Geno 2.0 Revisited

MY HYPOTHESIS was that Geno would show a higher Amerindian result, which it did. Using most of the GEDmatch calculators on the AncestryDNA data yields a result of 1.8 (as Doug McDonald’s results did). When I ran the Geno 2.0 data in R using World9, it reported a 2.3 percent Amerindian result. The FTDNA result is somewhat lower, although, when I did do Oracle X using FTDNA (before they discontinued it, I got very similar results to McDonald’s analysis).

1. Mixed Germanic 90.84%  2. Sardinian 6.43% 3. Ecuadorian 1.45% 4. AthabaskHD4 1.22% 5. MEX30 .02% 6. Colombian .02%

Pct. Option 2 yielded somewhat different results:

1. Mixed Germanic 89.1% 2. Sardinian 4.95% 3. Ecuadorian 3.53% 4. Aragon 2.29% 5, Ethiopian Jews .01%

And McDonald’s analysis on Geno 2.0 data.

This analysis uses only 57785 markers and is quite noisy.
Most likely fit is 95.5% (+-  5.8%) Europe (all Western Europe)
and  3.2% (+-  5.6%) Europe (various subcontinents)
which is 98.7% total Europe
and  0.0% (+-  0.0%) Mideast (various subcontinents)
and  1.3% (+-  0.3%) America (various subcontinents)

The following are possible population sets and their fractions,
most likely at the top
French= 0.510  English= 0.473  Iranian= 0.000  Na-Dene= 0.017 or
French= 0.699    Irish= 0.286 Georgian= 0.000  Na-Dene= 0.015 or
French= 0.832 Lithuani= 0.151    Druze= 0.000  Na-Dene= 0.017 or
French= 0.662    Irish= 0.329 Mozabite= 0.000     Maya= 0.009 or
French= 0.660    Irish= 0.331 Armenian= 0.000 Columbia= 0.009 or
French= 0.465  English= 0.524 Georgian= 0.000     Maya= 0.012 or
French= 0.464  English= 0.526   Jewish= 0.000 Columbia= 0.011 or
French= 0.883  Finland= 0.103 Armenian= 0.000  Na-Dene= 0.014

It’s a small result, but keep in mind we are dealing with DNA from Native American ancestors who lived in the late 18th century and early 19th centuries on the coast of North Carolina. As far as I know, nobody has sampled indigenous DNA from this region (and no one can anymore, as most of the local Native Americans are so admixed). The fact that Athabaskan results are continuously higher than Mayan/South American results shows me that the Native Americans living in this area were perhaps more similar to the Athabaskan populations than to the South American ones. I do have census and other data that shows ancestors with a racial designation other than white. This is why these small results are interesting to me.

Likewise these small results are actually being generated by data on just a few chromosomes. Most chromosomes show almost zero Native American results. Chromosome 22 on Geno 2.0 shows 11.2 percent Native American. Chromosome 22 on AncestryDNA shows 7.5 percent Native American.

This supports my hypothesis: that Geno 2.0 is actually more sensitive to Native American admixture than AncestryDNA or FTDNA.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Geno 2.0 Revisited

  1. John Royer says:

    I keeping with your hypothesis, My Geno 2.0 results surprisingly suggested 2% Native American, while Ancestry.com analysis says I am 100% European. I would like to analyze the Geno 2.0 data further, but am not sure how to do it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, John

  2. John Royer says:

    I sent the data to your email address; please let me know if the format is right. Thanks! John

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s