Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Indian admixture in White Americans

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

  • JTR
    replied
    Originally posted by rainbow View Post
    I had the autosomal/admixture test thru www.ancestrybydna.com. There are no Indian names in my family tree, but it is incomplete. My result is 83% European, 17% Native American. My ancestors immigrated to America in the 1600s, 1700s,1800,& 1900s, and stayed on the east coast. I must be descended from some of the original northeast tribes.



    Of my 176 markers, 7 are unknown.
    I had this test done in 2006 - do you happen to know what markers are tested and their ds numbers by any chance? I would love the list. When they sent them to me they were in a form like #982 which does not correspond to anything I know of in order to research them.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
    If by some chance I were to find a bit of Native American DNA in my FF results, where would it have come from? Outside of an unknown "non-paternal event" along the way, it could only come from pre-Revolutionary War North Carolina. And not to forget that HVR1 U5 match on Mitosearch that supposedly traces back to a Tuscorora maternal ancestress of theirs. Hmm... Lost Colony, perhaps?
    Speaking of the Lost Colony of Roanoke (NC), I was just looking at the Lost Colony Project (mitochondrial). And there is a sample (#195018) who is very close to mine. Although that person/line is apparently not in the U5 Project, I think it should be. It looks to maybe belong in the group (right next to mine) called U5b2b1* Group A2. The HVR1 is 16270, 16292 & 16362. The HVR2 is mine minus my 228A. Hmm...

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
    Well, now that I finally ordered the FF test, maybe I'll see whether or not I have any significant non-Caucasian elements in my autosomal DNA.
    If by some chance I were to find a bit of Native American DNA in my FF results, where would it have come from? Outside of an unknown "non-paternal event" along the way, it could only come from pre-Revolutionary War North Carolina. And not to forget that HVR1 U5 match on Mitosearch that supposedly traces back to a Tuscorora maternal ancestress of theirs. Hmm... Lost Colony, perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Well, now that I finally ordered the FF test, maybe I'll see whether or not I have any significant non-Caucasian elements in my autosomal DNA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Táltos
    replied
    Originally posted by nathanm View Post
    Yes, that's essentially what I meant, from a macro-perspective. I'll try to explain it another way at more of a micro-level. Biogeographical ancestry (BGA) analysis uses SNPs known as ancestry informative markers (AIMs). They're chosen specifically because they're found in different percentages between diverse populations.

    For example, imagine a hypothetical SNP known to have the allele CC in 95% of Africans, AA in 95% of Europeans, and either AA, CC, or AC in more or less equal quantities in Asians and Native Americans. You can see actual statistics by SNP and population at the ALlele FREquency Database (ALFRED). Now suppose a person has one African parent (CC) and one European (AA). Obviously, their allele at this SNP has to be AC, which by itself would lead us to believe (incorrectly) the person was Asian (or Native American).

    Then multiply this comparison several thousand times, done by a computer that can only take the data at face value. FTDNA uses around a quarter million SNPs in their PF algorithm. There are several articles explaining new methodologies to whittle the number of AIMs used down to a hundred or so, because BGA can be extremely computation intensive. But those studies use a limited set of samples from known populations, so they're more proofs of concept than anything.
    nathanm thank you so much for the micro-level explanation! You made it very easy to understand, awesome!!

    Leave a comment:


  • nathanm
    replied
    Originally posted by thetick View Post
    By confound I think nathan means the PF tool will match your genetic segments to the closest population. You get 50 % of your autosomal dna from each parent and there's no guarantee you get equal weights of their ethnicities in your genes and consequently PF.

    Take this example. This is purely for illustration, but could technically happen. In reality all degrees are possible, but you are much more likely to get ethnicities spread evenly.

    Suppose a 50% German 50% / Chinese mother and a 50% African / 50% Pakistani father have two children.

    One child could theoretically get 50% German and 50% African while second child could get 50% Chinese / 50% Pakistani. The children's PF would literally be on the other side of the world.
    Yes, that's essentially what I meant, from a macro-perspective. I'll try to explain it another way at more of a micro-level. Biogeographical ancestry (BGA) analysis uses SNPs known as ancestry informative markers (AIMs). They're chosen specifically because they're found in different percentages between diverse populations.

    For example, imagine a hypothetical SNP known to have the allele CC in 95% of Africans, AA in 95% of Europeans, and either AA, CC, or AC in more or less equal quantities in Asians and Native Americans. You can see actual statistics by SNP and population at the ALlele FREquency Database (ALFRED). Now suppose a person has one African parent (CC) and one European (AA). Obviously, their allele at this SNP has to be AC, which by itself would lead us to believe (incorrectly) the person was Asian (or Native American).

    Then multiply this comparison several thousand times, done by a computer that can only take the data at face value. FTDNA uses around a quarter million SNPs in their PF algorithm. There are several articles explaining new methodologies to whittle the number of AIMs used down to a hundred or so, because BGA can be extremely computation intensive. But those studies use a limited set of samples from known populations, so they're more proofs of concept than anything.
    Last edited by nathanm; 12 April 2012, 08:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Táltos
    replied
    Originally posted by thetick View Post
    By confound I think nathan means the PF tool will match your genetic segments to the closest population. You get 50 % of your autosomal dna from each parent and there's no guarantee you get equal weights of their ethnicities in your genes and consequently PF.

    Take this example. This is purely for illustration, but could technically happen. In reality all degrees are possible, but you are much more likely to get ethnicities spread evenly.

    Suppose a 50% German 50% / Chinese mother and a 50% African / 50% Pakistani father have two children.

    One child could theoretically get 50% German and 50% African while second child could get 50% Chinese / 50% Pakistani. The children's PF would literally be on the other side of the world.
    Thanks Tick, I understand that better now.

    Leave a comment:


  • thetick
    replied
    By confound I think nathan means the PF tool will match your genetic segments to the closest population. You get 50 % of your autosomal dna from each parent and there's no guarantee you get equal weights of their ethnicities in your genes and consequently PF.

    Take this example. This is purely for illustration, but could technically happen. In reality all degrees are possible, but you are much more likely to get ethnicities spread evenly.

    Suppose a 50% German 50% / Chinese mother and a 50% African / 50% Pakistani father have two children.

    One child could theoretically get 50% German and 50% African while second child could get 50% Chinese / 50% Pakistani. The children's PF would literally be on the other side of the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Táltos
    replied
    Thanks nathanm! That helps me to understand the test better. I am new to all of this, and have not taken this particular test yet. I am interested in doing it in the future. If you can just explain a little more about the algorithm getting confounded. I think it would probably do that in my case because I'm a mutt!!

    mtdna-H

    Leave a comment:


  • nathanm
    replied
    Originally posted by 1796 View Post
    So if you wanted to do the test for the population finder, you wouldn't need to have someone in the older generation test to have deeper ancestry show? I think I saw in another post where that was suggested.
    If your parents were from very different ethnic groups, the three of you might get very different results. The particular combination of segments you inherited can confound the PF algorithm.

    Originally posted by 1796 View Post
    Of course I guess it would probably be better to have one's mother or father do the test separately if you are female correct?
    For autosomal DNA, male or female doesn't matter. That only comes into play with Y-DNA since only males have Y chromosomes, and mtDNA since everyone has it, but it's inherited from your mother (X-DNA is also effected, but FTDNA doesn't use that part of the FF results yet). It can be helpful to test both parents to determine which segments came from which.

    Originally posted by 1796 View Post
    But also certain segments that show on your parents then would not necessarily show on yourself correct?
    Correct, we only inherit 50% of each of their autosomal DNA. However, even in cases where one or more parents aren't around, testing multiple siblings can effectively reconstruct more of the parents' DNA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Táltos
    replied
    Originally posted by nathanm View Post
    That's a common misconception because of poorly worded FAQs. The FF portion of the test is best for detecting cousins with common ancestors within 5-6 generations, but can sometimes pick up more distant relatives. However, the PF portion of the test goes back much further; according to the FAQ, up to 80 generations back.
    So if you wanted to do the test for the population finder, you wouldn't need to have someone in the older generation test to have deeper ancestry show? I think I saw in another post where that was suggested. Of course I guess it would probably be better to have one's mother or father do the test separately if you are female correct? But also certain segments that show on your parents then would not necessarily show on yourself correct?
    I wish I won the Mega Millions the other week to have my whole family tested!

    mtdna-H

    Leave a comment:


  • nathanm
    replied
    Originally posted by 1796 View Post
    (autosomal only goes back 5 generations)
    That's a common misconception because of poorly worded FAQs. The FF portion of the test is best for detecting cousins with common ancestors within 5-6 generations, but can sometimes pick up more distant relatives. However, the PF portion of the test goes back much further; according to the FAQ, up to 80 generations back.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1_mke
    replied
    23andMe shows me as 1/10th of a percent Asian with the rest being European. That could just be noise of course. One of my Kentucky relatives told me that one of my great grandmothers was part Cherokee. Its a common enough claim but that bit of possible Asian lends some credence to it.

    My father isn't available for testing. I should try to talk by brother into testing. He might have gotten "luckier" in the native american autosomal DNA sweep stakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Favouriteslave
    replied
    Being a descendant of melungeons from Kentucky I know what it's like to try and find out what your mixture is. Many mixed races were listed as "mulatto" on their birth records even if they were dark skinned Indians. I'm white but I also carry traits that are Amerindian and African. There are lots of people who think they are Indian and are also mixed with African. It was common then as Indians would mix with Africans when the whites would not. Indian tribes accepted them easier than white communities.

    My Great grandfather was clearly Mulatto or Indian by his pictures but was noted as "white" on his birth and census records.

    Leave a comment:


  • Táltos
    replied
    Originally posted by Xolotl View Post
    I don't think there's much amerindian admixture in white americans. Its usually made up. People here love to make up stories about their ancestors. This may apply to the people who have USA colonial ancestry. They usually end up having a black slave ancestor rather than amerindian.
    I think there is a lot to the history of the Americas that we don't really know about. I don't have the link handy but google about the Mayans and their ruins MAYBE being found in Georgia. It also went on to say how the native Creeks from the area, their autosomal tests were coming up Mayan, but this may be due to the fact that there is not a "large pool" of Native populations that tested. Kind of like what I'm hearing about certain populations being under tested in Europe. Anyway I think the Discovery channel is supposed to do a story on this in May.

    I think that there are some white Americans who may have legitimate Amerindian ancestry but due to the technology (autosomal only goes back 5 generations) and luck of the draw as to what you inherent in your DNA, you can not be able to prove anything. I think anything is possible, I certainly found out things are not what you always think when I started my journey in genealogy!

    The bottom line is NO race or ethnic group is better than another. We all eat, sleep, and etc. the same! Everyone should be proud of their results because that is who you are!

    mtdna-H

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X