Southern" Europeans genetically, not just geographically. I mean, it's already a regional (or sub-continental, if you prefer) cluster in many calculators, with high precision and relatively high recall in reports like the 23andMe Ancestry Composition. Meaning it's distinguishable, and meaning South Europe wouldn't be North Europe, East Europe, Middle East, North Africa or whatever. South Europe is... South Europe, also under a genetic perspective. ;)
Anyway, for most Europeans, all roads lead to Asia. And Africa! It's just a matter of "when". At the end, we're all related.
Btw, digression must be a "hobby" of mine. Sorry! :)

As for your Italian %, hmm... Well, I don't know exactly, but the "Northern" part of Swiss ancestry must be fragmented in several clusters, whereas what we could call the Southern part would be divided in just few, Italian and Iberian being the main (at least for Western Europeans). Just a guess.

I think 23andme is considering Swiss ancestry as Italian, wich could tell that swiss peoples have something to do related with italian peoples.
Not sure what you mean. As already suggested, 23andMe has nothing to do with it directly. The calculator tries to fit your DNA, the Raw Data, in the clusters, and it doesn't matter how you call them (could be just "A", "B", "C"...). The references matter, both from the calculator and map. If a certain segment falls in any of these clusters, it means it has more similarity to the related references compared to others'. That's it. The labels don't change the similarity results you get, of course. So, assuming the references - used by the calculator - for the Italian cluster come from Italy, which seems obvious, then 18% of your DNA would be more similar to them compared to all others, including the several "Northerners". Italians themselves get %s from other clusters, naturally, and you may get some from the same, which is added in the "similarity rate" between you and these Italian references used for the map.
 
ngX2ZVr.jpg

I agree with Angela there seems to be a Lusitanian/Celtiberian - Celto-Ligurian connection.
I thought I'd get more Roman, and more Basque.
Equal distances from : Baleares, Normandy, Lombardy. - Madrid, Innsbruck, Antwerpen. - Aragon, Brittany, Friuli. - Romagna, England, Wales. - Rome, Copenhagen, Orkneys.
Never felt so distinctly European!
 
550now6.png


I made this colorized version of the map.

Recent Ancestors v2 (Admixture Studio v1.2)

AncestryDNA: (1 week ago)
lObQOdL.jpg


NatGeo Helix: (Yesterday)
DTpFkZY.jpg


23andme (2 weeks ago)
oNaMMht.jpg


The program updated often.
 
^^

0`01 Spain


Less is more at any time that Iberian 0'01 can seize you
 

This thread has been viewed 51595 times.

Back
Top