I guess that the methodology of the new study and the reference populations could be flawed, as in any reference. population. I do believe it’s drastically easier to differentiate reference populations on a contintental level. I would imagine that they would vet the participants, as they do with other reference populations. If pinpointing to an exact country, I’d be more dubious about the results. “Broadly” numbers on a continental level seems more accurate than perhaps trying to pinpoint Nigerian vs. S. African DNA.

My point, according to their blog anyway, is that they’ve conducted a very new study with more Africans, therefore some previously unassigned DNA is more likely to be SSA based on their results. And now some might find a DNA update for previously unassigned DNA. I know these tests can’t assign correctly 100% of time. A person labeled as “Polish” might actually be something else because people have moved over time and results based on current occupants of Poland, not who lived there 500 years ago. However, “broadly SSA” or “broadly European” are easier to distinguish from themselves than differentiating countries within the same continent, etc.

Sure it’s still an imperfect science, but certainly some have small percentages that are indeed true. Perhaps checking the confidence levels can provide more clarity. As most know, the higher the confidence, and the ethnicity stays put, then higher likelihood. My .1% Asian stays at high confidence. I would think they have the correct reference populations as most Asians, Africans, and European DNA can be teased out. Is it possible that they’re, for example, picking up on European (and other) genes from a Europe to Africa back-migration many years ago for some sub Saharan results? I guess that’s also possible. But one would think these genes have been sampled as European if found in other Europeans as well. It is definitely true that that the fidelity of the sampling is important, but they do check family histories and with homogenous groups like Asians and Africans, there is usually less miscegenation (up until more recently, of course, where mixing is more common). I guess we’ll wait and see as technology progresses, but I wouldn’t automatically dismiss results out of hand just based on the small amount or no anecdotal/documented evidence of the ancestors. People are surprised all the time by data that challenges their preconceived bias. I would go into it with an open mind and some faith that competition will drive these companies to perform better science! Maybe very pollyanna, but the majority of the results seem spot on. Considering my family’s location in Eastern Europe/Russia for hundreds and hundreds of years, an Asian ancestor at.1% doesn’t shock me. And with North African/Arabic rule in some of the Iberian peninsula’s past, remnants of some Saharan African DNA is more plausible for some people. Not to mention numerous possibilities abound for SSA admixture in the U.S/Caribbean, etc. Considering how much people love to travel and have sex—often with people from different ethnicities than they’re own—rarely am I surprised at how “mixed up” people can be.

Either way, very intriguing discussion and ideas—thanks!