myOrigins white paper now available

[1798]

The Hardy-Weinburg Equilbrium (H-WE) assumption is that the allele frequencies seen in the reference populations today reflect the allele frequencies from some (unspecified) time in the past.

Allele frequencies can change over time for a variety of reasons, including random drift, but in a large population, the changes will be small.

Allele frequencies can also change with migration of a new population into the existing population.

The populations with a small number of samples are actually more likely to violate the H-WE assumption. I suspect the reason for small sample sizes is very mundane: they didn't have much to choose from.

Are you saying that the autosomal dna of the Irish hasn't changed very much in 12,000 years?

[S9 H9]

That entry by Khan and Hu seems more like a "backgrounder" rather than an entry intended for average FTDNA customer, to answer specific questions. Few laymen will be able to follow all the references.

I am still cringing over the population descriptions, though the Khan and Hu descriptions are somewhat different than those which finally made it onto the MyOrigins page.

[JuanCarlos]

See the link at the top of this page.

Thank you for pointing it out. I just saw it. Had never noticed it before.

[vinnie]

Where is the FTDNA Learning Center at?

See the link at the top of this page.

[JuanCarlos]

Apparently another paper is in the works to answer the many questions raised about the populations and methodology used for MO. It will posted at the FTDNA Learning Center.

Where is the FTDNA Learning Center at?

[vinnie]

From ISOGG FB: "...we run admixture 10 times, come up with average, check for high variance in result and remove outliers of runs. The run is supervised and everyone who isn't part of the reference is a combination of the references."

[vinnie]

Apparently another paper is in the works to answer the many questions raised about the populations and methodology used for MO. It will posted at the FTDNA Learning Center.

[robe3b]

Have I understood correctly that myOrigins uses 377 AIMs (ancestry informative markers) to determine one's ancestry?

What was I thinking? I've got it completely wrong, the actual number of SNPs used by myOrigins appears to be 290,874. Right?

[robe3b]

Have I understood correctly?

Have I understood correctly that myOrigins uses 377 AIMs (ancestry informative markers) to determine one's ancestry?

[Ann Turner]

Thanks Ann
So would the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium be the reason that some populations are quite scarce and others have 3 times as many? Larger population need more reference samples?

The graduate program I completed was chosen by me for it's LACK of statistics..

The Hardy-Weinburg Equilbrium (H-WE) assumption is that the allele frequencies seen in the reference populations today reflect the allele frequencies from some (unspecified) time in the past.

Allele frequencies can change over time for a variety of reasons, including random drift, but in a large population, the changes will be small.

Allele frequencies can also change with migration of a new population into the existing population.

The populations with a small number of samples are actually more likely to violate the H-WE assumption. I suspect the reason for small sample sizes is very mundane: they didn't have much to choose from.

[josh w.]

That was my post on PCA, made before reading the white paper. I'll have to look at the references te get a clearer understanding of exactly how their Bayesian approach worked and how to interpret the percentages.

Jim

Thanks

[jbarry6899]

My Error

That was my post on PCA, made before reading the white paper. I'll have to look at the references te get a clearer understanding of exactly how their Bayesian approach worked and how to interpret the percentages.

Jim

[josh w.]

Stat Question

The White Paper indicates that the Bayesian approach of 'Admixture' was employed rather than PCA. A recent post indicated that the MO percentages reflect PCA explained variance determinations. Were both strategies used.

[phje]

I love how four (Han, Basque, Melanesian and Mandenka) out of the five reference populations that are shown in figure 1 are not included in myOrigins, but were included in Population Finder.

[RobertaMarques]

Sounds like the same thing they do at dnatribes.

At dnatribes, their sample are from present day people, from population of that area for 500 years.Then the others are native (ameridian) and some diaspora population.

Then they compare how your dna profile (STR)matches against those populations. Then for each population they show how more likely you are part of that population comparing to the others and then a score in percentage you match within that population.

Let say your dna is found in 300 populations (of their database of 1200). They show you the top 20 and then you can order a "zoom" on the area of a population you want. My top 20 was European, than I asked for the Europa and then it broke down even more the European and you can ask for the zoom of Africa, Native American, Middle Eastern etc.

On the middle eastern panel, I had a faint match with non-hasidic Jews from NY at 1.45 and 2%, which is pretty much nothing as I am confirmed descendent of Sephard.

I would think that dnatribes is way more detailed.

The PF confirmed the majority of my dna is on the Russian region, but now I can't read MyOrigins. It is showing the Iberia (which is down on the line on my dnatribes, not even showing on the str-base.org and the Russian area is very wide.






[/I]