Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Geno 2.0 Results

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

  • Originally posted by NYMark View Post
    I'm confused by by my Genographic results, which came in within hours after I was notified they were at quality control. I'm 50% Ashkenazi.

    The ancestral components are 49% Mediterranean, 29% North European, and 20% West Asian. That makes sense deep ancestry-wise.

    It gets weird though. My reference populations are Danish followed by Lebanese. Lebanese doesn't seem to be close at all, and there are a number of populations that look to be a good deal closer than Danish at least in terms of percentages. Tuscan in particular is exceptionally close. Greek, Bulgarian, and Romanian aren't far behind.

    Not terribly concerned about this, just puzzled. I know others have had strange results, but I'm wondering if this reflects a kind of geographic splitting the difference or what.
    I think you should average both results and see what country is close, or falls between those two, as far as those components go. I was given Danish, followed by Tunisian. Did not pay much attention to it. Asked Dr. McDonald if that meant I was somewhere between those two countries and he said yes. It really does not give you much info. I find this Geno 0.2 analysis to be one of the least informative of the ones out there. I find DNA Tribes SNP analyisis of your 23andMe raw data to be more specific.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NYMark View Post
      I'm confused by by my Genographic results, which came in within hours after I was notified they were at quality control. I'm 50% Ashkenazi.

      The ancestral components are 49% Mediterranean, 29% North European, and 20% West Asian. That makes sense deep ancestry-wise.

      It gets weird though. My reference populations are Danish followed by Lebanese. Lebanese doesn't seem to be close at all, and there are a number of populations that look to be a good deal closer than Danish at least in terms of percentages. Tuscan in particular is exceptionally close. Greek, Bulgarian, and Romanian aren't far behind.

      Not terribly concerned about this, just puzzled. I know others have had strange results, but I'm wondering if this reflects a kind of geographic splitting the difference or what.
      NYMark,

      I'm 58% Med, 21% NE, and 20% SWA, so pretty close to you. The averaging explanation not withstanding, I should be Tuscan/Greek and you should be Tuscan/Bulgarian according to GENO's own reference pop sources. So far I've been willing to give them a pass, but to continue to release confusing results at this stage of the game is disturbing. Who's in charge of quality control there?

      Comment


      • I found the reference populations to be a bit off as well. For example, my results were 40% Mediterranean, 40% Northern European, 20% Southwest Asian. The populations they gave me were British (49% N. Euro, 33% Med., 17% SW Asian) and Bulgarian (46% Med., 31% N. Euro, 20% SW Asian, 2% NE Asian). But, looking through all the reference populations, I believe I match most closely with Romanian (43% Med., 36% N. Euro, 19% SW Asian, 2% NE Asian).

        Comment


        • I think the averaging, McDonald style pull is the only way to explain it. In some respects, it's not that distant from some of the projections for my background in the Eurogenes JTest on Gedmatch. Still, averaging does not seem like a very useful way of thinking about it, as albeit without looking at a map, I suspect Tuscany and Bulgaria would, more or less, produce a similar average as Denmark and Lebanon.

          The thing that's really problematic is that none of the analyses suggest I have much Scandinavian ancestry at all, either recent or ancient. I wonder if the Ashkenazi pull to the south and east in this model is stronger than it should be. . .

          Originally posted by vinnie View Post
          NYMark,

          I'm 58% Med, 21% NE, and 20% SWA, so pretty close to you. The averaging explanation not withstanding, I should be Tuscan/Greek and you should be Tuscan/Bulgarian according to GENO's own reference pop sources. So far I've been willing to give them a pass, but to continue to release confusing results at this stage of the game is disturbing. Who's in charge of quality control there?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vinnie View Post
            Okay, we've got a deal.
            loool ok

            Comment


            • Just got my results in:
              45% N.Euro/36%Med/19%SWAsian/3%Neanderthal/1.3%Denisovan
              #1 Ref. Pop. British (Irish)
              #2 Ref. Pop. German
              Not much of a surprise for me since I'm Irish with German on my mom's side.
              My Y-haplogroup still plain R-M222
              My Mtdna-haplogroup J1c1b1-this I didn't know.
              Overall I think they pretty much got me figured out.

              Comment


              • ok here are my results :
                WE’RE SORRY, THERE’S A PROBLEM WITH YOUR KIT
                AFTER COMPLETING THE TEST FROM YOUR FIRST VIAL, WE FOUND THAT YOUR CHEEK SCRAPING DID NOT YIELD A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DNA NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ACCURATE RESULTS.
                How to Solve?

                You do not need to take any action at this time. The lab will use the sample provided in your second vial to obtain additional DNA. Because your second sample will need to repeat the entire analysis process, there will be an additional four to five week delay in delivering your results.

                If you are registered, we will send you an email when your new results are ready, otherwise, continue to check the site for updates on your kit.

                Please be aware that in some cases your sample may fail the second test. Should this occur, you may need to resubmit another DNA sample and we will post an update message here with further instructions.

                just disapointed no words.....

                Comment


                • Didn't you say that you sent in a sample of your cat's saliva?

                  Comment


                  • lol not really I said I wondered what would happen which is quite a different case acutally (no I speak posh lol)

                    Comment


                    • boutrosdu93,

                      I'm sincerely sorry to learn that you've got at least another month of waiting. I don't understand why it took them so long to figure out, and tell you, that they couldn't use the first vial. I've had this happen with a couple of kits I manage, so I understand how frustrating it is. At this point, I bet you'd be happy to have Greek results because at least they'd be results. Hang in there - you will get results.

                      Comment


                      • thank you vinnie and it is not one month, it is the whole process again : 4 to 6 weeks from now
                        imagine the second kits fail and this would mean a second time resubmitting samples...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JTR View Post
                          Yeah, I would just advise people to compare their results to the given populations and come-up with your own closest matches.
                          I have been experimenting with Population fitting for some time. Perhaps you have seen one of my spreadsheets I have posted elsewhere. I have one for Geno 2.0 populations. I have found that the first and second populations that are shown by the project are simply the two populations which give the lowest residual error when applied at 50% for each population. My analysis from Geno 2.0 is 43% NEuro, 38% Med and 19% SWAsian. Using British and Romanian, my 1st and 2nd populations respectively the RMSD (root mean square deviation) is 0.005 and the resulting percentages are:
                          43% NEuro, 38% Med, 18% SWAsian AND 1% NEAsian.
                          Unfortunately, even though that is a very close match, it doesn't mean very much. I have an extensive family tree going back over 8 generations in many lines and that shows something like

                          British(UK) 79.13%
                          Georgian 14.16%
                          Tuscan 3.99%
                          German 2.58%
                          Iberian 0.14%
                          with an RMSD 0f 0.0005 which indicates a 10x better fit.

                          My Y haplogroup is R1a1a1b1a1b, an East Eruopean Hg, at latest evaluation and these percentages are much more indicative of my family tree and other IBS analyses and supports the Georgian component than is the Geno 2.0 results for two populations only. My oldest known ancestor is from Tribur, Germany and many matches with other Y DNA are from the area of Mordovia. The high Britsh refelcts the maternal side of my family from England and Ireland as well as my paternal granmother's Irish heritage from Donegal.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X