Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

About the latest “My Origins Version 3”

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

  • About the latest “My Origins Version 3”

    Greetings,

    Lately I have checked the updated results for my V3 Origins and they are as follow:

    West Central Asia: Indus Valley 97%
    Middle East Jewish: Mizrahi Jewish <2%
    Arabian Peninsula <1%
    Anatolia, Armenia, & Mesopotamia <1%
    ==========================================
    My V2 old results were as follow:

    Central/South Asian 55%
    Asia Minor 45%
    =========================================
    I wonder on what genetic bases these percentage have been calculated?!

    It’s seemed to me they gave me the highest percentage because I have given them my latest ancestor’s location!!

    Is the new "My Origins Version 3" cluster zones represent a realistic genetic map distribution??

    Finally, Why I’m getting a trace of a “Jewish Diaspora” even it’s very low?!! (With all my respect to those people cultural heritage)

    Can anyone explain in a scientific logical sense about these calculations!

    Regards

  • #2
    FTDNA has not yet put out information about the reference populations used for myOrigins 3.0, such as in a white paper. The reference populations are used to determine to which populations clusters each customer is closest. FTDNA, as far as we've been told, does not use information provided by individual testers to come up with the population clusters and percentages for that tester. On the FTDNA Learning Center page "Does the myOrigins tool use non-autosomal DNA results?" it says:
    Only your autosomal DNA results from the Family Finder microarray chip are used.
    While this statement is addressing other forms of DNA (mtDNA, X chromosome, or Y-DNA), I would also take it as some evidence that ONLY your autosomal DNA results are used to compare to reference populations. Your forum profile shows you are from Gedrosia, so your result of 97% for "West Central Asia: Indus Valley" sounds pretty accurate, unless I'm wrong about the location. I would disregard the trace amounts. If you look at your myOrigins 3.0 results, and hover over the small "i" in a black circle shown with your trace amounts, it shows this message:
    A trace percentage indicates a very small amount of shared DNA in common with the corresponding population. Smaller DNA segments are more likely to be misattributed.
    So, consider that these trace amounts in your estimate may be misattributed. There are similarities between different populations which can be misidentified (misattributed) as one or the other. Among others, some people with Mediterranean and Middle Eastern ancestry sometimes show a misattributed percentage of Jewish in their results. Also consider that myOrigins may reflect ancestry beyond what we can find out about our own in the last few hundred years: the page "How many generations in the past do myOrigins results reflect?" in the Learning Center says:
    myOrigins results are your personal genetic ancestry that reflects the last 100 to 2,000 years (about four to 80 generations). They may also reflect one population that mixed with another in ancient times and became fixed in one of your populations.
    We all need to keep in mind that ALL ethnicity estimates, from ALL the companies, are still their most accurate only at the continental level; once beyond that, interpretations may be off. And ethnicity estimates ARE NOT the most accurate part of DNA testing for genealogy. Rather, the closeness of your matches and where they match you on the chromosomes ARE the most accurate. The ancestry of your matches will reflect your known ancestry better than the ethnicity estimates.
    Last edited by KATM; 3 October 2020, 07:25 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for your valuable inputs & feedback

      You are correct I have mentioned on my profile I’m from “Gedrosia”, But it’s a broad region, most ancient maps as far as I’m aware may put the Indus river at the end border to the east. From the DNA region perspective, it’s a totally different environment region.

      As for my ancestor generations records, they lived in the west region of “Gedrosia” which is also a different DNA climate trigger. The Gedrosian “Makran” cluster populations in this region have their own unique DNA frequency range which could identified them separately from Indus river, any people migrated to this region (i.e Central Makran Range) and live in it for enough long time (over many generations) their “Autosomal DNA” will be triggered to be altered uniquely by the environment adaption no matter their “Haplogroup” belong.

      I’m not arguing that I may have some percentage portion of a DNA from Indus river populations which will increase as we get closer to the region and fade if we go far away, but they give me 97% which indicate I have almost like a pure royal Indus river blood!! C’mon FTDNA, be more a reasonable sense in term of the cumulative genetics references & do a little precise research about this region.

      2020-10-04_08-09-37.jpg

      2020-10-04_08-13-16.jpg



      My results on the other third party’s admixture calculations such as “Gedmatch.com” have been more realistic, for example:

      HarappaWorld Admixture Proportions:
      # Population Percent
      1 Baloch 46.47
      2 Caucasian 20.01
      3 S-Indian 12.19
      4 SW-Asian 11.25
      5 NE-Euro 3.16
      6 Mediterranean 2.15
      7 W-African 2.1
      8 E-African 1.91
      9 Pygmy 0.53
      10 SE-Asian 0.11
      11 Papuan 0.08
      12 Beringian 0.04
      Single Population Sharing:
      # Population (source) Distance
      1 makrani (hgdp) 8.7
      2 balochi (hgdp) 9.5
      3 brahui (hgdp) 12.89
      4 kalash (hgdp) 16.07
      5 pashtun (harappa) 16.57
      6 pathan (hgdp) 16.6
      7 bhatia (harappa) 17.97
      8 sindhi (harappa) 18.09
      9 sindhi (hgdp) 19.66
      10 burusho (hgdp) 19.94
      11 punjabi-khatri (harappa) 21
      12 punjabi-arain (xing) 21.68
      13 punjabi-jatt-sikh (harappa) 21.82
      14 kashmiri (harappa) 22.12
      15 tajik (yunusbayev) 22.27
      16 punjabi-jatt-muslim (harappa) 22.28
      17 gujarati-muslim (harappa) 22.91
      18 kashmiri-pandit (reich) 23.88
      19 punjabi (harappa) 23.93
      20 kashmiri-pahari (harappa) 24.76


      Gedrosia K12 Admixture Proportions:
      # Population Percent
      1 BALOCHI 49.92
      2 CAUCASUS 12.88
      3 SW_ASIAN 12.46
      4 S_INDIAN 12.13
      5 SINTASHTA_STEPPE_HERDERS 4.87
      6 E_AFRICAN 4.57
      7 EARLY_EUROPEAN_FARMERS 2.51
      8 INDO_TIBETAN 0.66
      Single Population Sharing:
      # Population (source) Distance
      1 Kurds_SE 20.6
      2 Makrani 21.49
      3 Balochi 22.84
      4 Punjabi_Sikh 25.21
      5 Uzbek_Afghan 26.15
      6 Pashtun_Afghan 26.27
      7 Pathan 26.34
      8 Sindhi 27.46
      9 Brahui 31.52
      10 Tajik_Pomiri 32.17
      11 Tajik_Afghan 32.33
      12 Iranian 32.77
      13 Kurds_C 32.93
      14 Kurds_E 33.53
      15 Kurds_F 35.52
      16 Kurds_N 36.41
      17 GujaratiA 36.74
      18 Nepali 36.9
      19 Iraqi_Arab_Baghdad 37.2
      20 Turkmen_Afghan 38.3



      I totally agree what have you said
      “Among others, some people with Mediterranean and Middle Eastern ancestry sometimes show a misattributed percentage of Jewish in their results…”


      It seems to me that FTDNA giving a free trace bonus for everyone from the surrounding regions that may subjected to the Jewish migration, because my son results also included these traces for Mizrahi Jewish <1% and also Yemenite Jewish <1%.

      My main observation about this matter that FTDNA relate A heritage cultural ethnics to the genetic physical factors which is solely a region based.
      I think most of us agree that the cultural based ethnics such as religion, languages, nationalism…etc are a gainable society values and they are not inherited through DNA genes over generations.

      Regards

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you for telling us about you family seeing this phenomenon of false estimates in the Jewish categories, Dr.SYSTEM. It is well-established that Mizrahi Jewish and nearby non-Jewish populations didn't mingle during the autosomal timeframe and were basically genetically isolated from each other since the 7th century at the latest.

        Unfortunately, some Middle Eastern people from non-Jewish families trust the fleeting glimpses of possible Jewish ancestry from the small percentages in the Mizrahi Jewish and/or Sephardic Jewish and/or Yemenite Jewish and/or Ashkenazic Jewish categories that show up in MyOrigins or MyHeritage or 23andMe and then when they find distant identical-by-chance matches who are Jewish who supposedly match them on small segments, they think they've proven it exists in their heritage. In populations that test infrequently, the proportion of false matches is higher than for someone who comes from a well-tested population. False matches are those that fail to pass rigorous phasing and triangulation tests inside GEDmatch. The segments often are only 6, 7, or 8 cM in length and the total percentages of DNA shared are usually under 0.2%.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think I have discovered why I’m getting “Jewish” trace, which related to my ancestry migration from the Levant region in ancient era. I was getting high score in “the Ancient Eurasia K6” for the Natufian culture which originated in Levant region.




          GEDmatch:







          DNA LAND :








          This is just an assumption why FTDNA might give me the very low trace which may indicate that it not necessary I have “Jewish” heritage relation. But it certainly solid proofed my ancestry migrated from Levant region which been confirmed by other several GEDmatch calculators using secondary referenced population.
          Attached Files
          Last edited by Dr.SYSTEM; 14 June 2021, 05:14 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            The question that occurs to me is where the underlying data come from and how the "reference groups" used in the various admixture algorithms have been developed and confirmed.

            Are these samples submitted by individuals to one or more autosomal DNA testing companies? Or samples collected by scientists specifically for genetic anthropology research? Or collected from residents of the specified regions for some other purpose? As the admixture results offered by different vendors become more and more specific, I think it is important to know where the samples have come from and how the data have been manipulated.

            Comment


            • #7
              John McCoy, without doing any more research into your questions (and thus having no other answers), I recalled I had this admittedly dated image which I downloaded in 2016, probably from some presentation. We can see that this represents the overlap of the reference populations used at or before that time for 23andMe, Ancestry.com, and FTDNA. I suspect that for some purposes, any or all of these companies may include some degree of input based on results from customers (as 23andMe and FTDNA are shown using in the chart). I don't believe that FTDNA has released a white paper for myOrigins 3.0, and off the top of my head I don't recall if earlier white papers discussed where the reference populations used for earlier myOrigins versions were obtained.

              Ref_pops_3_companies_overlap.png
              • The 1000 Genomes Project apparently continues to be updated.
              • I'm not sure if the Human Genome Diversity Project gets updated.
              • Apparently the International HapMap Project website was taken down due to security issues, before it was going to be decommissioned due to the 1000 Genomes Project becoming the research standard.
              • The Estonian Biocentre was established in 1986 with "the goal is to promote research and technological development (RTD) of gene and cell technologies in Estonia."
              • The SMGF was the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, and its history is described in the ISOGG Wiki. Ancestry acquired the SMGF data in 2012, and in 2015 removed the SMGF database, to much chagrin in the DNA community.

              Comment


              • #8
                The question that occurs to me is where the underlying data come from and how the "reference groups" used in the various admixture algorithms have been developed and confirmed.

                Are these samples submitted by individuals to one or more autosomal DNA testing companies? Or samples collected by scientists specifically for genetic anthropology research? Or collected from residents of the specified regions for some other purpose? As the admixture results offered by different vendors become more and more specific, I think it is important to know where the samples have come from and how the data have been manipulated.
                Some calculators on the GEDmatch they labelled the reference groups source.

                GEDmatch:




                Also, some ancestry analysis companies will show their reference population info.

                DNA LAND :


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KATM View Post
                  John McCoy, without doing any more research into your questions (and thus having no other answers), I recalled I had this admittedly dated image which I downloaded in 2016, probably from some presentation. We can see that this represents the overlap of the reference populations used at or before that time for 23andMe, Ancestry.com, and FTDNA. I suspect that for some purposes, any or all of these companies may include some degree of input based on results from customers (as 23andMe and FTDNA are shown using in the chart). I don't believe that FTDNA has released a white paper for myOrigins 3.0, and off the top of my head I don't recall if earlier white papers discussed where the reference populations used for earlier myOrigins versions were obtained.

                  Ref_pops_3_companies_overlap.png
                  • The 1000 Genomes Project apparently continues to be updated.
                  • I'm not sure if the Human Genome Diversity Project gets updated.
                  • Apparently the International HapMap Project website was taken down due to security issues, before it was going to be decommissioned due to the 1000 Genomes Project becoming the research standard.
                  • The Estonian Biocentre was established in 1986 with "the goal is to promote research and technological development (RTD) of gene and cell technologies in Estonia."
                  • The SMGF was the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, and its history is described in the ISOGG Wiki. Ancestry acquired the SMGF data in 2012, and in 2015 removed the SMGF database, to much chagrin in the DNA community.
                  How would you define the term “updated” for the reference population?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Updates to reference populations are based on further research of results from more people representing populations tested. Ideally each project, or DNA testing company, would provide descriptions for any updates to specific populations, so we are at their mercy for that information. Usually a scientific paper used for the projects (such as the projects in the chart I posted), or a white paper in the case of the DNA testing companies, will get into such details.

                    While apparently FTDNA has so far not issued a white paper for myOrigins 3.0 (latest version), you can find the white papers for myOrigins from 2014, and an updated version from 2017, at the Internet Archive (aka "Wayback Machine"). The 2014 white paper contains the original myOrigins Cluster Descriptions used at that time, which were later revised. Other examples of white papers for admixture/bioethnicity are:

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KATM View Post
                      Updates to reference populations are based on further research of results from more people representing populations tested. Ideally each project, or DNA testing company, would provide descriptions for any updates to specific populations, so we are at their mercy for that information. Usually a scientific paper used for the projects (such as the projects in the chart I posted), or a white paper in the case of the DNA testing companies, will get into such details.

                      While apparently FTDNA has so far not issued a white paper for myOrigins 3.0 (latest version), you can find the white papers for myOrigins from 2014, and an updated version from 2017, at the Internet Archive (aka "Wayback Machine"). The 2014 white paper contains the original myOrigins Cluster Descriptions used at that time, which were later revised. Other examples of white papers for admixture/bioethnicity are:
                      Usually when certain DNA pattern is detected/determined for a region native population, the samples doners of these groups are qualified to be set as references for other target samples. the reference is always should have a constant single value or closed tolerance range.

                      adding more uncontrolled samples to the original reference set will change its variables and it will no longer called a reference. without a base point many will face high level of contradictory results.

                      The total number for each reference set is not important as long the results frequency reach to the overall stable points (low & max).

                      The core values (raw data) for the reference population for any region ethnic must be kept reserved and shouldn’t been manipulated by any means!

                      If these conditions are applied, we should not have any huge noticed results problem if many tests’ labs entities choose to have their own set of reference populations. What I mean by that is the results should be very pretty close if we done tests with several different DNA companies/Labs.

                      The update considerations should only include the improved tools (Hardware & software) to process with these assigned references.

                      The other considerations should cover:
                      Strict quality standards when choosing samples to be references.
                      The corporate test labs should be transparent about their reference populations sources.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X