tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post6875784964636248109..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: More Swedish autosomal geneticsMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-31729082237697269792011-08-07T11:45:25.002+02:002011-08-07T11:45:25.002+02:00Hmmmm... Northern Swedish clustered differently th...Hmmmm... Northern Swedish clustered differently than Finnish since K=2 <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/02/swedish-autosomal-genetics.html" rel="nofollow">in the previous study by Salmela</a>: they clustered with NW Europeans in K=2, Swedes in K=3 and separate from other Swedes (but also from Finns) in K=4.<br /><br />There is definitely something different about Northern Swedes, but it's not mere Finnish ancestry. <br /><br />Look also at the supplementary materials. Figs. S4 and S5 note that Finns and Swedes of Finnish ancestry display low values in the "cut" PC2, which would be, if any, the equivalent to the "uncut" PC1 (see fig. S10).<br /><br />So the Dalarna people (from which the anthropometry term "Dalic") and those from the surrounding mountain areas are also a somewhat distinct group, even if not as much marked as the Northern Swedes.<br /><br />It makes sense: the deeper you look the easier to grasp these isolate "inbred" populations as distinct. It has not been done with humans but it has been tried with cows and you can reach incredible levels of K-depth and still find more and more distinct subclusters, assuming some genetic isolation, as happens with cattle breeds.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-68095388301273891602011-08-07T11:03:46.178+02:002011-08-07T11:03:46.178+02:00My interpretation:
The exclusion line should have...My interpretation:<br /><br />The exclusion line <b>should</b> have been chosen perpendicular to the apparent Finnish principal component. But it wasn't. As such, I believe that PC1 of the "cleaned up" version still simply shows Finnish/Sami contribution. PC2 shows higher indigenous make-up (relating to parts of Norway, negative correlations notwithstanding), and the mass-center population, mostly south, simply have the highest contribution from (Northern German) agriculturalists.<br /><br />Surely there is some isolation reflected here, but in my opinion it ts rather unimportant.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.com