Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dna Calculator

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • migoblu
    replied
    Felix, I used your Ancient Calculator and I would like to know if the results are accurate enough to say I have Native American ancestry, as my oral family history states? The results from the Ancient Calculator for Clovis Anzick-1 shows the Total Shared DNA (with the thresholds set to defaults for recent ancestry) is 25.46%. The Compound Segments (with the thresholds set to defaults for recent ancestry) is 11.93%.

    I have DNA results from CRI Genetics and Sequencing.com showing the following results.


    CRI Genetics:

    Admixed American:

    East AsianSequencing.com Ancestry (Admixture) analysis

    SouthAmerica 2.02

    NorthAmerica 0.64

    EastAsia 2.16

    Would these results along with the Clovis Anzick-1 results from your Ancient Calculator indicate Native American ancestry? Thanks for any help.
    John Hale

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    http://www.y-str.org/2014/11/ancient-ancestry.html

    This is also a good tool for ancient ancestry matches.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by gman35 View Post
    Does anyone have a link to where I can get the new DNA calculator?? thanks, gary
    Here it is: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...4&postcount=24
    Originally posted by felix View Post
    I just updated the DNA calculator to customize thresholds/settings along with 2 predefined options for total and recent ancestry. Hope this will avoid confusion. I also made the other 3 tools obsolete.

    Link: http://www.y-str.org/2014/12/dna-calculator.html
    W.

    Leave a comment:


  • gman35
    replied
    DNA caculator

    Does anyone have a link to where I can get the new DNA caluulator?? thanks, gary

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    Your new calculator is showing a big difference. 0.20% for Motala 12. Maith thú.
    The Ancestry test tool shows mixed ancestry for 999925 and European for 999926 both Hinxton. LBK and Motala 12 are also European.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by felix View Post
    Did you download the new calculator? I made it less confusing.

    The total DNA shared (24.58%) means, you and Motala-12 share that much percent of ancestors in distant and recent ancestry. You can just change the settings to include only recent ancestry in the new calculator which reflects the autosomal dna statistics.

    Not sure what you are asking in regards to rs7853989, but a quick grep on ancients provides the following list which shows LBK and Altai Neanderthal is not GG and likely B-positive.
    • Altai_Neanderthal: "rs7853989","9","136131592","CC"
    • AusAboriginal: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • BR2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Clovis_Anzick-1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Denisova: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Gökhem2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-4: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-5: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • IR1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • KO1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Kostenki14: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • LaBraña-Arintero: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Linearbandkeramik: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GC"
    • Loschbour: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Motala12: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • NE1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Palaeo-Eskimo: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Ust-Ishim: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    Your new calculator is showing a big difference. 0.20% for Motala 12. Maith thú.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by felix View Post
    Did you download the new calculator? I made it less confusing.

    The total DNA shared (24.58%) means, you and Motala-12 share that much percent of ancestors in distant and recent ancestry. You can just change the settings to include only recent ancestry in the new calculator which reflects the autosomal dna statistics.

    Not sure what you are asking in regards to rs7853989, but a quick grep on ancients provides the following list which shows LBK and Altai Neanderthal is not GG and likely B-positive.
    • Altai_Neanderthal: "rs7853989","9","136131592","CC"
    • AusAboriginal: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • BR2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Clovis_Anzick-1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Denisova: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Gökhem2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-4: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-5: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • IR1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • KO1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Kostenki14: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • LaBraña-Arintero: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Linearbandkeramik: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GC"
    • Loschbour: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Motala12: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • NE1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Palaeo-Eskimo: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Ust-Ishim: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    Thanks. I downloaded the new calculator. I have at least 200 mismatches from the ancient ancestry tool which you have colour coded red. Those SNPs are specific to me and my son at present. Maybe they are found in other western Europeans too. Those variants are what sets us apart from other regions.
    It is interesting that so many of the ancients have the same genotype.

    Leave a comment:


  • felix
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    Your dna caculator shows that I share 24.58% of my dna with Motala 12 and 49% with my son. That is the bit that I don't understand.
    One SNP that that was mentioned in the POBI study was rs7853989. A lot of the ancients including H5 have a GG for this SNP but my son and I don't have this type.
    Did you download the new calculator? I made it less confusing.

    The total DNA shared (24.58%) means, you and Motala-12 share that much percent of ancestors in distant and recent ancestry. You can just change the settings to include only recent ancestry in the new calculator which reflects the autosomal dna statistics.

    Not sure what you are asking in regards to rs7853989, but a quick grep on ancients provides the following list which shows LBK and Altai Neanderthal is not GG and likely B-positive.
    • Altai_Neanderthal: "rs7853989","9","136131592","CC"
    • AusAboriginal: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • BR2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Clovis_Anzick-1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Denisova: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Gökhem2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-2: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-4: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Hinxton-5: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • IR1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • KO1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Kostenki14: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • LaBraña-Arintero: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Linearbandkeramik: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GC"
    • Loschbour: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Motala12: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • NE1: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Palaeo-Eskimo: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    • Ust-Ishim: "rs7853989","9","136131592","GG"
    Last edited by felix; 24 December 2014, 03:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by felix View Post
    I believe your entire autosomal file is based on just that 0.3% difference in humans.
    Your dna caculator shows that I share 24.58% of my dna with Motala 12 and 49% with my son. That is the bit that I don't understand.
    One SNP that that was mentioned in the POBI study was rs7853989. A lot of the ancients including H5 have a GG for this SNP but my son and I don't have this type.

    Leave a comment:


  • felix
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    It would be ideal if we could eliminate all the SNPs we have in common in our results and work on the 0.3% that we don't share. That is the kind of dna tool that we need.
    I believe your entire autosomal file is based on just that 0.3% difference in humans.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by felix View Post
    The tool checks for small segments chunks within the DNA to see how much they are identical. You need to remove the genealogical perspective and put on the general idea that every human is 99.7% identical. This tool tells you how much of that 0.3 is identical. Instead of SNP by SNP, which mostly match each other by 60 to 70%, it checks smaller chunks of identical segments.

    The 99.7% is based on each SNP comparison. If we do the same, everyone will match at ~60%. The only problem is, that does not tell the true shared DNA but shared SNPs. If we compare smaller segments as in genetic genealogy like 1 cM some will never match and that's not true either. However, the goal here is to find shared DNA which is a thin blurred line between both. So, the idea here is to take identical chunks of small segments greater than 100k positions also considering for runs of Homozygosity, the percentage of matching is calculated. The reason why 100k is considered is because most gene lengths fall within this length range and the noise/accidental occurrence range of 1-2% is acceptable.

    [/LIST]
    It would be ideal if we could eliminate all the SNPs we have in common in our results and work on the 0.3% that we don't share. That is the kind of dna tool that we need.

    Leave a comment:


  • felix
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    How long should it take to analyse the data with the Autosomal Segment Analyzer? I have tried it a few times but it doesn't work for me.
    That tool is designed specifically and optimized for SNPs tested by DNA companies e.g., FTDNA, 23andme and ancestry - This is primarily to minimize the file size for mapping Mb/cM (the complete set is huge which is certainly not feasible to be included with application). If you try to compare ancient DNA having SNPs that are not tested by DNA companies, you may get some strange lengths. This is the only known fault I am aware of. Let me know if you face any other issue.
    Last edited by felix; 23 December 2014, 12:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • felix
    replied
    Originally posted by suttonwho View Post
    Felix, I just tried out the updated DNA Calculator and it will be much less confusing. However, I also want to thank you for the original version because the results were very enlightening!

    Also, I do hope you will reconsider putting your Ancient Calculators back up. There is so much interest in those subjects, and for those who didn't test at Nat Geo or 23 this is another way to get an idea of our numbers.
    I made an another calculator for ancient DNA.
    Link: http://www.y-str.org/2014/12/ancient-calculator.html

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by suttonwho View Post
    Right. The link you provided is not related to the, "5% of .3 % of their DNA." That is concerning the Archaic set of tools. It is also not 3% as you mentioned, but POINT 3 %. So, while in my study we were getting ranges of 5% Neanderthal or Denisovan, that was concerning 5% of .3% as stated previously. You're right, it is a very tiny amount. I would be curious to see what others find in when they run their data.

    The DNA calculator is another ball of wax and the way Felix explained it makes sense to me. My unrelated grandmothers share about 31% of their total DNA. Only 16% of it is in the 1-2 cm/ 100 snps range and the rest is below. In other words, it is DNA everyone human shares. They have no shared DNA anywhere near 7 cm/700 snps. It isn't genealogical time range sharing or anything remotely similar to that.
    suttonwho
    I have 693,734 SNPs from FF. So we should match at all but .3% of them. Isn't that right? So you and I would have to compare our files to find those SNPs that we don't match in. How many autosomal SNPs happen in every birth?

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by felix View Post
    No, please don't assume more about me. I am just an amateur hobbyist.
    How long should it take to analyse the data with the Autosomal Segment Analyzer? I have tried it a few times but it doesn't work for me.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X