Illumina Chip Population Finder Results

[Yaffa]

A few people with minor NA ancestry but more West Euro have also got Northeast European on Population Finder, despite little or no known ancestry from there. I suspect it is because NE Europe is a midpoint or average between these ancestries. Sometimes it's hard for the testing to say whether someone is from population X, or from a mix of two/three nearby populations.

ME instead of NA, though, doesn't seem very likely. ME gets confused with South Euro (e.g. Italian, Greek), though.

Yaffa wrote:
"Im not so sure. I have a few people from the Appalachia who have been given ME and this was not an area where there were a lot of ME."

If the DNA does not agree with history/paper trails, it might be history that's wrong.

There's some interesting work on the Melungeon yDNA Project that suggests a significant South Europe source with possibly a Near Eastern component, or
as I explain above South Euro can look like Near Eastern.

It's difficult to strike the right balance between being open to reading the results, and reading too much into them. But if a number of people from Appalachia have Middle Eastern, it is not coincidence.

The Y and MT DNA agrees with history but PF does not. Y and MT are accurate. This is why I am not a fan of admixture testing at all. It is very hard to detect what is accurate.

I spoke to the melungeon DNA project and they do not have a lot of ME on PF results. I have only met a few people who claim Melungeon who got ME on PF results. These people also claim Indian ancestry. My family has no ties to the People who were called Melungeon but my 6th great grandparents were around them. Even though a few of my 6th greats were around people with African ancestry, my 6th great grandparents would not show up in a PF test if they had North African in their lines. Their Y-DNA is European (English.) I only have one person in any of my FF matches that claims Melungeon but also claims Indian and they too got a higher % of ME ( great grandparent or two second great grandparents) Their known African ancestor was never near any of my family.

Not all people who were in the Appalachia claim Melungeon.

[Javelin]

Not all people who were in the Appalachia claim Melungeon.

Yes, I realize that. But there was also documented early Jewish immigration to the New World, for example, and Spanish presence in this area. My point is it's possible you are simply missing a crucial chapter to the narrative.

Also, you say:

"Even though a few of my 6th greats were around people with African ancestry, my 6th great grandparents would not show up in a PF test if they had North African in their lines."

You must have inherited DNA from some of your 6th great-grandparents: we just don't know which ones. It is possible by sheer chance you inherited a far greater amount of DNA from one area or group than is proportionate to your total paper-trail ancestry from that group.

Your ancestors at that stage may have had European yDNA but been autsomally 7/8th African, or 3/4 Native American, or fully European, or any mixture of things. Autosomes are passed on independently of yDNA. yDNA is great for tracking a single ancestral line, but only that: we don't know if it's typical of your ancestry.

It is possible for Population Finder to be wrong as well. What I am not sure about is why you are certain that the Middle Eastern is Native American as opposed to anything else. I think it is much more likely to be a mixture of either European and African, or European and South Asian, than it is to be Native American. (I understand there are some Romani markers among some Appalchians.)

It also is apparent some non-Melungeon Native American groups in Appalachia allowed people with various mixed heritages into their tribes, either formally or informally. A generation or two later, someone could be culturally and linguistically Native American, but genetically more complicated.

[Yaffa]

Yes, I realize that. But there was also documented early Jewish immigration to the New World, for example, and Spanish presence in this area. My point is it's possible you are simply missing a crucial chapter to the narrative.

Also, you say:

"Even though a few of my 6th greats were around people with African ancestry, my 6th great grandparents would not show up in a PF test if they had North African in their lines."

You must have inherited DNA from some of your 6th great-grandparents: we just don't know which ones. It is possible by sheer chance you inherited a far greater amount of DNA from one area or group than is proportionate to your total paper-trail ancestry from that group.

Your ancestors at that stage may have had European yDNA but been autsomally 7/8th African, or 3/4 Native American, or fully European, or any mixture of things. Autosomes are passed on independently of yDNA. yDNA is great for tracking a single ancestral line, but only that: we don't know if it's typical of your ancestry.

It is possible for Population Finder to be wrong as well. What I am not sure about is why you are certain that the Middle Eastern is Native American as opposed to anything else. I think it is much more likely to be a mixture of either European and African, or European and South Asian, than it is to be Native American. (I understand there are some Romani markers among some Appalchians.)

It also is apparent some non-Melungeon Native American groups in Appalachia allowed people with various mixed heritages into their tribes, either formally or informally. A generation or two later, someone could be culturally and linguistically Native American, but genetically more complicated.

First off I do have several lines Y and MT-DNA tested. Not all but results are European or Indian. From what FTDNA told me for a % to show up on PF test it has to be a closer relation. They are telling me this is from a great grandparent or 2 great grandparents. I did not make the rules on PF they did. If we are inheriting PF markers from ONE possible (which I have no proof of being African or anything else) 6th great grandparent than FTDNA should advise their testers. My family owned no slaves (very proud of them) so I dont have an issue where a possible European ancestor fathered a child to a Slave. My family in an area where Indian tribes are documented. My family living where both Cherokee and Catawba burial grounds are documented. Some of my ancestors documented in so called Indian territory when very few European settlers were in the area. I have actually spoken to the Cherokee and they do know a few lines in my family. Cousin lines are also coming up Indian on Y and MT-DNA who have not taken FF test so I dont know what their % would be on FF/PF. I also do have cousins that are tribal members today. All I know is I have more than one proven Indian ancestor in my lines but only one is showing up as Indian on PF and not of the tribe my ancestor is from. Whats the answer????

[Javelin]

Well, it is at least worth noting that there are few if any genotypes for East Coast Native American people, so they're not represented in the database, in which case it's very hard to say what they look like autosomally. Unfortunately I don't have any solid answer for you, except: there's lots of possibilities.

I note that you do have mtDNA B2 and therefore have proof of Native American ancestry. But we also don't know if you got any autosomes from that ancestor: perhaps that was your only Native American ancestor, and she is not reflected in your autosomes. It is possible to have a European mtDNA and have some or mainly Native American autosomes, or the other way around.

I think to your question, what FTDNA means is that only relations closer than fourth cousin are guaranteed to show up. But many of your Family Finder relatives will be fourth cousins and beyond probably most or even all of them. It's just not possible after a certain range to say exactly how distant a genetic cousin is, only to provide ranges. And while these are scientifically based guesses, they are still guesses.

[Yaffa]

Well, it is at least worth noting that there are few if any genotypes for East Coast Native American people, so they're not represented in the database, in which case it's very hard to say what they look like autosomally. Unfortunately I don't have any solid answer for you, except: there's lots of possibilities.

I note that you do have mtDNA B2 and therefore have proof of Native American ancestry. But we also don't know if you got any autosomes from that ancestor: perhaps that was your only Native American ancestor, and she is not reflected in your autosomes. It is possible to have a European mtDNA and have some or mainly Native American autosomes, or the other way around.

I think to your question, what FTDNA means is that only relations closer than fourth cousin are guaranteed to show up. But many of your Family Finder relatives will be fourth cousins and beyond probably most or even all of them. It's just not possible after a certain range to say exactly how distant a genetic cousin is, only to provide ranges. And while these are scientifically based guesses, they are still guesses.

I do know I got autosomes from my direct mother line B2. That is the ancestor that shows up in my PF test as Pima /Maya but she was of neither tribe. Her whole family documented as Indian in records. Its my other documented Indians that are not showing up in PF. I do have FF matches as distant cousins who do have Indian ancestors close to them also but they only have the new FF test and no PF results.

FTDNA is telling me that us matching distant cousins on FF is not the same as PF results. That PF results have to be close for it to show up. If they are incorrect about this then they should state that PF can go back much further than they are stating (before paper). Im only going by what they are calculating and no way could I have an ME or possible north African line being a great grand parent or possible 2 great grandparents.

[Javelin]

I do know I got autosomes from my direct mother line B2. That is the ancestor that shows up in my PF test as Pima /Maya but she was of neither tribe.

Ah, that's just because Pima are genetically the closest group in the database to your tribe. There are no Cherokee in the database, or anything that close really, so the program will look for the next closest people genetically who are in the database, which happens to be the Pima people.

FTDNA is telling me that us matching distant cousins on FF is not the same as PF results. That PF results have to be close for it to show up. If they are incorrect about this then they should state that PF can go back much further than they are stating (before paper). Im only going by what they are calculating and no way could I have an ME or possible north African line being a great grand parent or possible 2 great grandparents.

What exactly was your Middle East percentage, and did you have naything else besides that and Native American?

This get tricky. Population Finder is a measure of more ancient ancestry by definition (it measures _populations_, not individual people), so there is no way it can be expected accurately to measure all your recent ancestry. It is based on the genes you inherited from recent ancestors, of course, but two people who are not closely related could have very similar Population Finders and mot match on Family Finder, and two people who have very different Population Finders could be very closely related and match on Family Finder.

[ahernandez]

I'm finding this discussion very interesting. I wonder why they don't have any North American natives on the database. Is it that there isn’t a substantial population of North American tribes that haven't mixed with other people to get enough samples?

Also, all Native Americans essentially come from the same founding population (those individuals that crossed the Bering Straight) so I wonder if it even matters to the database, the Pima and Maya are most likely genetically very similar to Cherokee and Creek.

[Yaffa]

Ah, that's just because Pima are genetically the closest group in the database to your tribe. There are no Cherokee in the database, or anything that close really, so the program will look for the next closest people genetically who are in the database, which happens to be the Pima people.



What exactly was your Middle East percentage, and did you have naything else besides that and Native American?

This get tricky. Population Finder is a measure of more ancient ancestry by definition (it measures _populations_, not individual people), so there is no way it can be expected accurately to measure all your recent ancestry. It is based on the genes you inherited from recent ancestors, of course, but two people who are not closely related could have very similar Population Finders and mot match on Family Finder, and two people who have very different Population Finders could be very closely related and match on Family Finder.

I get Native Pima/Maya- This ancestor was not Cherokee, Pima or Maya and PF is matching me to the closet it can find since they dont have a lot of tribes on record. This is my 2nd great grandmother. Then I get 12-13 % ME and the rest Western European. The Western European and the Indian % can prove is accurate is just the ME that is off. Yes there is that issue where they don't have DNA from North American Tribes. It will be interesting to see if anything changes with the new PF results but they dont have all populations so it does get tricky on how accurate the results may be. Also everyone inherits different DNA from their ancestors.

My closest FF match who claims Melungeon also got 12-13 % ME. Her African Ancestor can be traced to being a servant back to the 1600's. He is not North African and she has gotten no sub-Sahara African %. This African ancestor has nothing to do with the People who were called Melungeon. My match has Collins ( Melungeon) in their line where I dont. I do believe her Collins line does come up European on Y-DNA. She is listed as my 2-4 th being 3rd cousin on the new results. We think we have a common Scottish ancestor.

[Javelin]

I think there are a few issues. Some groups may have resisted testing for fear the results would be used to delegitamize claims, or they might have been afraid of biopiracy. In any case the project from which these samples comes was teminated prematurely, and so we have a very incomplete picture.

At this point there will probably have been substantial mixture in almost any NA group, but it would still be interesting to get a snapshot of the populations as they are now.

Also, all Native Americans essentially come from the same founding population (those individuals that crossed the Bering Straight) so I wonder if it even matters to the database, the Pima and Maya are most likely genetically very similar to Cherokee and Creek.

Agreed -- a link to Pima means Native American though not necessarily Pima, in fact probably not. I suspect a few of the northern Canadian groups (such as Dene) might be at least as likely to get North Asian results, but I am not sure.

[Javelin]

I get Native Pima/Maya- This ancestor was not Cherokee, Pima or Maya and PF is matching me to the closet it can find since they dont have a lot of tribes on record.

Okay, that makes sense. I'm not sure what the 12-13% ME with the rest Western European and Pima means, to be honest, I haven't seen that particular combination before. But there are many possible explanations, some of them I have outlined above.

[Yaffa]

Okay, that makes sense. I'm not sure what the 12-13% ME with the rest Western European and Pima means, to be honest, I haven't seen that particular combination before. But there are many possible explanations, some of them I have outlined above.

Im waiting to see what the updated PF states and if it changes. I got a new FF distant match that has Pequot in their lines and they have not gotten PF yet so Im curious what their PF will show.

[rainbow]

I think what Yaffa is getting at is maybe the Middle East may in fact be Native American.

On Kerchner's DNA Tribes log there are people who say they have some Native American ancestry but they were matched to El Minia, Egypt, and to Greek Cypriot, and to other Middle East populations.
And another dna company, DNAPrint Genomics, found Native American SNP markers in people of the Middle East, Near East, Pakistan, Italy, and Greece.
Central Asian markers overlap with Native American markers. DNAPrint said most people carrying these SNP markers in Central Asia travelled Northeast and crossed the Bering Land Bridge into America, while others travelled Southwest into the Middle East and Greece, etc.

The dna company DNA Tribes has pdfs (digests) showing the populations (areas) that have retained Native American STR markers.

Then there are the Finns, who are also showing Native American genes, in DNAPrint and in the Eurogenes Project.

[Javelin]

I think what Yaffa is getting at is maybe the Middle East may in fact be Native American.

Those are low-resolution STR tests, these are high-resolution SNP tests: apples and oranges.

[PDHOTLEN]

just wonderin'

I finally looked at the FAQs for FF. I notice that SE Europe is rather weak. I mean, they compare with Romania, but that country is itself a mixture. Then they have Italians of different types. But there is one ancient strain that is not accounted for: Dinaric. In prehistoric times, they expanded up the Danube into Austria, Czech and such like. They were swarthy complexioned, from what I gather. Some Austrians and Czechs are also quite swarthy. My Austrian grandfather, for example, was also somewhat swarthy, although not extremely so. But I don't know when, if ever, I'll have the extra cash or credit to have the FF test done anyway.

[Barreldriver]

Those are low-resolution STR tests, these are high-resolution SNP tests: apples and oranges.

Even with the SNP's there's confusion between Central Asians and Native American's, hence some of the comments from project admins like that of the Eurogenes Project.