Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > Geographic Project Forums > African DNA Project

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 1st March 2007, 07:00 PM
Francois Francois is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24
autosomal markers

I just received the results for my Autosomal markers Panel 1. Should I publish them? Right now I have not the faintest idea what they mean. I have downloaded Omnipop, a free gift from Family Tree, and if anybody has any suggestions I would appreciate it.

Catherine Francois
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 3rd March 2007, 01:47 AM
casadecoqui's Avatar
casadecoqui casadecoqui is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 162
Why don't you go ahead and post them so we can help you with it Catherine. There are others here who have tested. There is also a very good explanation on one of the posts by Greg, I believe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
I just received the results for my Autosomal markers Panel 1. Should I publish them? Right now I have not the faintest idea what they mean. I have downloaded Omnipop, a free gift from Family Tree, and if anybody has any suggestions I would appreciate it.

Catherine Francois
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 3rd March 2007, 09:05 AM
GregKiroKH2 GregKiroKH2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 202
It is always so nice to find a match . . . how close of a match is Omnipop with your paper work?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 3rd March 2007, 12:04 PM
Francois Francois is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24
autosomal markers

Here are my autosomal markers panel 1
CSF1PO 11,13
D13S317 10,11
D16S539 10,12
D18S51 15,20
D21S11 28,30.2
D3S1358 15,16
D5S818 11,11
D7S820 7,12
D8S1179 15,16
PGA 20,24
Penta D 14,15
Penta E 10,11
TH01 9,9
TPOX 8,9
vWA 15,17
Thank-you
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 4th March 2007, 08:58 AM
Sonia Sonia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 117
Experimenting

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
I just received the results for my Autosomal markers Panel 1. Should I publish them? Right now I have not the faintest idea what they mean. I have downloaded Omnipop, a free gift from Family Tree, and if anybody has any suggestions I would appreciate it.

Catherine Francois
Hi Catherine,

Have you run the values in Omnipop yet? Not all of the Omnipop populations have all the marker values, so you may want to run it two different ways.
1) Put in all the values and right across from the show frequencies check how many pops. are included. Hit "show frequencies" scan past all the 0 values until you get to the ones with numbers.
2) If you want to include all the populations then only enter the values for the green cells.

Be mindful that admixture can make the ancestry appear unusual. My Gram's atDNA was done through DNA Tribes. (Her DNAP ABDNA was 82% SSA & 18% E). Her first Tribes report (Aug '06) had her appearing rather East Indian and Chinese.

Going with the FTDNA test & using Omnipop is my current recommendation (but it has fewer populations than DNA Tribes). While the DNA Tribes algorithm is getting better and the number of populations is increasing, Gram's Dec '06 report included a few Southern African populations, none of which were likely to have contributed DNA to her because they less likely to have been brought here during the Transatlantic Slave Trade (Tswana, Zulu, Venda, & Xhosa).

I'm doing my own experimental Omnipop analysis, but need to work with a computer guru who can help me make the excel program rank the pops rather than doing it by hand. I am running each of the values as a homozygote (idea from TomCat on the DNA & Genealogy Board - Check out the topics there, too.), ranking the pops each time, dividing by the pops, looking at expected values in the top 30% and then re-ranking. I am understanding how convergence was effecting Gram's Tribes Report and I think I might be starting to tease out some possible sources of her African ancestry (but again, this is limited by the populations available.)

I plan to look at whether the current status of atDNA interpretation is useful for admixed families. I ordered Tribes' Reports on Gram, Mom, my sibs Sandy & Sam, Sandy's ex - Tom Sr, their son Tom Jr, his son Chris, & myself (I quit smoking & justified the cost).

Gram is the least admixed. Her 4 grandparents were born enslaved. I have only identified 4 of her great-grandparents, but they are my enslaved ancestors who were b. ca 1800 in the US.

Mom's unknown genitor was white. Our father (Sandy's, Sam's, & I) also had a white genitor. (I use the anthropological terms genitor & pater as both had African American paters who raised my parents as their own children.)

Tom Sr., was adopted and raised African American (his mtDNA is V and his y-chromosome is J1 with a 12 marker CMH - go figure). Chris has a Chinese great-grandfather on his mother's side & his grandfather on that side was also adopted. So, if I get anything useful from this, then certainly other people should In any case, I figure now we'll have the DNA available for when Chris' great-grands get curious about their ancestry.

Sonia
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 4th March 2007, 05:37 PM
GregKiroKH2 GregKiroKH2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 202
The first dead-end seemed to be around 1860 for me, and then the second dead-end seemed to be around 1800. So I was wondering why. I think autosomes seem to be good for 200 years. This can help with the paper work, I think. I read some interesting articles which lead me to kick around some of the following ideas.

The story began in America in 1619 when the Dutch sold nineteen African indentured servants to the men of the English colony in Jamestown, Virginia. Tall people were considered to be superior, and it is very easy to find tall Afro-American men. As early as 1620, Indian and slave rebellions became a criminal issue in the colonies. And so, it eventually became harder for a slave to become free even thou many established religious systems repeatedly opposed slavery especially in northern state. Over the next few decades, the colonist passed laws to enslave criminals. Free men had to be of sound mind. And so, a slave could earn his freedom easily if he was a Christian and of sound mind. Free Black people needed to carry papers so they could not be mixed up with slaves. Most legal systems protected the freeman?s rights. And free Black people were often known in their community. This was important since citizen patrol members could give lawless slaves up to nine or ten lashes of the whip. If the slave went before a judge, then the punishment worsen, it could be thirty-nine lashes (1835). Individual states had differing laws during specific time periods. This may seem harsh. However, the North American slave system was considered to be more congenial to slave longevity than other American slavery systems based upon population growth studies

The total number of imported African slaves into the United States was about 427,000 Black people growing to 4,441,830 in 1860 with 588,532 Mulattos. The 1870 U.S. Census population totaled 38,558,371 people included 13% Blacks. It is a good chance that many of these people arrived before 1798. After the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, tougher slavery and free Black people laws were passed due to the dwindling British influence within the American legal social order. Throughout American history, the major recorded difficulty seems to be with the social acceptance of the drunkard, carnal, and criminally slick free Black while the god-fearing and hard working free Black is often over-looked. The major reasons to abolish the international slave trade seemed to be to limit or eliminate the free Black population and the rise of new disruptive Africans. By 1798, all stated forbade the importations of slaves. The preferred slave was one who had been breed in America who had never been freed. Of course, these viewpoints changes, sometimes for the worst, over the years. In the 1790 census, there were 7.9% free Blacks out of 757, 208 Black people, and in 1800, there were 10.8% free Blacks out of 1,002, 037 Black people. In the same ten year period, the United States population increased from 3,929,214 to 5,308,483. After 1810, the percentage of Blacks in the United States would shrink from 19% to 13% in 1870. The number of free Blacks rose to 13.5% in 1810 beginning a legal problem to last throughout the early 1800s within many state governments. Several Blacks owned more slaves than White land owners. Wealthy Blacks also married Mulattos and Whites who encouraged their children to pass as White rather than to detail their family heritage. This outraged several southern White men groups whose mean wealth was about $3,978 (1860). From 1830 to 1860, there were many laws passed to prevent the amalgamation of American society which included non-protestant people. Many types of contracts and of marriages between Whites and Mulattos or Blacks were legally nullified during this time period. And by the 1850s, free Blacks in several states were told to pick a master or leave the state. By 1860, almost all of the plantations had a few amalgamated home grown Mulatto slaves leading to a 1935 ban of the term Mulatto. This in turn encouraged the government to force these people into either a Black or White classification to prevent unwanted friendships and marriages. Other groups like Black Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians and so on and so forth became confused under the other group classification along with the people who expressed strong White and Black family ties. Today, many American admixtures think of themselves as Black due to the one-drop rule and it variants so to be accepted into the established party systems of the United States. These social labels often create confusions for people who would like to investigate their ancestry past their grandparents.

Quote:
Virtually every plantation produced children of mixed race: The 1860 federal census classified 588,532 persons as mulattos. A minuscule number of white fathers recognized their children and provided for them; some parents encouraged the fairest skinned to run away and hide their racial identity by passing for white. It is a fact; black-white sex existed from the beginning of the slave trade in the 16th century, virtually always on the initiative of Europeans who held Africans in their total control. During the infamous Middle Passage between Africa and the New World, black women and children were allowed mobility on board ship so that white sailors could have unlimited sexual access to them. Manumission http://www.aaregistry.com/african_am...acial_intimacy

North America, in contrast, imported only about 427,000 Africans, but at the time of emancipation in 1865 the U.S. black population had grown to more than ten times that number in the 1870 census. In other countries, the slave population barely reproduced itself. From the later eighteenth century, and possibly before that even, and until the Civil War, the rate of natural growth of North American slaves was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that of England. http://www.historycooperative.org/jo.../ah001534.html
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 9th March 2007, 10:02 AM
Francois Francois is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Autosomal markers

Thanks for your comments. I will try to figure-out the results. If not, this is the last test I will take under those conditions. I am a University graduate although not in Genetics so if I have trouble understanding I must not be the only one.

Catherine
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10th March 2007, 06:35 PM
Sonia Sonia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 117
Try without the Penta Values

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
Thanks for your comments. I will try to figure-out the results. If not, this is the last test I will take under those conditions. I am a University graduate although not in Genetics so if I have trouble understanding I must not be the only one.

Catherine
Catherine,

I don't have the Penta values and I understand that many of the Omnipop populations don't have them. So try putting in your values without those two for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10th March 2007, 07:13 PM
Sonia Sonia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 117
Start of Results on the 9 Green Cell Values

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
Here are my autosomal markers panel 1
snip
D13S317 10,11
snip
D18S51 15,20
D21S11 28,30.2
D3S1358 15,16
D5S818 11,11
D7S820 7,12
D8S1179 15,16
FGA 20,24
snip
vWA 15,17
Thank-you
Catherine,
As an example, 1.10E+6 means 1 in 1,100,000

The with only your Green Cell values put in, the top populations appearing are:
Tamil (India) (13) 2.30E+12
Golla (India) (18) 2.47E+12
Bangladesh (15) 3.12E+12
Southern Moroccan Berbers (31) 5.51E+12
Catalans (Spain) (6) 6.16E+12
Northern and Central Moroccan Berbers (31) 9.22E+12
Chitpavan brahmin (India) (58) 9.93E+12
Andalusians (Spain) (6) 1.02E+13
Brahmin (India) (72) 1.50E+13
Portuguese (6) 1.71E+13
Karan (India) (61) 1.73E+13
Trinidad African American (1) 1.80E+13
Chinese (15) 1.96E+13
Saharawis (North Africa) (31) 1.96E+13
Chueta (Spain) (44) 2.14E+13
Mexicans (2) 2.20E+13
Michigan Caucasian (2) 2.23E+13
Gope (India) (61) 2.49E+13
Chamorros (Guam) (49) 2.50E+13
Desasth brahmin (India) (58) 2.54E+13
Michigan Nat.Am. (2) 2.82E+13
Berbers (Morocco) (6) 3.17E+13
Moroccan Arabs (6) 3.40E+13
Oriya Brahmin (India) (61) 3.60E+13
Albanians (Northern Italy) (12) 3.67E+13
etc.

I hope this helps you to compare what you're getting when you put the values in. Don't forget you have to click on the "Show Frequencies" square.

Figuring out how to interpret this is what a lot of us are trying to do. It is even more difficult to get signficance from the results if you have admixture in your background. My Gram (82% Sub-Saharan African & 18% European on the ABD2.5) has had a bunch of East Indian and Asian popping up in her DNA Tribes and Omnipop Results. Don't give up. We're all in this together
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 2nd April 2007, 11:12 PM
clarkedenise clarkedenise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 72
Autosomal Marker Results (RXV6W)

I finally received my results. Of course I don't understand any of it. I'm turning to the group for assistance. Here are my results:

CSF1PO 11, 11

D13S317 11, 11

D16S539 12, 13

D18S51 15, 19

D21S11 29, 30

D3S1358 15, 15

D5S818 12, 12

D7S820 10, 12

D8S1179 10, 15

FGA 21, 21

Penta D 2.2, 2.2

Penta E 8, 12

TH01 6, 9

TPOX 8, 8

vWA 15, 17

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks,
Denise
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.


Family Tree DNA - World Headquarters

1445 North Loop West, Suite 820
Houston, Texas 77008, USA

Phone: (713) 868-1438 | Fax: (832) 201-7147
Copyright 2001-2010 Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.