Saturday, 16 April 2011

First Results

I've done a supervised run on some of the samples I've been receiving. The set up was identical to a previous one, with three poles, Amerindian (unadmixed Totonac+Surui+Karitiana); Siberian (Unadmixed Nganasan); and Fertile Crescent (Egyptians). Results are basically identical, so I'm only publishing the new data:

I've named individuals with ancestry from one region of a country with a regional tag (N North, C Central, NW Nortwest etc). Individuals with mixed ancestry from a single country were given IDs with that country's name.
Some ancestry info:
CAsia is from Central Asia
Russian1 comes from North/Central Russia, Urals.
SEFI is a Swedish-speaking Finn
SwedenNorway has about 50/50 ancestry from either country
UKDK likewise UK and Denmark
CEuro has mostly German with some Polish and Ukrainian
SWFrance1 and CPortugal1 come from mountainous regions of their countries
PonticCaspian is mostly Gagauz with some North Ossetian
USA2 has major Amerindian ancestry
FRCA1 is French Canadian with colonial ancestry and also Faroe Islander
Brazil1 is a White Brazilian of colonial ancestry. No known recent Amerindian ancestors.

For some reason, just as in previous runs, if Fertile Crescent-like segments are pulled away by a suitable pole, Europeans with ancestry from the North or from mountainous regions have a small but detectable amount of DNA segments clustering with those of Amerindians. Other segments cluster with those of nearby Siberians. Samples from more Central/Southern or presumably fertile regions show such segments to a much smaller degree, being almost completely attracted to the Fertile Crescent pole.
I'm sorry for anyone not included this time, I didn't want to include too many recently mixed samples and also couldn't include individuals with major ancestry not covered by the poles. I'll run a more inclusive analysis soon.

Still accepting all non-recently admixed samples from the same country, even non-European ones. I have two Philippine samples already and would welcome more East, Southeast Asian ones.
I'm now considering more mixed samples as well as long as ancestry is well defined.


  1. I'm curious how this would look if Chukchi, !kung, and Maasai were substituted for Fertile Crescent.

  2. Very cool. Do you have a link to the spreadsheet?

  3. Cool stuff for sure. I take it then that Amerindian is ''Forager A'' and Siberian is ''Forager B'' correct?

  4. I think there's a strong possibility Forager A is Solutrean, and consists of a cline of "Amerindian"-like and "Nganasan"-like. Extant Siberian populations show such clines presently, and these clines don't necessarily correspond to admixture, just to normal gradual variation between neighbouring related forager populations.
    Amerindian would then maybe correspond to a subset of Northwest European "Forager A", splitting about 20.000 years ago. This may be the reason why the Amerindian pole doesn't pick up much in Southwest Europe, since "Forager A" there may be also Solutrean but more distant from actual Amerindian.
    European aboriginal residual DNA in Northeast Europeans would begin to show more affinity to Nganasan as might be expected...
    Forager B may not be anything much, it was rare and chunky in the analysis.

  5. this is very interesting. I am thinking of compiling all the results
    from different people who have analysed my family's genome.

    Please could I use the results from here?

    What acknowledgement
    would you want?

  6. You can use the results, you're welcome if you include a link.

  7. Ahhhh yes now I see what you mean. I just finished reading through all of the posts from the first one's back in March until now.

    Both the Amerindian and Siberian poles are part of ''Forager A'' when seen in Europeans. They are both subsets of ''Forager A''.