View Full Version : Eurogenes K=10 Admixtures

17-10-11, 11:56
Davidski has launched his own K=10 admixtures (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/09/genetic-substructures-across-west.html) using the Dodecad Calculator script.

Whereas Dienekes had a Northwest and a Northeast European component, Davidski opted for a West + Southwest and North + East ones, giving the cline a different orientation. At first sight, his Mediterranean and West Asian admixture look similar to the ones used by Dienekes.

I had a quick look at the data.

The North + East European admixture obviously peaks in the Lithuanians, Russians, Belarusians and Poles.

The Spaniards range from 16% to 30%, the French from 29 to 42%, and the Germans are from 40 to 57%, probably in a clear Southwest to Northeast gradient.

It's interesting that the South English (Kent and Cornwall) have between 40 and 47%, the Dutch between 36% and 50%, the Danes just around 50% (48 to 51%), but the Swedes and Norwegians are always above 50% and up to 65% for the Swedes. This clearly sets the Norwegians and Swedes apart from other Germanic people.

The West + Southwest European component does not have quite the inverse gradient as the North + East one. It has a similar frequency among the Swedes (29-45%), Danes (29-45%), Norwegians (38-45%) and Germans (31-45%), but is clearly higher in the Dutch (41-50%) and English (45-54%). The English range is actually very close to the French (44-55%, or 61% if the Basques are included), North Italian (46-55%) and even Spanish one (50-55%, or up to 71% if Basques included).

I think this West + Southwest European admixture correlates better with R1b than Dienekes' West European admixture.

The West Asian element is actually quite Caucasian. It confirms a hotspot around the Netherlands (4.5% to 11.5%) and Germany (up to 14%), which I assume to be related to the Neolithic farmers from the Caucasus (LBK culture). The Kentish and Cornish have respectively up to 8 and 9% of West Asian. Scandinavians never exceed 3% though, and typically have 0%. This means that the Caucasian Neolithic farmers didn't reach Scandinavia.

The Greeks (22-37%) and Italians (8-15% in the North, 13-32% in the South) obviously have far more West Asian than anybody else in Europe, which corresponds to their much higher percentages of hg G2a, J1 and J2.

The Russians and Ukrainians can have up to 11% - probably the North Caucasian influence.

The Mediterranean admixture also peaks in Southwest Asia (Bedouins, Saudi, Yemeni, Jordanians, Palestinians, Jews, Syrians), as well as in North Africa (28-35%).

In Europe, the highest frequency is found in the Greeks (18-29%) and South Italians (14-29%), then in the North Italians (10-16%), Spaniards (4-17%) and Portuguese (10-14%). In Western Europe, this admixture gradually decreases when moving north. The French have from 0% to 12%, the Germans from 0 to 6%, the Dutch/English from 0% to 4%, the Danes/Swedes 0 to 3%.

Interestingly, the Slavs have quite a lot of Mediterranean, more than with the combined Mediterranean and Southwest Asian in the Dodecad. Russians have from 3 to 11%, Poles from 6.5% to 12%, Ukrainians from 8 to 14.5%, and Bulgarians from 15 to 20%.

Like for the Dodecad, I believe that there is a strong E1b1b and T (and perhaps I2a) correlation with this admixture, although in this case there is also a significant influence of J1c3 lineages.

17-10-11, 14:00
West and Southwest must include I2a's in a very high degree, not only R1b, it's very easy to note while checking Iberians. There is an obvious discrepancy between Dienekes' and Davidski, and I think the first one is getting more accurate data. Most Iberians get absurd reports in the West Asian admixture here, when it's well known it's very insignificant. This new Mediterranean is very confusing, as I said there's a discrepancy since I was less than 5% Southeastern and now I'm almost 12%.

Considering my known ancestry, I think Dienekes' data makes more sense, but I'd like to see it in a K=12 style.

17-10-11, 14:50
By the way, and to understand better where do this come from, here are my results of the previous K=14:

DIY Teaser K=14
West European 71.49 %
Northeast European 13.32 %
East Mediterranean 11.34 %
Middle Eastern 3.07 %
Berber 0.42 %
Southeast Asian 0.26 %
Sub-Saharan African 0.05 %
North Asian 0.02 %
East Asian 0.02 %
South Siberian 0.01 %
West Asian 0.00 %
South Asian 0.00 %
Volga-Ural 0.00 %
East Siberian 0.00 %

Now my west Euro is -10 and the Northeast increased. The East Med is more or less the same, but I'd like to point one thing: when I compared Northern Euros with me, they had of course less East Med (3-4%), but also around 9% West Asian, wich is now very low in most of them. What I mean is that the actual spreadsheet is not an improve, rather the contrary. The previous data was much more accurate, although still think what Dienekes' did looks better.

And to finish, it's obvious that I don't have the mentioned problem with the West Asian, but note the difference from a result to another in the case of my Iberian best friend (he doesn't join the project, this is from DIY results).

West Asian K=14: 0.09%

West Asian k=10: 5.53%

As you can imagine, you face exactly the same problem in the vast majority of Iberians, and probably other Southern Euros have the West Asian substantially increased. There is obviously something wrong here.

17-10-11, 15:28
Where is this K=14 ? I seem to have missed it.

17-10-11, 15:51
He erased the post Maciamo, this is the only thing I can recover through a mail I sent to my best friend for the results:

Wrote by Davidski:
- Northeast Euro (peaks in Russians)
- West Euro (Basques & Irish)
- East Mediterranean (Cypriots)
- Volga-Ural (Chuvashs)
- West Asian (Lezgins)
- Middle Eastern (Saudis)
- Berber (Mozabite Berbers)
- South Asian (South Indians)
- North Asian (Nganassans)
- South Siberian (Evenks)
- East Siberian (Koryaks)
- East Asian (Japanese)
- Southeast Asian (Southern Chinese)
- Sub-Saharan (Western Africans)A lot of people did this analysis, and the results were quite different as I said, specially between Northern Euros. I don't know what he did now, but there are a lot of spurious results in the last run.

The West Asian results of my friend as well as others are pretty absurd. It's not only the difference you see from K=14 to K=10, my friend was also 0% West Asian in the latest Dodecad project. If this ancestry is so increased between Iberians, try to imagine what happens with other Southern Euros. There's a lot to fix here, sure.

17-10-11, 16:19
About this K=10 run, the Mediterranean component is found in Eastern-Europe at 8-11% similar to Spain 11-12%, for example Hungarians have 10.6% or Belarussians 9.8%. The French average is 7%

17-10-11, 16:54
There's a lot of incoherence here. ¿How can the British be less West Asian when Dodecad found almost 7% between them, and Iberians got less than 3%?

K=14 showed clearly that Northern Euros have usually much more West Asian than any Iberian. I seriously don't understand such change. Without considering the spurious Mediterranean peak in Arabia, when before was in Cyprus (and Greeks/Armenians if we see the Dodecad calculator).

It looks really bad...

19-10-11, 13:29
I think you are taking it all too seriously. I was with Davidski from the beginning. The results depend on who are include or excluded and how many examples of each type. Ever noticed the Tuscans are represented by 8 people, the Sardinians by 28? Unequal numbers must skew the result. Adding certain people also tends to create artificial clusters. The Sardinians do that due being an isolated population.

Doesn't it strike you are odd that the Mediterranean is greatest outside the Mediterranean in the Arabian peninsula? That is hardly an accurate label. As I said, I have been with Davidski from the beginning and depending on who he includes and the number of assumed "ancestors", the K value, the admixture will vary quite a lot. If Davidski included Oceanians, I will have very minor Oceanian admixture. Even McDonald with his affinity scores showed Oceanian admixture. That is highly unlikely. Don't take the results too seriously. When ancient dna is available then we can see how close we are to the ancients rather than make assumptions based on highly mixed modern populations that nothing has changed over long spans of time.

19-10-11, 14:30
Well, there was a post dedicated to this analysis like happened with Dodecad here, and I just showed this is far from being the same accurate. Of course I don't take it seriously, just telling there are quite things to fix. But sometimes I'm a bit effusive, I understand your perception.