Sunday, 23 February 2014

Updated 23andme.com / Doug McDonald Results

23andme Standard:
99.4% European
 
Northern European
33.1% British & Irish
1.1% Scandinavian
58.5% Nonspecific Northern European

1.1% Ashkenazi
5.7% Nonspecific European

0.1% East Asian & Native American
0.1% Yakut
< 0.1% Nonspecific East Asian & Native American

0.5% Unassigned

***


Doug McDonald's take on same data:




 

This is likely just plain English, but could also be
 
 
     Spain= 0.381      Irish= 0.619 or
     Irish= 0.674    Italian= 0.326 or
    French= 0.634      Irish= 0.366 or
     Irish= 0.734     Tuscan= 0.266 or
 
and the small and weak Mideast on the chromosomes does indicate
probably a small Mediterranean part. I see no Jewish.
 
Doug McDonald



16 comments:

Nick Dean said...

Standard:

99.4% European

Northern European
33.1% British & Irish
1.1% Scandinavian
58.5% Nonspecific Northern European

1.1% Ashkenazi
5.7% Nonspecific European

0.1% East Asian & Native American
0.1% Yakut
< 0.1% Nonspecific East Asian & Native American

0.5% Unassigned


***

Speculative:

99.8%
European

Northern European
63.6% British & Irish
5.7% Scandinavian
3.4% French & German
25.3% Nonspecific Northern European

1.1% Ashkenazi

Southern European
0.1% Nonspecific Southern European
0.6% Nonspecific European

0.1% East Asian & Native American
0.1% Yakut
< 0.1% Native American
< 0.1% Nonspecific East Asian & Native American

< 0.1% Sub-Saharan African
< 0.1% Nonspecific Sub-Saharan African

0.1% Unassigned

***

Conservative:

97.6% European

Northern European
4.8% British & Irish
0.1% Scandinavian
64.7% Nonspecific Northern European

0.1% Ashkenazi

27.8% Nonspecific European

0.1% East Asian & Native American
0.1% Yakut

2.4% Unassigned

***


One question I'm posting around the internet:

I'm particularly interested in how to interpret the Ashkenazi element. Given my known background: rural, poor, north of England, this is a surprise.

I note that the 1.1% figure is the same in both Standard and Speculative views, almost suggesting that the Standard view on this point is speculative. Other numbers change between the Standard and Speculative views but not the Ashkenazi figure. It's also peculiar that they include the Ashkenazi figure under the European heading, and centred on Germany, where I would have expected even Ashkenazi Jews to be predominantly Middle Eastern genetically. Is that not so?

Any advice on how much confidence I can have in this figure? Or further steps I can take to verify it?

***

Answers I receive will be posted here in the comments thread. More comments and advice welcome.

Nick Dean said...

AJL at Anthrogenica forum has been helpful:

Ashkenazi genetics are a mix of European and Near Eastern, but by most accounts significantly more Near Eastern than European ... Your 1.1% Ashkenazi is a little more than trival (i.e. probably means something) but is still not very much. Ashkenazi ancestry is always listed as European by 23andme and as Middle Eastern by Family Tree DNA, so you cannot read any more into it than that it is identified as being there. In the case of someone who is predominantly Central or Eastern European, a little Ashkenazi might mean the genes run Christian European > Ashkenazi, but in someone primarily "nonspecific Northern European" it could likely indicate a slight Ashkenazi contribution from somewhere like the Netherlands or Germany from perhaps the Middle Ages.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?517-23andMe-Ancestry-Composition-Results/page31
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?517-23andMe-Ancestry-Composition-Results/page32

Nothing yet at anthroscape:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5016167/39/

Or Stormfront:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1029036/

where I'm posting here, too:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1012896-2/#post11957027

I've sent my file to Doug McDonald.

Nick Dean said...

At tWn, Tan got into a discussion about haplotypes with a CI.

Three men and a dog follow CI yet they're everywhere on nationalist and antisemitic sites making normal look kooky. It smells.

Now because Rienzi/Holliday/Sallis etc. was always so insistent that autosomal and multi-loci testing to reveal 'genetic structure' and genetic kinship were much more relevant to biopolitics than mere Y and mt-DNA signatures, and because that makes sense to me, I never gave much consideration to haplogroup.

Having got my 23andme results, I'm giving the matter of haplogroups some study for the first time. What does my I2-ness mean for me and say about me?

At tWn, I asked:

Bill Krapek and Tan both suggest that haplogroups code for characteristics.

What I don’t understand is why Y-DNA (which I believe I inherited from my father from his father from his father and so on ad inf.) and mtDNA (from my mother via her mother and her mother before that etc.) is any more important than whatever coding I inherited from, say, my father’s mother’s father’s mother’s father’s … contribution (where every possible combination like this vastly outnubers the Y and mt DNA).

Isn’t it the the sum total of our ancestors and how they combined that makes us, or our ethnic groups, what we are?

Is it merely that Y and mt-DNA are more easily identified by genetic testing, or that these haplogroups tell a more simplified picture of ancient human migrations? Or is there indeed something special about Y and mt-DNA?

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2014/03/11/ann-coulters-radical-rhetoric/#comment-74150

***

I know Tan did shows devoted to this subject so maybe he'll have some answers. Anyone else?

Lurker said...

CI?

Nick Dean said...

CI = Christian Identity, Lurker.

Lurker said...

Cheers mate!

Anonymous said...

Nick,

You're more "Jewish" than I am!

http://veronicakclarkhistorian.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/veronica-k-clark-mixed-race/

Nick Dean said...

Anonymous, you have my best wishes. I hope you get things straightened out.

Anonymous said...

Mr Dean,

I already have:
http://www.mourningtheancient.com/veroclark.htm

...but how can this "Doug" (and what are his qualifications) claim that he sees "no Jewish" when you have over 1% Ashkenazi DNA? That is a lot more than I have at < 0.1%.

Ms Yeager was shrieking about my "Jewishness" was she not?

VC

Nick Dean said...

Doug McDonald is a chemist from the University of Illinois who was one of the pioneers of biogeographic analysis, offering this service before 23andme for example, and his database for comparisons is larger than theirs.

http://dna-explained.com/2012/09/09/doug-mcdonald-on-biogeograpical-analysis/

The consensus on forums like anthrogenica and eupedia is that McDonald tends to be more accurate.

In my case, where 23andme were only able to say 33.1% British and Irish, McDonald was confident enough to look at the same data and say 'plain English' -- which is correct as far as it's possible to say such a thing.

I intend to try eurogenes and dodecad, too. The more comparison the clearer the results.

Nick Dean said...

I have 1.1% that 23andme labelled Ashkenazi, but that McDonald said was generic Med/middle eastern and which did not match his Jewish samples.

The 23andme categorisation is odd for reasons already mentioned, including, "the 1.1% figure is the same in both Standard and Speculative views, almost suggesting that the Standard view on this point is speculative. Other numbers change between the Standard and Speculative views but not the Ashkenazi figure."

I think it's reasonable at this stage to think that I have an unidentified med/middle eastern element in my make-up, equivalent to as if one of my 4 million or so great X20 grandparents c.1290 at the time of Edict of Expulsion were Jewish.


Anonymous said...

Mr Dean,

I appreciate your cordial reply.

VC

Anonymous said...

I think the 23 & Me results have to be taken with a pinch of salt (as do other genetic tests). It's a very imprecise science which is riddled with politics.

I also hail from the North East of England and got 0.1% Ashkenazi, which surprised me also given my known ancestry. I dug into the matter quite a bit and found that the 'Ashkenazi' results are almost certainly very flawed, partially ebcause of 23 & Me's methodology and partly because nobody has quite settled on what 'Ashkenazi' actually is. Some recent studies suggest that a significant amount of Ashkenazi DNA originates from intermarriage with non Ashkenazi European women in Northern Italy - hence the reason that Ashkenazi genetically resemble Italians so much. In addition, a lot of Europeans have some middle Eastern DNA in them from many thousands of years ago in the stone age, due to migration.

I therefore came to the conclusion that 23 & Me really should add some kind of health warning to its results, as it's likely that a lot of them are miles off the mark. I think someone once described DNA testing as the modern equivalent of horoscopes - I think there's some truth in that. It's amazing how many people want to invest themselves into some tribe or another.

here are some interesting links which discuss the inherent problems involved:

http://bga101.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/eurogenes-ashkenazim-ancestry-test-files.html

The author states:

"I recently learned that the new Ancestry Painting at 23andMe will include an Ashkenazi reference group. To be honest, I’m not sure there’s much value in using a genetically bottlenecked population of varied biogeographical origins as a reference in such things. Indeed, the Ashkenazi mainly descend from a few hundred founders, but carry Central European, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, African and probably many other admixtures, as evidenced by their genome-wide and uniparental markers.

That’s quite a problem, because due to their relative inbreeding, they produce strong ancestral clusters in many analyses, like in ADMIXTURE runs. However, these clusters are made up of allele frequencies from a wide range of sources and, paradoxically, it’s the relatively more outbred populations which contributed to the Ashkenazi gene pool at its formative stages that often end up showing Ashkenazi admixture in such tests, despite not having any."

Also:

http://genomesunzipped.org/2010/10/testing-possibilities-about-my-ancestry.php

"But what does this estimate actually mean? It doesn’t really mean that I’m predicted to have 20% Ashkenazi ancestry. More precisely, it means that I carry a subset of alleles that are relatively rare in northwestern and southeastern Europe, but relatively common in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. The leap from this (undoubtedly true) statement to a statement about ancestry makes an extremely important modeling assumption: namely, that these three populations (northwest European, southeast European, and Ashkenazi Jewish) are the only three possibilities for my ancestry. This sort of assumption is implicit in every ancestry test available, and though this is not news (Dienekes gave this as a potential explanation for the results himself), it’s important to make explicit....The above analysis suggests that I do not, in fact, have any Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry...but rather that the initial results were due to “hidden” south European ancestry."

Finally:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/science/ashkenazi-origins-may-be-with-european-women-study-finds.html?_r=0

Which discusses some of the evidence for European (non Jewish) roots of the Ashkenazi.

Nick Dean said...

Thank you anon. When we pay 'em just enough to review just an assumed representative portion of our DNA, I suppose 'rounding up' and ascertainment bias are part of the deal.

***

Ashkenazi=Ashkenazi. The principal parent-populations and their relative contributions to the group as a whole and individuals will become clearer as time goes by.

***

I think all of the major BGA providers are quite accurate and broadly similar. When you consider that the conventional wisdom is 'race does not exist' and yet all the BGA companies will reliably identify a typical person's ethnic background somewhat closely and improving, these companies are not the proper target of criticism.

***

There is nothing odd about people wanting to identify with a tribe. That's human nature and the historical and contemporary global norm. People who pooh-pooh that kind of human bond are the peculiar ones.

danielj said...

98.6%
European

45.9%
Northern European

41.7%
Southern European

0.0%
Eastern European

0.0%
Ashkenazi

11.0%
Broadly European

0.7%
Middle Eastern & North African

0.0%
Middle Eastern

0.0%
North African

0.7%
Broadly Middle Eastern & North African

0.4%
East Asian & Native American

0.4%
East Asian

0.0%
Southeast Asian

0.0%
Native American

0.0%
Broadly East Asian & Native American

0.1%
Sub-Saharan African

0.0%
West African

0.0%
East African

0.0%
Central & South African

0.1%
Broadly Sub-Saharan African

0.0%
South Asian

0.0%
Oceanian

0.1%
Unassigned

100%
Daniel Antinora

This is the speculative setting for me. My percentage of "italian" has been going up slowly for the last few years I've had my data in.

I've heard that you can get your raw data from 23 and send it off to people that are really good at analyzing this stuff. I've also heard they will do it for free.

Nick Dean said...

Cheers, DanielJ.

McDonald was generally the second call, but he gets so many requests he's had to start rejecting most requests unless certain qualifications apply: http://www.isogg.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_BGA_project

I will get around to looking at eurogenes and dodecad eventually.