PDA

View Full Version : Mysterious Oceanian component



wombatofthenorth
03-29-2015, 11:00 PM
Some basics:
my mom's Geno 2.0 gave 2.1% Neanderthal and 3.0% Denisovan
(current avgs they list as 2.1% and 2.1%)

(Latvian heritage; thought to perhaps be considerably deep on grandfather's lines back (although the family trees is barely known at all on this side, not past his parents, but there was always talk for some reason of deep and long pure Latvian roots on his side); Latvian going back to nearly the late 1600s on one side of my grandmother's although the last name on that side doesn't sound pure Latvian but just and "s" added to surname almost surely leading back to Swedish, German or Dutch roots; probably quickly back to Germany on the other side of my grandmother; other than for the one trace way back the rest isn't really known past my great grandparents))

k1a4a1 haplotype mitochondrial DNA

The bizarre:
Very bizarre is that the autosomal Geno 2.0 test gave my mom 2% Oceania (the rest of the percentages match closest to their Dutch population sample (which might perhaps be similar to what one from Latvia would be too?) Dutch is: 53% Northern European/30%Mediterranean/16%Southwest Asian; hers is: 51% Northern European/29%Mediterranean/17%Southwest Asian/2%Oceanian)!

Not sure if the 2% component is supposed to imply some pretty wild tale where about 6 generations back a sailor on one of the early European explorations to say Tahiti (I could be wrong, but I believe that New Guineans had less favorable thoughts to outsiders at first and thus less likely early mixing???? whereas supposedly Tahitians were quite open??? so I mention Tahiti instead of New Guinea or other islands) married a pure Tahitian and then they both returned, or at the least, one of their children returned to Europe??

That sounds both pretty darn cool and also a bit hard to believe since in this case it would have had to have happened so early on and with a very quick return back to Europe. It might be a bit easier to believe if it could have occurred more recently (but that would seem to conflict with likely family history or % Oceanian).

I mean I believe something like that did happen a very, very few times early on, but only a very, very, very few times, basically to the vanishing point.

Napolean did invade the Baltic area and such I believe and I also believe some of his mean stayed behind and some of his soldiers might have been on South Pacific expeditions. The Dutch did hit up the New Guinea area very early on and one last name on the family tree could be Dutch (or German or Swedish). The English hit up Tahiti early on.

I don't know the whole thing sounds both really cool and maybe far-fetched.

Anyway that is all I could come up with at first, as wild as it sounded, a few days ago when I heard the results.

But I guess there is another other option:
Perhaps the Geno 2.0 signals they test for Oceania might not actually have ended up all being strictly what they thought. Perhaps not all signals they look for are ones that came up only after their isolation, but instead a few markers they use for Oceania might actually be markers for some very ancient component that got mixed away and lost for the most part but well retained in Oceania and, for one odd reason or another, also got also retained in certain Baltic/Finnish/(and other?) sub-populations where there was some very long and extremely insular line going way back?

Does anyone have any up to date thoughts? Is the latter theory considered likely now or something along it's lines?

Also I spotted on one of those ancient human tests using one of the public domain testing admix tools where they also also tested tons of others from many countries that it seemed like people of heritage from a decent number of countries actually registered a bit of Oceania using whatever components they used to signify Oceania. Other than for Malaysians and near Malaysians (and Oceanians themselves) it seemed like most of the components were likely super small maybe .5% and less, although it was hard to tell since no hard #s just pixel graphs, some looked like they could be 1%, not sure any looked like 1.5-2%, but it was really hard to tell, maybe?

Too bad we can't get results from grandparents, if the results popped up to 4-6% for one then I'd think that would imply the explorer theory! If it stayed 2% at most then I guess it would hint more at something along the latter explanations offered?

wombatofthenorth
03-30-2015, 02:20 AM
On another forum, I see that someone of Swedish/Finnish heritage also got a mysterious 2% Oceanian with Geno 2.0. The mere fact that I have found a second such occurrence taken with how few have been tested and how incredibly almost vanishingly rare the whole the South Pacific explorer and return scenario has got to be (even taking into account that 5 generations can spread the diluted contribution to a considerable number of generations later relatives for each instance such has occurred) maybe it shows a sign that it is more some ancient signal shared between some in this general region and Oceanians and more washed away among most? Also I see that another Swedish/Finnish person said that on GED-match they have occasionally had a very small Oceanian component register (unclear but it sounded like they were talking more like 0.5% or under?).

So far that is all I have found.

wombatofthenorth
03-30-2015, 05:33 AM
I just noticed that a few people who claim solid, long Irish heritage noted on a National Geographic story page about the Geno 2.0 team visiting Ireland reporting seemingly spurious 2% Native American components.

Maybe the Geno 2.0 project code has a few bugs? Maybe the chips are more error prone and anything below 3-4% is potentially false? Sample contamination in lab (although it would be odd to get the rare Native American and possibly even rare Oceanian as contaminants and then you'd expect much huger problems showing up on other ways) so this seems unlikely. Maybe Native American blood was a bit more mixed back into Europe than people think, even to Ireland even in early days??? It seems hard to believe that Ireland would be a location that would manage to hang onto some ancient signal as some surmised for Oceania and Baltic area??

Very odd.

Although I see now that the Irish population is said by some to be a bit unusual and perhaps one that does have some more very old roots than many.

I guess for starters I need to run the downloaded Geno 2.0 data through some open source programs on the net and see if they pick up Oceanian component.

GTC
03-30-2015, 05:49 AM
I don't know how much credence can be put in 2% of anything in these sorts of BGA tests. Personally, I don't rate it as worth a mention in my own.

wombatofthenorth
03-30-2015, 06:52 AM
I don't know how much credence can be put in 2% of anything in these sorts of BGA tests. Personally, I don't rate it as worth a mention in my own.

You could certainly be right.

Geno 2.0 seems to claim that they are pretty confident down to 1.5-2% though. They discount anything lower (unlike some other places which try to list 1% and 0.5 and 0.25% and so on which I'd certainly imagine to most often be just noise).

Interestingly I found a case where the director of the entire project actually discussed with someone, none other than Robert Ballard, about a mysterious 2% Oceanian component. The Geno 2.0 project head actually appeared to take it seriously and they guessed that it actually might have traced to a six generations back mingling speculating upon his Dutch relatives and the fact that the Dutch were quite active in that region in the 1700s. There is some possibility of some Dutch component in my heritage, although it's hardly certain.

So I don't know. Something cool or just noise? It's a shame we can't get tests from any older generations. I wonder if Ballard or any of the others with the 2% spurious mixes have ever managed to get tests from prior generations to see if the % in the mix goes up. So far I've yet to see reports of anyone with the 2% components who had anyone from an older generation tested.

But yeah I don't know.

wombatofthenorth
03-30-2015, 07:18 PM
And thinking about it more, sure we know the direct paternal line on my grandmother's side going way back, but so what? It's not like the 2% Oceania came from the mtDNA part of the test and, although I need to verify, I think we like only know about 4 of the 48 slots on my grandmothers side in the 5th and 6th generation era, i.e. not much really, so that leaves tons unknown even if the talk, just hearsay, of all of my grandfather's side being deeply pure Latvian through and through is 100% true. I also bring up 5th generation talk now because, now thinking about it, I'm not sure if Tahitians would have registered 80-100% Oceanian as per what Geno 2.0 tests for?? I believe Polynesians have fairly different origins than say Papua New Guineans/near islanders. I'm thinking that they might register a much higher Asian component? and taking a wild guess that Polynesians would have come up 40-50% Oceanian (???) and that would mean 2% would come from 5 generations back and not 6. I could certainly be utterly, ridiculously wrong about that though.

Anyway, even among those who say they have a pretty detailed knowledge going back, I wonder if they really have all of the 64 and 32 slots of the direct 5th and 6th generations back filled in or maybe it's really only a half or even a quarter?

The tests came out too late to make it easy to look into and truly verify this, you'd have to be looking at people nearly 120 years old if you wanted to see the 2% jump to even just say 6% or so. It might still be possible for a very few to test someone where it could jump to 3-4% though.

It would also be interesting to know the statistics for how many with largely European heritage ended up testing to 2% type values for Oceanian (or Native American). My vague impression is that it's almost feeling like there might be suspiciously many, especially since only a small fraction of people have been tested and how relatively considerably rare this whole scenario I'd imagine should be, but I really don't have too much to base it on. I think I'll contact Geno 2.0 and inquire. It might make for an interesting quick little study for them.

And a look into the history of the Dutch, English and French explorers might be interesting.