03-20-2024, 06:21 AM
Here is another example:
You may reproduce such results by running the following F4 stats:
F4( TEST, NA19012.SG , Vindija_snpAD.DG, Loschbour.DG )
NA19012.SG - is Japan
TEST - is per individual, not per population. !!!
I am doing this graphic by using other calculation technique, because running F4 for 10k individuals will take significant time.
Also as I explained: by running F4 for individuals you don't need to care for Z anymore. F4 for individuals will give you the number of shared markers and the result is presented as a percentage.
In general depending on QC ( quality control) if you put any , you should get between 30k - 200k markers and the results are good. (including Z in most of the cases will show high numbers).
If you follow me, you will understand my idea: that Africa is the most Denisovan/Neanderthal compared to the rest of the World.. The Denisova/Neanderthal differences in some parts of the world are mostly result of isolation or other reasons.
You may reproduce such results by running the following F4 stats:
F4( TEST, NA19012.SG , Vindija_snpAD.DG, Loschbour.DG )
NA19012.SG - is Japan
TEST - is per individual, not per population. !!!
I am doing this graphic by using other calculation technique, because running F4 for 10k individuals will take significant time.
Also as I explained: by running F4 for individuals you don't need to care for Z anymore. F4 for individuals will give you the number of shared markers and the result is presented as a percentage.
In general depending on QC ( quality control) if you put any , you should get between 30k - 200k markers and the results are good. (including Z in most of the cases will show high numbers).
If you follow me, you will understand my idea: that Africa is the most Denisovan/Neanderthal compared to the rest of the World.. The Denisova/Neanderthal differences in some parts of the world are mostly result of isolation or other reasons.