tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post1914009809324610200..comments2023-07-06T08:55:09.782-07:00Comments on Your Genetic Genealogist: Genographic Project 2.0 - First Look!Your Genetic Genealogisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14696248341534125135noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-34052721688672098762014-07-01T20:13:02.667-07:002014-07-01T20:13:02.667-07:00I am in the 40% in the Geno 2.0, what do I do wi...I am in the 40% in the Geno 2.0, what do I do with the Raw data?, who can i read it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02007637277442524943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-73076837470406207802013-05-29T23:50:20.492-07:002013-05-29T23:50:20.492-07:00Hi,
I just received my results. I was wondering if...Hi,<br />I just received my results. I was wondering if there were anyways we could see if I have the Roman haplotype with the Genographic project. I had 44% Mediterranean and my best populations were Tuscan and British, but is there anyway I can find if I have some Roman or Ancient Greek ancestors? Or does the fact that I have 44% of Mediterranean genes confirm that I have them?<br />Thank You very much for your time!<br />XavierAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014985867153540368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-22974711805367249372013-05-26T01:23:00.766-07:002013-05-26T01:23:00.766-07:00Hi Jasmine,
You are right about the percentages in...Hi Jasmine,<br />You are right about the percentages in the Chinese reference population. It looks like NatGeo must have made an error there. I just screen grabbed it from their site. The percentages should add up to 100%. <br />They are indeed just an estimate.<br />Thank you for your comment,<br />CeCeYour Genetic Genealogisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14696248341534125135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-32235381261127834532013-05-26T01:17:45.488-07:002013-05-26T01:17:45.488-07:00Could you please shed more lights about the meanin...Could you please shed more lights about the meaning of the "percentage" reported in the results? Does it mean "probability" since it is an estimate of how similar the genetic markers are compared to the reference population?<br /><br />In the posted reference population for Chinese, the numbers seem to be incorrect. They are far short of 100%. Please check again, perhaps a typo error there.Jasminehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17466712921475484551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-87783937889498767192013-01-30T14:45:28.601-08:002013-01-30T14:45:28.601-08:00Hi Vienna1791,
There hasn't been a "typic...Hi Vienna1791,<br />There hasn't been a "typical" time frame for Geno 2.0 test yet. Your experience is not unusual. <br /><br />Your Geno 2.0 results most definitely will differ from AncestryDNA's, but that alone shouldn't make you doubt genetic testing as a whole. First of all, Geno 2.0 is testing very deep ancestry - 1000's of years ago and they try to fit your genetics into a single reference population label. If you are highly mixed like many of us Americans, this doesn't always work perfectly. <br /><br />On the other hand, AncestryDNA is not looking as deeply into your ancestry as NatGeo and give you percentages from different reference populations, not just one. This usually works better for people with mixed ancestry. However, I haven't been satisfied with AncestryDNA's Genetic Ethnicity tool. YOu can read my review and comparison of the 4 major companies offering this type of analysis here: http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2012/12/comparing-admixture-test-results-across.html<br /><br />None of these analyses are perfect, but the science is improving quickly.<br /><br />CeCeYour Genetic Genealogisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14696248341534125135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-33196418041881129852013-01-30T11:54:24.126-08:002013-01-30T11:54:24.126-08:00Very Interesting! I was wondering how long it typi...Very Interesting! I was wondering how long it typically takes NatGeo to return results? The labs received my test the last week of November, and my results have not posted as of today. The test is still at 60% complete – it has been at 60% for four weeks! I wonder if this is unusual. I am interested in comparing these results with the results from my Ancestry.com test. I'm hoping they don't differ drastically, otherwise I would lose confidence in this whole genetic testing thing.Vienna1791https://www.blogger.com/profile/13136002991573477604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-15146717990629603132012-12-13T14:36:20.692-08:002012-12-13T14:36:20.692-08:00It has been three weeks since I received my result...It has been three weeks since I received my results and after reading Cece's results decided to go back and review my own again. Well they actually changed my German ref population to Bulgarian and kept the Greek. Bulgarian happens to match my Med-N Eur-SW Asia in %'s almost exactly so don't know if they decided to change it for that reason or what! One of the above posts says they are not going by those %'s so don't know what is going on. I do wonder if some other early results were changed too? auntshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00384046647429853283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-65751543667813649682012-12-05T19:29:22.539-08:002012-12-05T19:29:22.539-08:00I called the help desk for Nat. Geo 2 (which is at...I called the help desk for Nat. Geo 2 (which is at FTdna) and had an informative conversation about the meaning of the reference populations. The short answer is that the populations are chosen by similarity of "markers", not by their resemblance to your percentages of the 9 population areas. Unfortunately, the markers are not explained on the site at this point and showing the comparison of the percents in each population area is misleading. They have nothing to do with the choice of the population.<br />Here is the example using my results. My ancestry is from Austro-Hungarian Galicia as far back as I can trace. My regional percentages are 41% Northern European, 38% Mediterranean, 18% Southwest Asian and 2% Northeast Asian. My two reference populations are Finnish (57% Nothern European, 17% Southwest Asian, 17% Mediterranean, 7% Northeast Asian) and Greek (54% Mediterranean, 28% Northern European, 17% Southwest Asian). When I looked at the 43 specific populations, I found 2, Bulgarian and Romanian, which matched my regional population percentages much more closely, and were even physically closer to the location of my ancestors' origin. However, the hint to the correct interpretation is in the paragraph "What your results mean" which says "We compared your DNA results to the reference populations we currently have in our database and estimated which of these were MOST SIMILAR TO YOU IN TERMS OF THE GENETIC MARKERS YOU CARRY." Genetic markers in the reference populations, not the similarity of the regional percentages. As I said above, showing those regional comparisons is misleading. They are not the basis of the reference population choice, the markers are. It is interesting to see how you differ in those percentages from the populations that you most closely match in terms of markers, but unfortunately, there is no discussion of the markers. I recommended that such information be included in this section. kathleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05729470766562527705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-78461653773304221692012-12-01T10:34:14.821-08:002012-12-01T10:34:14.821-08:00@jlick I'm starting with the assumption that t...@jlick I'm starting with the assumption that the Y-results will be identical in columns D & E, which seemed to be true for the mt results. For what it's worth, for one kit I was able to look at, I determined that out of 142,173 non-Y SNPs there were only 336 no-calls in column D. At that same rate, there would be about 30 no-calls for the 12,438 Y-SNPs. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-52903126878277897052012-12-01T07:36:52.193-08:002012-12-01T07:36:52.193-08:00I have no problems with the designations. Both Ger...I have no problems with the designations. Both Germany and Greece are modern nations, speakers of languages of Asian provenance that entered Europe after the Neolithic probably with farmers and dairy/beef cattle herders. Ancient Germania, and ancient Greece no longer exist genetically except as bits and pieces in modern Europeans whether German or Greek or Russian. France of the days of the Gauls is dead and gone. Clinging to bygone concepts of ethnic origins and "race" is passe. Europe is one big melting pot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-8057430123200329682012-11-29T16:57:18.961-08:002012-11-29T16:57:18.961-08:00I did inquire at The Geno Project about the order ...I did inquire at The Geno Project about the order my results were in with the lesser %German pop being put first over the Larger Mediterranean. I also had a concern about the German Pop as that was not on the radar for me from using other tools. Here is their reply.<br />"Thank you for contacting the Genographic Project. It does not matter which order your population groups are in only which percentages are the higher etc. Please note that most Germans have both Mediterrean and Northern European descent as reflected in your results. Our Algorithm is different than 23&me so I would not expect your results to be identical.<br />thank you for participating in the Project."<br />I never mentioned 23 only that I used other tools, meaning Gedmatch. Actually 23 is not a good example as the are not very elaborate in their prediction only European, Asian, and African. Just thought you would like to know they were responsive and maybe this will help when you get your results. auntshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00384046647429853283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-37839431585572481192012-11-28T22:54:15.708-08:002012-11-28T22:54:15.708-08:00@David I've only seen two samples so far and b...@David I've only seen two samples so far and both are female, so I don't think anyone knows yet how the Y-DNA SNPs will be reported.jlickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989861242912157033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-36135963845179698792012-11-28T18:43:56.236-08:002012-11-28T18:43:56.236-08:00Cece, I was looking at your raw file snapshots an...Cece, I was looking at your raw file snapshots and wondering how the allele results are going to be reported in two columns. Are they using +/- notation, or are they noting ancestral and derived values? I mentioned it on the U106 list, and Charles Moore sent me back here to ask you about it.<br /><br />DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-37144420249352886822012-11-27T19:10:17.230-08:002012-11-27T19:10:17.230-08:00Does anyone have an explanation for why there is n...Does anyone have an explanation for why there is no Northeast Asian percentage in the Highland Peruvian reference group? If the 4% portion in the Amerindian (Mexican) reference group is explained by the origin of Native Americans in Asia, I guess we could expect this to be the case for the Peruvians as well, right? Although I guess for some reason the percentage could be lower than 2% and not significant. <br /><br />/DanDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972746365604179390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-9295562831649868022012-11-26T17:32:46.994-08:002012-11-26T17:32:46.994-08:00yo me hice un test con familytree dna pero no he o...yo me hice un test con familytree dna pero no he obtenido resultados que podamos llamar importantes, que puedo obtener con este sistema? cual es el costo?<br />gracias<br />I did a test with dna FamilyTree but I obtained important results that we can call, I can get with this system? what is the cost?<br />thanksJosé Leonardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11826337113588070761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-12480022485206448762012-11-25T12:46:45.225-08:002012-11-25T12:46:45.225-08:00The newest twist on FTDNA's forum is that NatG...The newest twist on FTDNA's forum is that NatGeno doesn't have a clue about matches and they don't care what testers results are. They're just building a database.<br /><br />This comes from a Geno 2.0 supporter who thinks our personal results don't matter.<br /><br />I believe that personal results and matches do matter, especially to those who are missing information on a parent or other ancestor.Eochaidhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397061099657524644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-16957784156016634882012-11-25T07:47:03.712-08:002012-11-25T07:47:03.712-08:00I'm curious how someone with Ashkenazi Jewish ...I'm curious how someone with Ashkenazi Jewish heritage would look according to these reference populations? Maybe they would be closer to the Iranian population than non-Jewish Europeans (i.e. more Southwest Asian)? But they might also have a higher Mediterranean percentage, as seen in many of the Middle-Eastern groups.<br /><br />Am I the only one who finds it strange that Kuwaiti, Egyptian, Lebanese, etc. have more Mediterranean than the Greeks? I suppose this just reflects the fact that it comes from the agriculturalists from the Fertile Crescent. The "Mediterranean" group seems that it could be more appropriately labelled something like "paleolithic Middle-Eastern".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-27842351721548510542012-11-24T20:11:24.196-08:002012-11-24T20:11:24.196-08:00There are some typos in these reference population...There are some typos in these reference populations descriptions--like calling the Lebanese sample "Iranian" in the text and mislabeling parts of the Malagasy admixture. Maybe there needs to be some editing done on these descriptions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-22378455363388006632012-11-24T18:46:05.031-08:002012-11-24T18:46:05.031-08:00Maybe it has to do with her mtDNA (U4a) which is m...Maybe it has to do with her mtDNA (U4a) which is mostly found in E. and N. Europe particularly in Scandinavia and the Baltic area - from what I read - so they chose Greece and Germany as the most likely. ???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-66377646151998597522012-11-24T12:33:52.519-08:002012-11-24T12:33:52.519-08:00I agree with Eochaidh, because not only is the Gre...I agree with Eochaidh, because not only is the Greek closer to Auntsha's profile by differences in percentage, but the Tuscan (Italy) ref. pop. is exactly the same as the Greek ref. pop., and the Iberian ref. pop. seems even closer. Shown with differences from Auntsha in parentheses:<br />Auntsha: Med. 47% , N. Eur 31%, SWA 20%<br />Grk/Tusc.: Med. 54% (+7%) N Eur 28% (-3%), SWA 17%(-3%)<br />Iberian: Med. 48% (+1%), N Eur 37% (+6%), SWA 13% (-7%)<br />German: Med. 36% (-9%), N Eur 46% (+15%), SWA 17%(-3%)<br /><br />There is more No. European in the German, by a larger percentage than any of the differences in the Greek, Tuscan, or Iberian references.<br />My 2 cents, but maybe a statistician could make more out of it all.Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-81940681663307671792012-11-23T17:23:16.667-08:002012-11-23T17:23:16.667-08:00I now see the pages showing the German as first Re...I now see the pages showing the German as first Reference Population. For some reason, they were among other missing pages when viewed using Firefox on my computer. I tried another browser (Safari) and can now see all pages in this example.<br /><br />I agree that it makes no sense, based on auntsha's results.Viewernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-26582078191516126022012-11-23T14:14:27.096-08:002012-11-23T14:14:27.096-08:00Hi All, You may know me as the author of the mtDNA...Hi All, You may know me as the author of the mtDNA haplogroup analysis tool mthap. http://dna.jameslick.com/mthap/<br /><br />Thanks to Sharon and another contributor who shared their Genographic 2.0 raw data with me, I'm hard at work adding support for Geno2.0 results to mthap. It is already well on the way, but the raw data files are not reporting results with a consistent orientation, so I had to derive this information myself. The problem is that I can't be sure this is completely correct with just two examples. If you have already received your Geno2.0 results and would like to help, please send your data files to me at: james.lick@jameslick.com<br /><br />Thank you!jlickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989861242912157033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-70191597601735858162012-11-23T08:45:11.599-08:002012-11-23T08:45:11.599-08:00I don't see an error at all. The German and Gr...I don't see an error at all. The German and Greece are the TWO CLOSEST Reference Populations given to her in order to judge for herself what is most likely based on her own knowledge. The data for those populations may change slightly so they offer the two closest one for you to go over. Why did they put the German first and not the Greece - who knows - maybe the computer ordered it according to spelling. Listing it first does not mean that it is THE closest to her it is just one of the two closest offered by NG's results. That is the way I am reading it - of course I am new to this so I could be off my rocker :) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-38354227965710651122012-11-22T22:17:43.860-08:002012-11-22T22:17:43.860-08:00I must be crazy! :) The majority of people I have ...I must be crazy! :) The majority of people I have encountered find these results to be perfectly logical. Either that, or they believe that Geno 2.0 is not giving a #1 and #2 match and that Geno 2.0 is leaving it up to the tester to interpret the closest match. <br /><br />Let me put this out one more time and see if I'm nuts!<br /><br />Auntsha: Med 47%, No Euro 31%, SW Asian 20%<br />German Pop: Med 36%, No Euro 46%, SW Asian 17%<br />Greek Pop: Med 54%, No Euro 28%, SW Asian 17%<br /><br />Doesn't it seem that the German Reference Population score is almost the exact opposite of Auntsha's score on Med and No Euro? Doesn't it also seem that Auntsha's Med and No Euro percentages are only 7 and 3 percentage points different from the Greek Reference Population?<br /><br />Perhaps I'm loosing my mind. I see a stark difference, and, therefore, a glaring error.Eochaidhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397061099657524644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4773058005679938889.post-54638347989186077652012-11-22T19:44:47.102-08:002012-11-22T19:44:47.102-08:00Where did they share their stories? I took a look ...Where did they share their stories? I took a look at the Geno page and I did not see anything.<br /><br />LuisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com