Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Experiences with Family Finder and PF

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

  • DelawareNative
    replied
    Great insight - my ME could be anything at this point. We may have to wait a bit more as tweaks occur, but we have FF results until then.

    *sigh*

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Because your father's line is from Mexico, you seem to be matching the Indian samples FTDNA has. Many in the Mexico project also get Middle Eastern. Some of it could be unk Indian markers and some Spaniard. no one is really sure. None of them seem to be getting Asian %. Even people who claim AI in the US don't seem to be getting Asian but are given Middle Eastern % on PF.

    Without having Tribal DNA from the US who knows how they would turn out on a PF test.

    On my Illumina -My Indian % went slightly higher on PF. My Middle Eastern from affy has now disappeared and replaced with a Very High Orcadian French %. I know this is not accurate but they dont have enough solid samples of many populations to possibly make it accurate at the moment and why this test is Beta.

    You being adopted your best luck of finding your father is your Y DNA and getting a close relative match on the Family Finder part of the test.

    Leave a comment:


  • c_thompson_68
    replied
    Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
    You are showing NA because your family is from Mexico. Most Mexicans are Indian. It does not matter Affy or Illumnia. FTDNA only has some NA samples for Central and South America not North America.
    Actually, only my birth-father is Mexican as my birth-mother is a U.S. citizen of European descent. It was not until a few years ago that I was able to verify my birth-father is Mexican because my birth records are sealed by the state in which I was born. After I got my non-ID information from the children’s home that placed me for adoption, I was able to locate my half-brother a year ago (same birth-mother), and like me he is half-Mexican as well because of his father.

    Concerning the Native American DNA, there are similarities between NA and Asians. Both typically have the Epicanthic eye fold, and share other similar physical traits with Eastern Asians. If FTDNA does not have the DNA samples of U.S. and Canadian NA tribes, then their DNA should still (in theory) be more similar to the NA tribes (Central America, South America, Inuit) and to Asians (crossing the bearing sea) than to Europeans. The possible exception that I have heard about is mtDNA haplogroup X, which is found primarily among the Druze (Middle East) and Algonquian peoples of North American. I believe it is considered to be pre-Columbian in origin. Also, I have heard that if a scenario exists where the last 100% Native American Indian existed in a person’s genetic line more than 6 generations ago, it is difficult to detect using Population Finder because of the percentage being too low to detect. Maybe PF will develop higher resolution tests in the future that are capable of detecting a low percentage of NA more than 6 generations ago.

    Anyway, my autosomal DNA test estimates from AncestryByDNA 2.5 (2005) were as follows:

    • European: 66%
    • Native American: 29%
    • Sub-Saharan African: 5%
    • East-Asian: 0%

    After retesting with the FTDNA Affymetrix chipset (2011), the estimates changed to:

    • Europe (Western European): 62.65%
    • Native American (Central American): 19.20%
    • Middle East: 18.15%

    The middle east classification is not a surprise as my Y-DNA is J2-M319 (J2a4d) which is found primarily among Crete (Minoan), Moroccan Jews, and Iraqi Jews (http://m172.blogspot.com/2008/10/dif...-subclade.html). It has also been found rarely among other Hispanics / Latinos, and so this causes me to wonder if my birth-father could have been a Sephardic Jew, or of some other middle-eastern ancestry along with the Native American and Spanish ancestry.

    So I asked FTDNA about the difference in the test results and I received this explanation:
    “AncestrybyDNA uses about 170 SNP's to define your deeper ancestry. We are using something on the order of 95,000 SNP's (Affy) for that purpose.”

    So the middle east classification (FTDNA Affy) appears to have replaced some of the NA and all of the Sub-Saharan African percentage. The European percentage is almost unchanged. When I receive the Illumina upgrade Population Finder (PF) results later this week, it would be interesting to see if the percentages or classifications show any changes.
    Last edited by c_thompson_68; 26 March 2011, 08:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    I have not personally traced your family to say what is accurate. If I remember you stated getting a Middle East % which could be Indian since FTDNA does not have American Indian DNA to compare to. I know people who were Portuguese who claimed Indian. I have seen free African Americans claim Portuguese and or Indian. It was slightly safer than claiming African. Portugal was one of the biggest salve ports and Im sure many of them spoke Portuguese. Some of these people too get Middle Eastern % on PF and other tests.

    Right now FTDNA's biggest % of Indians tested are coming from Mexico where most of those people are at least 1/2 Indian or close to.

    FTDNA would need DNA from Full Blooded Indians from the US to see what their samples look like and if they are different from people coming from Central and South America. With admixture it is much harder to pin what is what on these tests without having solid samples. to compare to

    Leave a comment:


  • DelawareNative
    replied
    3 of my 4 grandparents were NA - the 4th I can't confirm all his history, so unknown. None were enrolled in any tribe because they could be considered "white by law", so they hid under the radar and passed as whites most of the time. Skin color doesn't hide dem red bones, though!

    For example, one Maternal GGF was listed on his WW2 Draft Registration as a "Negro" with a "Dark brown" complexion, as were 2 of his brothers, and he was NA with dark skin (and could have SSA, don't know, but it didn't pick up on PF, either). My other Maternal GGF was only ever listed as "white" in the US Censuses, but genealogists have confirmed him to be NA from both sides of his family (and I saw him numerous times and can confirm he was NA). These are just two examples, but it's a tangled family tree and I'm trying to sort it all out. Family Finder should help with this. I'm hoping to find my tribes by comparing my DNA against "known" genealogy, but am prepared that there are plenty of "known unknowns", LOL.

    My Paternal Grandmother > my father > me > my son = are all NA:
    Last edited by DelawareNative; 6 May 2011, 01:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by DelawareNative View Post
    I don't want to get into a discussion over blood quantums for Indian tribes, and I do understand that many tribes don't want to 'give up' their DNA samples. Really, I totally get it. However...these are the days where DNA cannot be locked up anymore.

    There are plenty of Cherokees, for example (and I list them because they are great in number), that are sending in their DNA swabs to get tested for all kinds of things, and so in theory, lots of Cherokee-specific DNA is out there, it's just a matter of figuring what it is - not that there is a specific anything that makes one a Cherokee strictly based on DNA - see, we could get into a heavy discussion, but I'm just saying that people other than Cherokee, like me, have submitted samples for other NA tribe(s)...only FTDNA doesn't know what it is yet, and can't ascribe them to any NA population, much less specific tribes. I think DNA Tribes has more NA population samples to compare, and their testing compared to FTDNA would be an apples to oranges thing because FTDNA just doesn't physically have all the NA samples that DNA Tribes has, if I understand it correctly. Doesn't make FTDNA inferior, just difficult to nail down NA DNA.

    Hey FTDNA - can you work out a partnership with DNATribes to test the NA DNA for you??
    I was just asking how far back or how close to you your Indian ancestors were only because it may or may not show up on a test the further back you go.

    There are 3 different Cherokee nations and all have different criteria for enrollment. Many of them are mixed so its hard getting a % on their DNA just like some of us who are mixed. The Eastern Band have a blood quantum for enrollment where Oklahoma does not. As long as your direct line ancestor is on the Dawes roll and accepted you can be a Cherokee tribal member in Oklahoma. Today you could be genetically 100% European but still be Enrolled Cherokee because you had one 3rd great grandparent on the Dawes as an accepted tribal member. Having one 3rd great grandparent who was Indian, good chance it might not show up on a % test.

    Someone posted in a previous thread they need full blooded Indians to DNA test and do a study to get the DNA accurate and there aren't too many of those left.
    Last edited by Yaffa; 26 March 2011, 08:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DelawareNative
    replied
    I don't want to get into a discussion over blood quantums for Indian tribes, and I do understand that many tribes don't want to 'give up' their DNA samples. Really, I totally get it. However...these are the days where DNA cannot be locked up anymore.

    There are plenty of Cherokees, for example (and I list them because they are great in number), that are sending in their DNA swabs to get tested for all kinds of things, and so in theory, lots of Cherokee-specific DNA is out there, it's just a matter of figuring what it is - not that there is a specific anything that makes one a Cherokee strictly based on DNA - see, we could get into a heavy discussion, but I'm just saying that people other than Cherokee, like me, have submitted samples for other NA tribe(s)...only FTDNA doesn't know what it is yet, and can't ascribe them to any NA population, much less specific tribes. I think DNA Tribes has more NA population samples to compare, and their testing compared to FTDNA would be an apples to oranges thing because FTDNA just doesn't physically have all the NA samples that DNA Tribes has, if I understand it correctly. Doesn't make FTDNA inferior, just difficult to nail down NA DNA.

    Hey FTDNA - can you work out a partnership with DNATribes to test the NA DNA for you??

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by DelawareNative View Post
    I'm having the same problem - am Native, but not even a perceptible amount is coming up. Something is amiss, and other threads have addressed this...although FTDNA has not.
    Just curious how close or far back are your Indian ancestors? Does your tribe have a blood % with enrollment?

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by c_thompson_68 View Post
    For those of you who are expecting to find Native American Indian (NA) ancestry from Population Finder (PF), which FTDNA chipset are your results from? Is it the Affymetrix chipset or the Illumina chipset?

    From the Affy Chipset, I am estimated to be 19.20% Native American (Central American) as my birth-father is from Mexico (I am an adoptee).
    You are showing NA because your family is from Mexico. Most Mexicans are Indian. It does not matter Affy or Illumnia. FTDNA only has some NA samples for Central and South America not North America. Many people who claim North American Indian do not match Asian or Central/South American Indian on PF. Not all tribes will have same DNA and FTDNA does not have most tribal DNA to compare others to. The US tribes are not giving up their DNA and I cant say I blame them. Without their samples and other populations FTDNA is missing no way to attempt to get accurate admixture on a person. I dont see it being accurate any time soon if they can not use or do not have all populations to use in their calculations on PF. Also everyone inherits different DNA from their ancestors so you could turn up Indian while you may have siblings that dont or visa versa.

    Leave a comment:


  • bkilpatrick
    replied
    Originally posted by Darkwriter View Post
    "Where do you find out about sending the raw files to Dr McDonald?

    Yes, and what is the process of sending raw data to Dr. McDonald and are we talking about FF raw data, Mtdna or Ytdna results? If they are included, do they have to be tested at the FGS level?

    My PF results are not accurate by any means, and am wondering if the FF raw data can be better analyzed. I hope so.

    I learned about Dr. McDonald on this forum, which is where I found his e-mail, I think. (Or perhaps it was another blog.) In any case, I sent him an e-mail to ask about participating and he kindly agreed. I contacted him at

    mcdonald (at) scs.uiuc.edu

    I don't know about mtdna or ytdna; I just sent FF raw data. You'd have to ask him, I guess.

    Good luck!

    Leave a comment:


  • c_thompson_68
    replied
    For those of you who are expecting to find Native American Indian (NA) ancestry from Population Finder (PF), which FTDNA chipset are your results from? Is it the Affymetrix chipset or the Illumina chipset?

    From the Affy Chipset, I am estimated to be 19.20% Native American (Central American) as my birth-father is from Mexico (I am an adoptee).
    Last edited by c_thompson_68; 26 March 2011, 08:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daniel72
    replied
    Originally posted by Darkwriter View Post
    [COLOR="Blue"]My PF results are not accurate by any means, and am wondering if the FF raw data can be better analyzed. I hope so.
    For non-mixed people, there are ways to estaminate their origin quiet well. If their anchestors havnt left the local region for 6 or so generations, possibly even to a spot of 100km diameter.

    But once a person is mixed, its a lot harder to estaminate the origins.

    Thats the problem of ALL the projects out there and all known methods and I would say, a satisfying solution is not found yet.

    The new version of the software "admixture", Version 1.1 has a new function for this (Estaminate Admixture level in individuals who are known to be admixed and whos admixture components are known.)

    But even on 50/50 and using exactly those populations as references, that took place in this persons admixture (means: "Ideal conditions"), it returns results like 40/60


    And now imagine the accuracity of cases in wich 3, 4 or 5 countries are intermixed and where half of these are not known or wich arent part of the reference populations.
    Last edited by Daniel72; 26 March 2011, 04:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darkwriter
    replied
    Same question and...

    "Where do you find out about sending the raw files to Dr McDonald?

    Yes, and what is the process of sending raw data to Dr. McDonald and are we talking about FF raw data, Mtdna or Ytdna results? If they are included, do they have to be tested at the FGS level?

    My PF results are not accurate by any means, and am wondering if the FF raw data can be better analyzed. I hope so.

    Leave a comment:


  • desley
    replied
    Where do you find out about sending the raw files to Dr McDonald?

    Leave a comment:


  • bkilpatrick
    replied
    Originally posted by bkilpatrick View Post
    I, on the other hand, was shocked to get .03 %. He describes it as "small but strong" and believes is probably reflects something real.
    Correction: I meant to write .3% NA.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X