Impact of invasions and/or settlements in the Iberian Peninsula

[Abceff]

Thanks



Do you have samples of descendants of families from Al andalus ?

heres one from tetouan, northern morocco

Target: Tetwani_scaled
Distance: 2.5098% / 0.02509821
54.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
17.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.6 MAR_Taforalt
5.6 WHG
5.4 IRN_Wezmeh_N
2.4 COG_NgongoMbata_220BP
2.2 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN

Target: Tetwani_scaled
Distance: 1.4226% / 0.01422594
61.2 Southern_Europe
28.6 Berber
8.0 Levant
2.2 Sub-Saharan_African

[Aben Aboo]

deleted

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Value given in parentheses, indicates the minimum and maximum for the variation of the peak, no more.

Under the table it says: "Point estimates and confidence intervals for ancestry profiles of Iberian clusters"

But nowhere does it say that values in parentheses indicate peak variation. The number shown before them is an average of those two values which is likely to indicate the range of the mean, considering how little variation there is between the two.

and we have another on the ancient Iberians of the South East which says that we do not find current modern Iberians with the same % Nafri (in the study average 19-20%), apart from all that you say in the greatest of calms that one can find such results because G25 shows it and that makes sense ..... what to say .....

Then by the way, why don't our dear mainlanders iberians who match so much on G25 have not similar results to the Canarians people in the public commercial companies like 23andMe for example or Ancestry? if that makes sense, they would to have similar results like them and it's not their cases, we have good examples here with @Pedro, @Luso and others like them.
It is however not difficult to admit that these are OBJECTIVELY wrongs results, the only Europeans reaching this, being the Canarians and those mixed Euro-Nafri.
You confirm my precedent words that some iberian mainlanders according you are 1/4 Nafri like on genetic point of view because they can reach 17% and more (inheritance from 1 grandparent is 17-33%, basically 25%).
Like Ruderico pretty well explained, it's only technical issue with first PCA, and that makes totally sense unlike i'm sorry, your explanations and your results with G25 contradicting studies, History, results with public compagnies and the common sense

An individual with 17% is as distant from one with 25% as he is from one with 9%, so what exactly is the point of bringing this up if not to always highlight a number that is not the average?

It is possible for a population in Cantabria to carry E-M81 at 41%, but at the same time you find it impossible for a minority of Portuguese individuals to be autosomally 17% NA when the average value of NM+WS from said study is 12%? Are you serious?

This is also from the "Patterns of genetic differentiation and the footprints of historical migrations in the Iberian Peninsula" paper:

Estimates of overall mean proportions of African-like DNA in the Iberian Peninsula also vary, ranging from 2.4 to 10.6%. Differences within Iberia have also been reported, based on comparisons between sampled regions, with higher fractions observed in western regions of Iberia (e.g. 21.7% in Northwest Castile) and lower fractions in the north-east (e.g. 2.3% in Cataluña).

So we have a last genetic study on Canarians that says:

From this last studyeveloping CIRdb as a catalog of natural genetic variation in the Canary Islanders.
http://europepmc.org/article/MED/36168029

"Overall, while there is a large interindividual variability in the ancestry proportions in the current inhabitants, they have been estimated to an average of 75–83% European (EUR), 17–23% North African (NAF), and 3% or less sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)11,12. The most recent analyses based on genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data evidenced that these numbers can be as high as up to 29.9% NAF and 9.2% SSA ancestries in some individuals13. Most importantly, they have also evidenced broad genomic regions of Canary Islanders that tend to concentrate African alleles and that are enriched in genes involved in diverse complex diseases, which is highly suggestive of characteristic footprints of local adaptations."

"The historical conquest and admixture events, jointly with the isolation and inbreeding, as well as the likely local adaptation processes, have shaped the current genetic background of the Canary Islands population, constituting the population with the largest proportion of North African ancestry among Southwestern Europeans12,13"

The Canarian paper you quoted actually gives you 2 different average percentages for NA:

Two approaches were conducted to assess the genetic ancestry partitions of the subjects under study: 1) a direct global ancestry estimation using ADMIXTURE v1.3.0 65; and 2) a global ancestry estimation from local ancestry inference for admixed individuals by means of ELAI v1.0166. We have shown that, compared to other local ancestry estimators, ELAI offers the least biased estimates for this population.

ELAI uses more SNPs.



Not only that, and it even says that both estimates (21% and 27%) are "similar", which is the exact opposite of what you are doing with the Portuguese average obsessing over a difference of just 2-3%.

[...] the largest contribution to the genetic background of Canary Islanders is, on average, EUR ancestry (76.4%; composed of two ancestries aligned with the European northwest–southeast axis of differentiation), followed by NAF (20.8%), and SSA (2.8%) (Table 2). [...] ELAI ancestries provided a similar scenario of admixture composed mainly by EUR (71.4%), followed by NAF (26.7%), and SSA (1.9%).

Sorry but at this level it is a matter of blind belief.

Sorry but I find your objection pointless, on a par with Byzantine theologians debating among themselves about the sex of angels.

[Aben Aboo]

deleted

[Aben Aboo]

I quickly skimmed over your remarks and in less than 5 minutes I came across clear proof that you are playing with study data as it suits you.
A big detail that you don't share with people here, but I'll come back to other things later and i will see

You write that :
"It is possible for a population in Cantabria to carry E-M81 at 41%, but at the same time you find it impossible for a minority of Portuguese individuals to be autosomally 17% NA when the average value of NM+WS from said study is 12%? Are you serious?"

Then you share that:
"Estimates of overall mean proportions of African-like DNA in the Iberian Peninsula also vary, ranging from 2.4 to 10.6%. Differences within Iberia have also been reported, based on comparisons between sampled regions, with higher fractions observed in western regions of Iberia (e.g. 21.7% in Northwest Castile) and lower fractions in the north-east (e.g. 2.3% in Cataluña).":

Capture d’écran 2022-12-03 214143.png


Ok here we go to see what the study says (with notifications you didn't shared in the quote and they are importants, we'll see why):
"Estimates of overall mean proportions of African-like DNA in the Iberian Peninsula also vary, ranging from 2.424 to 10.6%11. Differences within Iberia have also been reported11,26, based on comparisons between sampled regions, with higher fractions observed in western regions of Iberia (e.g. 21.7% in Northwest Castile11) and lower fractions in the north-east (e.g. 2.3% in Cataluña11)

Capture d’écran 2022-12-03 211429.png

All right, let's go to the the notification:
11 Adams, S. M. et al. The genetic legacy of religious diversity and intolerance: paternal lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 83, 725–736 (2008).

Capture d’écran 2022-12-03 210718.png


Link of this study " "Patterns of genetic differentiation and the footprints of historical migrations in the Iberian Peninsula":
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w


Yeah i'm serious unlike you it seems,i wonder why you create an amalgamation between your original idea of very high Nafri for autosomal DNA in mainland Iberia and the results of lineage haplogroups from this study...:
Adams, S. M. et al. The genetic legacy of religious diversity and intolerance: paternal lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 83, 725–736 (2008).

The link:
https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S...297(08)00592-2

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Yeah, whatever... In the table Portugal gets an average of 11.91% NM+WS, and this does not represent the peak in any way contrary to what you claimed.

Then if you believe that in a cluster of 400 people everyone is homogeneous with the same percentage and that this varies only by 1-2% you are the one who needs a reality-check.

[Ruderico]

The irony is that the table from Bycroft you posted actually included the variation in each cluster, and as you can check yourself the ranges are indeed quite small. The table I posted included SD and they calculated it at 1.87%, so maybe it's not him who needs a reality check, it's people who blindly follow a faulty methodology over peer-reviewed academic studies. Unless Gaska was right, and there's indeed an agenda involved, but I trust that is not the case.



Edit: Here's a good example of the extreme impact using scaled data can have in this specific Iberian case. Same sample, same references in both versions: one scaled + Vahaduo, the other unscaled + nMonte3 with penalty. I'll let people decide which is more in line with published studies, even if both methods are, at the very least, not formal and very unconventional. In the end it's these results that have to follow studies, not the other way around.

 

Target: x_scaled
Distance: 1.6740% / 0.01673980
53.2	Celtiberian
21.6	Moroccan_North
14.4	Briton_IA
9.8	Roman_Imperial
1.0	SSA_IA



[1] "distance%=1.4113"

         x

Celtiberian,62
Roman_Colonial,16.8
Moroccan_North,11.8
Briton_IA,8.6
Germanic,0.6
COG_Kindoki_230BP,0.2

[Aben Aboo]

You said me: "Are you serious?"
"Sorry but I find your objection pointless, on a par with Byzantine theologians debating among themselves about the sex of angels."

Ok, You share falsified things without the notifications present in the study (if they are there it's BECAUSE THEY ARE USEFUL) with a red highlighting of certain key passages to prove what you claimed and what you just wrote before, but the only thing you find to say when you're caught red-handed is/
"Yeah, whatever...."
You make me want to laugh out loud, thank you for that, when it comes to reliability...

Ok, fine, you wrote:
""It is possible for a population in Cantabria to carry E-M81 at 41%, but at the same time you find it impossible for a minority of Portuguese individuals to be autosomally 17% NA when the average value of NM+WS from said study is 12%? Are you serious?"

I will try to follow "your logic"(to tell the truth and to be fair, I see absolutely no logic and proof here but ok), so for you high E-M81 in cantabrians is connected to the possibility than some mainlanders portuguese are 17% and much more Nafri autosomally (we call that a "speculation").

YDNA for portuguese:
fgene-06-00012-g002.jpg
FIGURE 2. Y CHROMOSOME HAPLOGROUP DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE PORTUGUESE SEPHARDIC JEWS AND NON-JEWISH POPULATION. Sectors in pie charts are proportional to haplogroup frequency. Number of total individuals (n) are in brackets for each population. Jewish samples (Belmonte and Bragança) are from the works of Adams et al. (2008) and Nogueiro et al. (2010), respectively, and the Portuguese host population from Beleza et al. (2006).

"The profile of male lineages in Portugal was drafted in a study comprising 663 male samples from the 18 administrative districts of Portugal and a typical western European composition was demonstrated by the high frequencies of haplogroups R1b1a-M269 (57.7%), I-M170 (6.1%), G-M201 (5.5%), and E1b1b-M81 (5.6%)"

"Haplogroup R1b1a-M269, representative of Western Europe, is the most common lineage found in the Portuguese general population (57.7%; Beleza et al., 2006)"

"Haplogroup R1b1a-M269, emerges as the most frequent lineage in European individuals. Its distribution displays an increasing gradient moving from east to west (Semino et al., 2000; Bosch et al., 2001; Cruciani et al., 2002; Flores et al., 2004; Brion et al., 2005; Moore et al., 2006), being the most frequent haplogroup in the Iberian Peninsula. Lineage R1b1a-M269 was associated with the expanding Neolithic movements from the Near East to the western fringe of Europe, although this is still a matter of debate (Balaresque et al., 2010; Busby et al., 2011).This haplogroup was absent in Jewish population studies until the report of Adams et al. (2008)."

From here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles....00012/full#F2

As a reminder of your own words which according to you a high rate E would therefore necessarily justify a strong autosomal Nafri :
"It is possible for a population in Cantabria to carry E-M81 at 41%, but at the same time you find it impossible for a minority of Portuguese individuals to be autosomally 17% NA when the average value of NM+WS from said study is 12%? Are you serious?"

ok, so 41% E-81, because I'm a good player, we're going to use G25 for the Cantabrians that we have in data sheet and not with any G25 calculator

Capture d’écran 2022-12-04 005441.png
Average :

Target: Spanish_Cantabria
Distance: 1.3691% / 0.01369061
48.6 Italic
41.6 Gaul
7.0 Berber
2.8 Germanic

Cantabrians:

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:HG01679
Distance: 1.9470% / 0.01946997
52.2	Italic
39.4	Gaul
7.2	Berber
1.2	Germanic

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:HG01513
Distance: 2.0749% / 0.02074879
57.2	Italic
31.0	Gaul
7.8	Germanic
4.0	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:HG01512
Distance: 2.2348% / 0.02234795
56.8	Gaul
39.8	Italic
3.4	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:4177Distance: 2.9065% / 0.02906494
55.6	Italic
14.6	Gaul
13.2	Berber
10.6	Slavic
4.6	Jewish
1.4	Germanic

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:4170
Distance: 3.2487% / 0.03248744
50.6	Italic
38.0	Gaul
6.4	Berber
5.0	Germanic

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:4156
Distance: 2.5848% / 0.02584843
46.8	Gaul
46.0	Italic
7.2	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:4146
Distance: 3.0798% / 0.03079816
57.6	Italic
17.2	Germanic
15.8	Gaul
9.4	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:2227
Distance: 2.5490% / 0.02549011
51.2	Italic
26.4	Gaul
15.6	Germanic
6.8	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:2200
Distance: 2.0930% / 0.02093023
42.6	Italic
25.0	Gaul
23.6	Germanic
8.8	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:2193
Distance: 1.9563% / 0.01956332
64.2	Italic
26.6	Germanic
5.8	Gaul
3.4	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:2133
Distance: 2.7295% / 0.02729479
69.8	Italic
25.0	Gaul
5.2	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:2131Distance: 2.6254% / 0.02625414
42.8	Italic
42.0	Gaul
7.8	Germanic
7.4	Berber

Target: Spanish_Cantabria:2119
Distance: 2.6810% / 0.02680989
46.6	Gaul
44.2	Italic
9.2	Berber

Results from "Modèle Brazorf G25 Scaled"

Capture d’écran 2022-12-04 005604.png

Your speculation on the Haplogroup/Nafri result, doesn't work for mainland Iberian populations, but it's worth what it's worth knowing: a non-argument.
When I said you were in a blind belief because of some results you got on G25, thank you for confirming it again.

"An individual with 17% is as distant from one with 25% as he is from one with 9%, so what exactly is the point of bringing this up if not to always highlight a number that is not the average?"

Put as an argument the random inheritance that can be obtained by a person inheriting from 1 grandparent as "proof" of the acceptability of excessive variation in the results obtained on G25, while the results published in the studies take into account and indicate minimal variations is yet another proof that this is blind belief at the expense of studies and data (in addition to not constituting an argument as such)
When I made comments on the range inherited from a grandparent, it was to evoke what is considered to be the equivalence of a mixture for 1/4 on genetic point of view and not in the context of data from studies of averages of populations and their variations, nothing to do with it. And it was to try to show you, how much the false results that you are defending do not make sense, the latest genetic studies only consider such a proportion of mixture with Nafri among Europeans in Canarians.
I try to be serious and it's not easy, don't forget "Brandolini's Law" and I invite you also to try to be serious, it's not a bad thing, but hey thank you for your advice: "you are the one who needs a reality-check."

You said:
"Not only that, and it even says that both estimates (21% and 27%) are "similar", which is the exact opposite of what you are doing with the Portuguese average obsessing over a difference of just 2-3%."

And for to prove this you share that:

[...] the largest contribution to the genetic background of Canary Islanders is, on average, EUR ancestry (76.4%; composed of two ancestries aligned with the European northwest–southeast axis of differentiation), followed by NAF (20.8%), and SSA (2.8%) (Table 2). [...] ELAI ancestries provided a similar scenario of admixture composed mainly by EUR (71.4%), followed by NAF (26.7%), and SSA (1.9%).

But well, i see here only that:
" ELAI ancestries provided a similar scenario of admixture composed mainly by EUR (71.4%), followed by NAF (26.7%), and SSA (1.9%)."
You are trying to make a passage say something, that it doesn't say, again all this to bend the studies in the direction that suits you, there is mention of a similar admixture scenario, it is not explicitly say what you want to try to say, namely to accept abusive variations, and in addition we see that the variations in the images that you shared which are for the Canarians populations are not for mainlanders, and have nothing to do with your abusive variations that you are trying to justify concerning false results for continental Iberian populations (and people) obtained sometimes on G25.
Not to mention that we already find the variations indicated in the studies on the non-Canarian Iberian populations which are much lower than what you are trying to defend, for this point you have definitely no methodology here, just you are manipulating the studies to justify bad results for a reason which escapes me.



I still want to thank @Ruderico who allowed me to save a lot of time by not going to check the data and details put forward on the variation.
Because to tell the truth it is laborious to have everything to check and it is always a little disappointing to see that people do not hesitate to use data as it suits them even if it means resorting to very dubious methods and results.
it only confirms the erroneous results sometimes obtained on G25 with some samples for Nafri admixture.
And then, whether we like it or not, the results obtained here and shared by some on G25 never obtain results similar to Canarians as with 23andMe etc., whereas all of them are indeed from Iberian populations, and that's factual and reality.
Everyone is now free to prefer to highlight erroneous methodologies and results obtained sometimes on G25 to the detriment of studies, History and facts (results not similar to Canarians with big societies like 23andMe, than some continental Iberians standard reach IBM and Nafri rates similar to direct mixed Euro-Nafri people etc).
Useless on this point to go further with a person who does not recognize his wrongs and his errors with his dubious methodologies.

[lorddraco14]

heres one from tetouan, northern morocco

Target: Tetwani_scaled
Distance: 2.5098% / 0.02509821
54.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
17.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.6 MAR_Taforalt
5.6 WHG
5.4 IRN_Wezmeh_N
2.4 COG_NgongoMbata_220BP
2.2 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN

Target: Tetwani_scaled
Distance: 1.4226% / 0.01422594
61.2 Southern_Europe
28.6 Berber
8.0 Levant
2.2 Sub-Saharan_African

Thanks ¿ Could you compare it with the late Roman and medieval samples that have been left in the thread ? It would help a lot to see if there was an impact.

[Axios]

Don't remember which thread this belongs to, but here i go: