# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics > Dodecad >  Dodecad euro7

## Maciamo

Dienekes has just released a new European calculator for the Dodecad Project. It doesn't use the same admixtures as the k=12. The new admixtures are :

*- Caucasus* : really specific to the Caucasus, especially the North Caucasus. It combines part of k=12's West Asian and Mediterranean admixtures. It's interesting to note that the Argyll Scots have the highest percentage in Europe (9.2%) before the South Italians, then come the Dutch and the Irish just ahead of the Greeks and the Brits. So it looks like there were two migrations from the North Caucasus, one to Greece, and the other to the Netherlands and the British Isles. I noticed before that the Dutch have more haplogroup J2 (6%) than the Belgians or (4%) or the Germans (4.5%). The highest percentage of J2 in the world is to be found among the Chechens (56%) and Ingush (88%) in the North Caucasus. Coincidence ?

*- Southeastern* : Comprises mostly the total of the West Asian and Southwest Asian admixtures, but adding some Mediterranean and removing the Caucasus element above.

*- Southwestern* : Correspond mostly to the slightly downsized Mediterranean admixture minus the Caucasus. For example, the Irish, who scored 21% Mediterranean now have 7.2% Caucasus and 10.2% Southwestern.

*- Northeastern* : a very similar Balto-Slavic admixture to the East European of the k=12, but much more amplified to get rid of as much West European interference as possible. 

*- Northwestern* : Ditto but with the West European of k=12.

*- African* : quite close different from the total of Paleo, Neo, East Africans but _without_ the Northwest African component.

*- Far_Asian* : it may look as a combination of Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian, but it's not. The Finns and Turks both score a bit higher on the new Far Asian.


These new admixtures confirm a few interesting points :

- The *Sardinians* have no (North) Caucasian ancestry despite of their elevated percentage of G2a (15%) and J2 (10%). They correspond here to the Southeastern Europe admixture, peaking in Armenia, Anatolia and Greece. The Sardinians are also the only Europeans completely lacking the Northeastern admixture.

- The *Basques* also lack the Caucasian admixture, but have a much lower percentage of Southeastern, which is in agreement with the low percentage of G2a, J1 and J2. Only traces of Northeastern admixture (0.4%).

- Even after purging East Europeans from the West European admixture, the *Lezgins* , *Kumyks* and *Chuvash* still show a considerable level of Northwestern European (13%, 11.5%, 19%) in accordance with their relatively high level of R1b for their region.

----------


## Kardu

My Euro7 Results (I am ethnic Georgian for at least the last 8 generations on all ancestral lines):

53.80% Caucasus
0.01% Northwestern
3.03% Northeastern
36.96% Southeastern
0.00% African
0.90% Far_Asian
5.29% Southwestern

----------


## Knovas

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.

----------


## elghund

What level of precision is there in discerning African ancestry? What's past the noise range?

----------


## Goga

Thanks, this makes more sense than previous calculators. Because according to this new Euro-calculator Sweden and Norways have more Caucasian admixture than Southwestern admixture!

----------


## julia90

Really.. the caucasus admixture is higher in north west europe than in south east europe? °__° i'm surprised.
Why in the previous west asian map it didn't show up?

----------


## Goga

> Really.. the caucasus admixture is higher in north west europe than in south east europe? °__° i'm surprised.
> Why in the previous west asian map it didn't show up?


No, only in Sweden and Norway. In Holland it is almost equal. There's no data on Denmark btw. 

You can see this here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F9XoyN2wE-.../admixture.png

Every map is different, because every time you look from a different perspective. But this new development is very interesting!

----------


## julia90

this demonstrate that caucasian people looks aren't foreign or alien to europe, as we can see at their faces, perfectly european looking

----------


## oreo_cookie

Well to some extent. I personally can't tell Armenians from Levantines.

----------


## Goga

Dienekes divided the Mediterranean component in 2 parts this time, in Southwest (Southwest European + North African) and Southeast (Southeast European + Levant).

----------


## julia90

Armenian are heavily caucasians, but they may have also high levantine admixture, you have to look at Adygeians, to see the most caucasian pure look.
I think armenians pass as european.

----------


## Goga

> Well to some extent. I personally can't tell Armenians from Levantines.


Armenians have more Southeastern component (Southeast European + Levant) than Caucasian admixture!

----------


## Goga

> Armenian are heavily caucasians, but they may have also high levantine admixture, you have to look at Adygeians, to see the most caucasian pure look.
> I think armenians pass as european.


Exactly! Armenians have more Southeastern admixture (Southeast European + Levant) than Caucasian admixture! 

For about 38% Caucasian and more than *55%* Southeastern.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F9XoyN2wE-.../admixture.png

----------


## Knovas

The African ancestry in this Calculator only includes Sub-Saharan, or perhaps significant amounts of East African. The Northwest African has been absorved probably by the Southeastern cluster, wich seems to include different influences (European included).

It's interesting to note that, according to the Fst distances, the Southwestern cluster is the one with less non European affinities. This one is probably a representation of real Paleolithic European if we take the end of the last glacial age as reference. What is very likely to read, is the allele frequencies of the people who remained in Iberia and, in the other side, the peoples who migrated North become Northwestern and Northeastern. The tree is quite ilustrative, it seems clear that Southwestern was originated long before in comparison with the other two.

There are points to be refined, but I like this Calculator so much. When another K=12 comes with similar clusters, the results will be very useful.

PD: Southwestern CAN'T include North African because as I said is the most distant cluster from Africa and Asia. It must be Southeastern according to the distances, check Fst: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=1

----------


## Goga

> The African ancestry in this Calculator only includes Sub-Saharan, or perhaps significant amounts of East African. The Northwest African has been absorved probably by the Southeastern cluster, wich seems to include different influences (European included).
> 
> It's interesting to note that, according to the Fst distances, the Southwestern cluster is the one with less non European affinities. This one is probably a representation of real Paleolithic European if we take the end of the last glacial age as reference. What is very likely to read, is the allele frequencies of the people who remained in Iberia and, in the other side, the peoples who migrated North become Northwestern and Northeastern. The tree is quite ilustrative, it seems clear that Southwestern was originated long before in comparison with the other two.
> 
> There are points to be refined, but I like this Calculator so much. When another K=12 comes with similar clusters, the results will be very useful.
> 
> PD: Southwestern CAN'T include North African because as I said is the most distant cluster from Africa and Asia. It must be Southeastern according to the distances, check Fst: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=1


I don't think so. 

Northwest African is not the same as Sub-Sahara African. Northwest African is very close to Southwest European.

I think Dienekes incorporated both admixtures together!

But you're right, I do also believe that Southwest European component is one of the oldest in Europe!

----------


## oreo_cookie

I bet Northwest African gets grouped in with SW Europe and West and SW Asian go into the SE Europe.

----------


## Knovas

I'm right in BOTH things, here you have the proximities with Africa:

Southeastern 0.163
Caucasus 0.168
Nothwestern 0.177
Northeastern 0.178
Southwestern 0.178

Not close, it's the most distant with Northeastern. And the cluster with less Asian affinities, largely.

----------


## julia90

Tuscans, don't have African or East Asian admixture, while many european ethnicites have them

----------


## Goga

> I bet Northwest African gets grouped in with SW Europe and West and SW Asian go into the SE Europe.


Yes.

West Mediterranean component = Southwest Europe + Northwest Africa and East Mediterranean = Southeast European + Levant.

But most West Asian became Caucasian.

----------


## oreo_cookie

> I'm right in BOTH things, here you have the proximities with Africa:
> 
> Southeastern 0.163
> Caucasus 0.168
> Nothwestern 0.177
> Northeastern 0.178
> Southwestern 0.178
> 
> Not close, it's the most distant with Northeastern. And the cluster with less Asian affinities, largely.


That's affinity with Sub-Saharan African. Not North African.

----------


## Knovas

Yes, because is not listed. And North African can't be included in a cluster with such distance from Africa. It must be Southeastern, the one wich is easily adaptable according to the numbers.

Note that Southwestern is even far in comparison from Southeastern (the same far again as Northeastern) and the Caucasus. If you don't believe in miracles, it's impossible.

----------


## Wilhelm

> *- Caucasus* : really specific to the Caucasus, especially the North Caucasus. It combines part of k=12's West Asian and Mediterranean admixtures. It's interesting to note that the Argyll Scots have the highest percentage in Europe (9.2%) before the South Italians, then come the Dutch and the Irish just ahead of the Greeks and the Brits. So it looks like there were two migrations from the North Caucasus, one to Greece, and the other to the Netherlands and the British Isles. I noticed before that the Dutch have more haplogroup J2 (6%) than the Belgians or (4%) or the Germans (4.5%). The highest percentage of J2 in the world is to be found among the Chechens (56%) and Ingush (88%) in the North Caucasus. Coincidence ?


Well, Spain again shows among the lowest levels of Caucasus/West-Asian, actually second lowest after Lithuanians. 




> *- Southwestern* : Correspond mostly to the slightly downsized Mediterranean admixture minus the Caucasus. For example, the Irish, who scored 21% Mediterranean now have 7.2% Caucasus and 10.2% Southwestern.


Not really. Southwestern is finally the breakdown of the previous Mediterranean component in it's West side, that is, Iberians-North-Italians-Sardinians.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Yes.
> West Mediterranean component = Southwest Europe + Northwest Africa and East Mediterranean = Southeast European + Levant.
> 
> But Northwest Africa has nothing to do with Northwest Europe.


 A shame there are no North-african samples, we could see how many Southwest-Europe they have.

----------


## Goga

> A shame there are no North-african samples, we could see how many Southwest-Europe they have.


Ethiopians have more Southwest admixture.  :Good Job: 

But how is it possible that Ethiopians (as East African folks) have more Southwest than Caucasian admixture?

I trully believe that Northwest African is incorporated into Southwest! For ME this is evidence!

----------


## Knovas

North Africans must have substantial Southwestern from Iberia, but they are not listed. The reason for Ethiopians must come via North Africa.

To find Southwestern in Africa, is not evidence of Northwest African included. Precisely Ethiopians were nearly 0% Northwest African (well, only 2%, while East Africans 1.5%). I doesn't fit.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Ethiopians have more Southwest admixture. 
> 
> But how is it possible that Ethiopians (as East African folks) have more Southwest than Caucasian admixture?
> 
> I trully believe that Northwest African is incorporated into Southwest! For ME this is evidence!


 Note that this is a Euro-Calculator, is designed to work only for Europeans, that's what Dienekes says on the entry blog.

----------


## julia90

> Not really. Southwestern is finally the breakdown of the previous Mediterranean component in it's West side, that is, Iberians-North-Italians-Sardinians.


Do you think that Ligurians may have the same origins as iberians?
This would explain the fact that northern italians cluster closer with iberians, due to Ligurian and gaulish admixture versus iberians and celtiberians adimxture.

From wikipedia
Ligurian origins

In the 19th century, the Ligures' question got the attentions of not a few scholars. Amédée Thierry, a French historian, linked them to the Iberians,[6] while Karl Müllenhoff, professor of Germanic antiquities at the Universities of Kiel and Berlin, studying the sources of the Ora maritima by Avienus (a Latin poet who lived in the 4th century AD, but who used as source for his own work a Phoenician Periplum of the 6th century BC),[7] held that the name Ligurians generically referred to various peoples who lived in Western Europe, including the Celts, but thought the real Ligurians were a Pre-Indo-European population.[8]
Dominique-François-Louis Roget, Baron de Belloguet, claimed a "Gallic" origin.[9]
In favor of a Pre-Indo-European origin thesis were Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville, 19th-century French historian, who argued that the Ligurians, together with the Iberians, constituted the remains of the native population that had spread in Western Europe with the Cardium Pottery culture cardial ceramic,[10] and Arturo Issel, a Genoese geologist and paleontologist, who considered them direct descendants of the Cro-Magnon men that lived throughout Gaul from the Mesolithic.[11]

----------


## Goga

Btw, it's incredible that Ethiopians have for about 50% of Eurasian (non-African) admixture!

----------


## Goga

> Note that this is a Euro-Calculator, is designed to work only for Europeans, that's what Dienekes says on the entry blog.


Not only for Europeans but for all West Eurasians (Europe, Anatolia and Caucasus), but he says nothing about (North) Africa. And you asked for African samples. 

These are his words:

"_in principle, the calculator could be used by non-Europeans/Anatolians/Caucasians, although I would be less confident of their results._"

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/09/...medium=twitter

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Do you think that Ligurians may have the same origins as iberians?
> This would explain the fact that northern italians cluster closer with iberians, due to Ligurian and gaulish admixture versus iberians and celtiberians adimxture.
> 
> From wikipedia
> Ligurian origins
> 
> In the 19th century, the Ligures' question got the attentions of not a few scholars. Amédée Thierry, a French historian, linked them to the Iberians,[6] while Karl Müllenhoff, professor of Germanic antiquities at the Universities of Kiel and Berlin, studying the sources of the Ora maritima by Avienus (a Latin poet who lived in the 4th century AD, but who used as source for his own work a Phoenician Periplum of the 6th century BC),[7] held that the name Ligurians generically referred to various peoples who lived in Western Europe, including the Celts, but thought the real Ligurians were a Pre-Indo-European population.[8]
> Dominique-François-Louis Roget, Baron de Belloguet, claimed a "Gallic" origin.[9]
> In favor of a Pre-Indo-European origin thesis were Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville, 19th-century French historian, who argued that the Ligurians, together with the Iberians, constituted the remains of the native population that had spread in Western Europe with the Cardium Pottery culture cardial ceramic,[10] and Arturo Issel, a Genoese geologist and paleontologist, who considered them direct descendants of the Cro-Magnon men that lived throughout Gaul from the Mesolithic.[11]


Are you referring to the original Iberians who occupied the south-east and central-east rim of Spain? The idea of the Ligurians and (original) Iberians being related is an intriguing one. The remainder of Spain and Portugal (2/3) was Celtic, Celtiberian and Lusitanian (Proto-Celtic / Para-Celtic). At a point in time you also had the Tartessians who seem to have been Celtic influenced, although the Atlantic School suggests they actually spoke a Celtic language.

----------


## zanipolo

> Do you think that Ligurians may have the same origins as iberians?
> This would explain the fact that northern italians cluster closer with iberians, due to Ligurian and gaulish admixture versus iberians and celtiberians adimxture.
> 
> From wikipedia
> Ligurian origins
> 
> In the 19th century, the Ligures' question got the attentions of not a few scholars. Amédée Thierry, a French historian, linked them to the Iberians,[6] while Karl Müllenhoff, professor of Germanic antiquities at the Universities of Kiel and Berlin, studying the sources of the Ora maritima by Avienus (a Latin poet who lived in the 4th century AD, but who used as source for his own work a Phoenician Periplum of the 6th century BC),[7] held that the name Ligurians generically referred to various peoples who lived in Western Europe, including the Celts, but thought the real Ligurians were a Pre-Indo-European population.[8]
> Dominique-François-Louis Roget, Baron de Belloguet, claimed a "Gallic" origin.[9]
> In favor of a Pre-Indo-European origin thesis were Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville, 19th-century French historian, who argued that the Ligurians, together with the Iberians, constituted the remains of the native population that had spread in Western Europe with the Cardium Pottery culture cardial ceramic,[10] and Arturo Issel, a Genoese geologist and paleontologist, who considered them direct descendants of the Cro-Magnon men that lived throughout Gaul from the Mesolithic.[11]



I agree 100% with you

----------


## zanipolo

> Are you referring to the original Iberians who occupied the south-east and central-east rim of Spain? The idea of the Ligurians and (original) Iberians being related is an intriguing one. The remainder of Spain and Portugal (2/3) was Celtic, Celtiberian and Lusitanian (Proto-Celtic / Para-Celtic). At a point in time you also had the Tartessians who seem to have been Celtic influenced, although the Atlantic School suggests they actually spoke a Celtic language.


?
original Iberians as far as I read was only catalan area from france to Barcelona roughly

----------


## Carlos

> Btw, it's incredible that Ethiopians have for about 50% of Eurasian (non-African) admixture!


Incredible it is that it die of famine not the fact that have 50 % of Eurasia.

----------


## Wilhelm

> ?
> original Iberians as far as I read was only catalan area from france to Barcelona roughly


 Wrong. Iberians where as far as East Andalusia.

----------


## Antigone

> Btw, it's incredible that Ethiopians have for about 50% of Eurasian (non-African) admixture!


It makes sense that they would, not only because of Ethiopias geographical situation but because it is at the cross roads of a major and ancient east/west trading route. 

There is a map here 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tr...stC_CE_gr2.png .

----------


## Knovas

It's good to remark the word ancient. All seems to indicate that Southwestern is the oldest one, wich means it had more time to move and spread. More or less the same could be said of the Southeastern, but I think this one is more artifical and gives a false impresion (a very intermediate one). It combines many influences, and the meaning is very different depending on the population or person. I think it must be refined if it's possible, probably in a K=12 analysis including this clusters this will be clarified as I said.

----------


## sparkey

> It's good to remark the word ancient. All seems to indicate that Southwestern is the oldest one, wich means it had more time to move and spread. More or less the same could be said of the Southeastern, but I think this one is more artifical and gives a false impresion (a very intermediate one). It combines many influences, and the meaning is very different depending on the population or person. I think it must be refined if it's possible, probably in a K=12 analysis including this clusters this will be clarified as I said.


I agree that this is important to talk about, because it confuses people a lot. I'm not sure I'd call any of them the "oldest one" because they all probably have components which arrived in their modern geographic distribution at different times. Southwestern is actually a good example, if we think of it as corresponding to peoples who have Y-DNA I2a1a and certain R1b subclades, then already we see that it has influences from different migration periods.

"Does Southwestern have the most Paleolithic European influence?" is a worthwhile question to explore. I think the answer right now is somewhere between "maybe..." and "probably..." I would like to see it refined as well.

----------


## Knovas

The Fst distances on this component, the tree, and the distribution, makes me think it's the most likely one to have very significant Paleolithic element. What exactly reprresents as I said, but it's just my opinion, is the allele frequencies of the humans who remained in Iberia after the last glacial age. Isolation originated around the Pyrenees, wich has probably the highest presence between ethnic Catalans (if my results don't lie or aren't just exclusive, of course).

----------


## LeBrok

It's official I'm Northeastern. I've finally found an hour to read the instructions and run all the programs and files to make it work. Almost quit in the middle of it. We need Steve Jobs to make these programs, lol.

49.67% Northeastern 
24.67% Northwestern 
11.26% Southwestern
8.49% Southeastern 
4.39% Caucasus 
1.53% Far_Asian 
0.00% African 

Actually I was expecting to be more Southeastern, because I'm a brunet.

----------


## Knovas

You also don't fit in any average Lebrok, but I assume you are mixed Euro ancestry. You look mostly like a Finnish and Hungarian mix jaja

Your Southeastern is slightly higher for what I see in the different Northern European averages. It's really incredible that most Northern Euros get more Southeastern than me, or if they get a bit less, it's because they have some Caucasus added. Too bad there aren't many Catalans, I feel quite alone now xd

----------


## Knovas

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.

----------


## Ponto

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?

----------


## Ponto

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.

----------


## Knovas

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.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> 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
> ...


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.

----------


## Knovas

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.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> 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?

----------


## Knovas

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.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> 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...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.

----------


## Knovas

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.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> 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.

----------


## Mars

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.

----------


## LeBrok

> 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
> ...


Do you prefer to be special or you want to blend in?

----------


## Nobody1

> 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
> ...


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-.../admixture.png

----------


## Mars

> Do you prefer to be special or you want to blend in?


That's not my question :)

----------


## Mars

> 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-.../admixture.png


Thanks. It seems I'm quite average.

----------


## Angela

> 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/...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.

----------


## Nobody1

> 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)._

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Nobody1

> 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?







> 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 ... ..... ....

----------


## Mars

> 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
> ...


I'm not fully ligurian indeed. My maternal grandfather was from Padua, Veneto. One of my maternal great grandmothers was from the emilian appennine near Modena. My paternal grandma was from Parma, Emilia. My part venetian ancestry could explain the higher than average north eastern euro, I suppose. 
My "african" 1% is a total mystery to me. Other Dodecad calculators call it "palaeo african" so it should be a very ancient component. I have two theories: maybe it's just some noise (other calculators even found arctic and amerindian...) you know Dodecad is not a scientific project, just amateur. Since other calculators call it "paeleo african", maybe it's a very ancestral component which survived to millennia of admixture instead, only God knows why.

----------


## Nobody1

> only God knows why.


Ask him what the terms mean *or* just get tested by a proper institution instead of an internet Blog;

----------


## Mars

> Ask him what the terms mean *or* just get tested by a proper institution* instead of an internet Blog;*


You are right, unfortunately GEDmatch doesn't support Geno 2.0 kits (so they told me via e-mail), and dr. Mc Donald doesn't test full europeans anymore (he said he should be paid in that case, because of the high workload). I tried other Dodecad calculators with the DIY software and they found totally different results from each other (for example, one even found some traces of "arctic" and "amerindian", which make no sense at all).
EDIT: I was wrong, the african component in the other DIY calculators is called north west african not palaeo african, all of these names are a bit confusing...

----------


## Knovas

Arctic and Amerindian actually represent ancient traces of East Asian-like ancestry, it shouldn't be taken too literally. In Southern Europe the figures tend to be pretty irrelevant, yet in Northern Europe the connection seems definitely stronger.

In this test, the Far Asian category is the best proxy regarding these admixtures. Considering your result (0%), that gives an idea of its little impact.

----------


## Angela

> You are right, unfortunately GEDmatch doesn't support Geno 2.0 kits (so they told me via e-mail), and dr. Mc Donald doesn't test full europeans anymore (he said he should be paid in that case, because of the high workload). I tried other Dodecad calculators with the DIY software and they found totally different results from each other (for example, one even found some traces of "arctic" and "amerindian", which make no sense at all).
> EDIT: I was wrong, the african component in the other DIY calculators is called north west african not palaeo african, all of these names are a bit confusing...



Each Dodecad run was created to explore different aspects of pre-historic population movements, so each has different framing populations and different numbers of clusters etc.That's why you see different "populations" in each run. If you want to get a handle on the different ones, I would suggest you google them at the dodecad blog or Dienekes' blog, or at 23andme. You'll find comments in those places from people who are familiar with the runs, how they work, and what they mean.

Have you run the Globe 13? Given the framing populations, and the clusters, I think it's the most informative for that kind of ancient ancestry in Europeans. This is the spreadsheet with the population averages:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...tUE9kaUE#gid=2

The results are grouped by source, so you can find Italian results, for example, in the Dodecad section, Hap Map, Li et al etc. The same is true for other groups.

In terms of more recent ancestry, I have to be honest and say that I'm not impressed by the Geno 2.0 analysis, either for uniparental markers or for autosomal analysis, but it should pick up more recent traces. If you really want to play with the data and the DIY, you might consider buying the 23andme service and then running the DIY calculators with that data and then look for correlations. 

Just a word of caution if you should test at 23andme and the results should show an up to 1% SSA score. Normally, if "colonial" Americans test there and get a score like that, they would estimate that perhaps a ggggg grandparent was African, and probably a slave. These low level kinds of ancestry results would take them back to the 1700's to the early 1800's, which would be about right. 

That doesn't always work with Europeans. As an example, it's not rare for some Sicilians to score anywhere from .3 or .4 up to 1% total SSA or even a little higher at 23andme. Yet, some of these people come from isolated interior villages where any recent such ancestry would be known. (You can't hide anything in places like that, as I'm sure you know.) Plus, it's very widespread over the island. There was no influx of Africans into Sicily within the last two hundred years. (Well, other than very recently.) The last population movement into Sicily which could have carried it all over the island would have been the "Moorish" invasion which covered the period from about 827 to 1061. So, despite their claims, probably to be very conservative, that their analysis goes back only 500 years or so, it seems clear to me that it is picking up SSA from much further back. The fact that it still does show up indicates to me that in more isolated, inbred areas the segments can keep getting passed back and forth. Also, I think the fact that it is retained may mean that it is linked to genes which are providing some sort of selective advantage in a particular environment. I've wondered, for example, whether it might be retained in areas that were affected by malaria until quite recently. 

FWIW, from comparing the Dodecad results on something like Globe 13 to those of 23andme, there is definitely a good correlation in terms of these minority ancestries. Of course, that doesn't mean it's always the case, or always going to be the case.

----------


## Nobody1

> You are right, unfortunately GEDmatch doesn't support Geno 2.0 kits (so they told me via e-mail), and dr. Mc Donald doesn't test full europeans anymore (he said he should be paid in that case, because of the high workload). I tried other Dodecad calculators with the DIY software and they found totally different results from each other (for example, one even found some traces of "arctic" and "amerindian", which make no sense at all).
> EDIT: I was wrong, the african component in the other DIY calculators is called *north west african* not palaeo african, all of these names are a bit confusing...


Sounds like the Mozabites i like so much .... ... ...... ...... ; And even if it costs (and you want to have the results) def. go for a proper institution and judge by proper academic studies;

Italians (_North Italians / Tuscans / Sardinians / South Italians / Sicilians_) are highly diverse from each other (genetically not related to each other _DiGaetano et al 2012_ due to not inter-mixed with each other _Coop and Ralph et al 2013_) so if your ancestry is all North Italian than you should cluster with them acc. to K12b North Italy HGDP/Stanford Uni. [11 samples] was 0.7% Mozabite and 0% all other African;

----------


## polako

This test is useless for anyone who wasn't in the original run that the allele frequencies came from.

That's because most of the clusters are separated by low Fst (genetic) distances and this results in a horrible calculator effect (very similar to PCA projection bias) that makes Italians look Austrian, the English German, and so on.

I can't believe a lot of people don't understand this problem yet, even after being part of the scene for years. Maybe a new hobby is in order, like collecting beer cans or watching grass grow?

----------


## Mars

Dodecad is crap. I tested my autosomal with Family Finder and they found no african, arctic neither amerindian in me (I'm full euro from Northern Italy). They found me 85% european (69% north mediterranean and 16% european northlands), and 16% Anatolia + Caucasus.
No SSA, no amerindian, no arctic, as simple logic could easily suggest...
cut_myorigins.jpg

----------


## Sile

> This test is useless for anyone who wasn't in the original run that the allele frequencies came from.
> 
> That's because most of the clusters are separated by low Fst (genetic) distances and this results in a horrible calculator effect (very similar to PCA projection bias) that makes Italians look Austrian, the English German, and so on.
> 
> I can't believe a lot of people don't understand this problem yet, even after being part of the scene for years. Maybe a new hobby is in order, like collecting beer cans or watching grass grow?


someone has to look central alpine european! .............where are the Austrians, swiss, tyrol people in these tests?

We cannot leave these people blank like all the other testing bodies, ie, 23andme, etc

----------


## Sile

> Dodecad is crap. I tested my autosomal with Family Finder and they found no african, arctic neither amerindian in me (I'm full euro from Northern Italy). They found me 85% european (69% north mediterranean and 16% european northlands), and 16% Anatolia + Caucasus.
> No SSA, no amerindian, no arctic, as simple logic could easily suggest...
> ethnic makeup marco.jpg


For myOrigins, you look typical north-italian ( a bit of ancient antolian ), med basin and you should have some german.

is myOrigins correct............doubt it

----------


## Mars

> For myOrigins, you look typical north-italian ( a bit of ancient antolian ), med basin and you should have some german.
> 
> is myOrigins correct............doubt it


I don't. It's made by professional genetists, not bloggers (no offense folks! :))

----------


## felipeschmidt25

Northwestern: 31,96
Northeastern:17,23
Southeastern:20,00
Caucasus:5,4
Southwestern:16,77
Far Eastern: 7,98
African:0,58

----------


## brg12007

i really wanted to try this calculator, downloading the diy base and then winzip to unzip and then opening the readme and finding i had to download something called 'r' gave me an ulcer. will we ever see any of these calculators on gedmatch?

----------


## Glasjuice

But, i think its very common in northern Europe, such as northern Sweden, to have both east asian, native, and some south European as well. Usually says Iberian.

----------


## Pan

Greek (father from Thessaly, mother from Central Greece):

Admix Results (sorted):


#	Population	Percent
1	Atlantic_Baltic	46.01
2	Southern	28.52
3	West_Asian	25.11
4	Siberian	0.37


Single Population Sharing:


#	Population (source)	Distance
1	Tuscan (HGDP)	5.82
2	O_Italian (Dodecad)	5.95
3	Greek (Dodecad)	6.81
4	C_Italian (Dodecad)	7.16
5	TSI30 (Metspalu)	7.22
6	Bulgarian (Dodecad)	9.06
7	Bulgarians (Yunusbayev)	9.97
8	Romanians (Behar)	11.05
9	N_Italian (Dodecad)	12.37
10	S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)	12.96
11	North_Italian (HGDP)	13.39
12	Sicilian (Dodecad)	14.08
13	Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar)	15.16
14	Ashkenazi (Dodecad)	15.37
15	Baleares (1000Genomes)	19.86
16	Murcia (1000Genomes)	20.45
17	Canarias (1000Genomes)	20.72
18	Andalucia (1000Genomes)	20.83
19	Extremadura (1000Genomes)	20.96
20	Galicia (1000Genomes)	21.26

----------


## Carlos



----------

