What were your DNA results?

[TruCelt]

I did both the AncestryDNA and the 23andMe tests, because I wanted to see if they would agree. I am mostly Irish (which I knew) with small amounts of Norwegian, Yakut and Ashkenazi Jew (big surprise).

I have found the 23andMe to be the more useful of the two, but I’m glad I did both as they did agree, which helps my confidence level.

The 23andMe has impressed me both with the details they provided and the amount of information. You are automatically taken to an “overview” page, which probably contains all of the information that most people came for, placed in context for the general public. Then you can drill down all the way to the raw data at various levels of confidence (up to 90%).

They also continually compare the data as new areas of confidence are developed. So, for instance, I recently got an update which identified my Maternal Haplogroup as “Tuareg.”

And yes, Gatopescado, I find that absolutely fascinating. Why? Because it gives me an insight into who my people are and what they endured. Also, what they foresaw and chose not to endure. (The Tuaregs established in Europe, then returned to North Africa ahead of the glaciers during the ice age.)

I also have a fairly high level of Neanderthal DNA. This does not surprise, but it’s nice to have confirmation.

The biggest surprise? No recent African ancestry. I had always been told that my Mother’s great-grandmother was a slave in Meriwhether County, Ga. While the Tuareg group makes that within the furthest reaches of possibility, it’s most likely not true. This is an enormous disappointment, really a large blow to my self-image in ways that are difficult to explain.

As to medical information, they do provide some very useful insights, both to genetic tendencies and wellness issues. Some things are just interesting; I’m a light sleeper, turns out that’s genetic. Others are comforting; yes, it is genetically harder for me to lose weight than for most people, no, I don’t have the early onset Alzheimer’s variant. Some allow me to plan for, and take steps to mitigate; a slightly higher risk of macular degeneration, good vitamin A intake correlates with better outcomes, an ability to absorb more iron from my food than most (a huge advantage in famine, dangerous in modern-day USA).

So, all in all, I’m glad I did it. Was disappointed that there was no BRCA report (breast cancer risk), but I understand that’s one of those the FDA is making them hold back. Basically, they can provide medical results in the form of “risk-level” information, but nothing that comes across as “diagnostic.”

[MissTake]

I was raised in a family that celebrated heritage - Polish, Czech, German and Ukranian. I’m the family historian, having been working on the family tree for years. I, however, was only a 3"x5" notecard, given to my parents by the adoption agency, which stated my biological mother was Scottish, English, German and French and my biological father was German. I did the ancestry.com test. It came back:
73% Great Britain
13% Scandinavia
With the remaining bits Irish/Scottish/Welsh, European Jew, Caucasian, Iberian, Malinese, Southern European and Western European.

I did it to see what was “true”, I guess. I was surprised to find little/no German blood. In the testing, I have found a biological half sister, our biological father, and a possible sibling on my biological mother’s side. My biological half sister and I speak a fair amount. My biological father wants nothing to do with either of us, and that’s fine (for me, at least). The possible sibling on my biological mother’s side has briefly reached out, then went radio silent. Again, just fine by me.

What it came down to for me, I guess, is that I never really fit in with my family. I’m musical…they tried. I’m a bookworm… they like comics and recipes. My dad and sister are very mathematical… I suck at anything beyond basic stuff. I, of course, look nothing like them. I was taller than all of them by the time I was 12. Learning their family stories, but having none of my own. Obviously, the DNA testing didn’t answer why I am musical but suck at math, but it gave me a place to jump off from. Finding others who are blood related was just kind of a bonus. My biological sister and I spend a lot of time comparing ourselves and it’s pretty cool just how much we are alike, despite only sharing half the blood. We were raised differently in different parts of the country, yet we’re very similar.

[naita]

@Biggirl

I don’t think you are understanding what MyHeritage did. They said I was 60% African (and broke that down further), 30% European (and broke that down further) and 10% Central American Mix-- this includes European, African and Native American. XT above just stated he got his “mix” broken down-- because that is what you pay these companies to do! Latin Americans KNOW they are a mix of these. Just like blacks know they are mixed with European. Imagine if American blacks got results back that said-- American Black Mix: African and European in whatever proportions.

How do you know the known European and African parts of your mix weren’t correctly broken down and included in the 60% African and 30% European?

It’s possible that myHeritage is screwing up somehow, and they’re not including any detail about their ethnicity analysis in their promotional and open material, but I still think you’re not fully understanding what these tests are capable of and what’s required to refine them.

All we know is the ratio of various markers in today’s populations and a very small material of archaeological DNA, and based on that we can make conjectures such as “This marker is present in 90% of people with recent ancestry confined in Poland, and a lot lower outside, so it was probably as common in Poland in the past and someone with that marker probably has Polish ancestry.”

Monstro accurately describes how I think myHeritage has created the “mestizo” category. Refining that further requires finding those specific markers in a high ratio in a “pure” population. If they originated in Africa, it requires having a decent number of DNA-tests of descendants of the source population in Africa, which might be a tall order, Africa having the most genetic diversity of any continent. If they originated in some native American grouping in Central America it requires testing groups with minimal mixing with other Central American groups, again a tall order.

And your African-American example is exactly what African-Americans could expect in early DNA-testing days, and might still expect from the smaller providers. Most test projects were done on Europeans and Americans of European decent, most customers were Americans and African-Americans who didn’t know the details of their African ancestry, and only when sufficient tests were done on descendants of likely source populations in Africa did the results start to improve.

[naita]

One point to bear in mind when analysing ones results is that absence of evidence is not (or at least low quality) evidence of absence. The further back an ancestor is, the larger the chance that you just didn’t inherit any of the markers that ancestor had that are known to those doing the analysis to be particular to that ancestor’s ethnicity.

[John_Mace]

@naita

One point to bear in mind when analysing ones results is that absence of evidence is not (or at least low quality) evidence of absence. The further back an ancestor is, the larger the chance that you just didn’t inherit any of the markers that ancestor had that are known to those doing the analysis to be particular to that ancestor’s ethnicity.

OTOH, you don’t have to go back all that far (in evolutionary terms) to where we all have the exact same set of ancestors. But as you say, many of those will have contributed 0% to our individual DNA.

[you_with_the_face]

@Gatopescado

Serious question for those that have done this (in no way wish to Threadshit):

What is the motivation for doing a test like this? What is it going to tell you that would make any possible difference in your day-to-day lives?

For most people, it has no consequence on their day-to-day lives. But very few things do, right?

The motivation boils down to basic curiosity. Where did my ancestors come from? Is it possible I’m a descendant of those wild and crazy Vikings I’ve heard about all my life? Or were most of my peeps semi-nomadic pastoralists in East Africa? It’s information that is not critical to have, but its interesting. It puts your family’s history into a context that is much larger (and complex) than one that is available to the average person without this technology.

[Doyle]

@Merneith

I haven’t done mine, but my mom did hers with Ancestry. She came back 1/3 Celtic, 1/3 Norwegian and 1/3 Assorted European (+ .01% “Other”, of course), which makes her the Viking Princess of Dublin. It’s all fun and games, I guess. I can’t shake the feeling that’s it’s hopelessly unscientific but maybe that’s just the way it’s being expressed for lay people.

Sidric Silkbeard

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Those with Italian heritage will show very little Italian on a DNA test. Mine showed about 10% I think. The DNA was from all over the Mediterranean area and the mid east.

[Biggirl]

@John_Mace

How on earth would the know whether your “Mestizo” parts that are not Native American would have come from Central America? If you have Spanish markers, they could have come from Spain or Central America or South America or… And if you have African markers in your Mestizo part, wouldn’t those have come… from Africa?

As someone upthread suggested, it might be worthwhile giving them a call and asking them WTF?

I wondered this too. Like, how’d they know the Greek or Sardinian didn’t come from my Latin American mix?

@monstro

My guess, Biggirl, is that you have a number of markers that don’t tend to show up in self-identified Africans or Europeans, but they do appear in self-identified “Central American mestizos”.

I totally agree that this is unsatisfying information. But as you say, you get what you pay for.

For sure. Not the first time my cheapness has come back to haunt me. I got my husband the Nat. Geo 2 kit for Christmas since he was so interested in my results. I will probably get one of those for me too, so that I can compare.

[Biggirl]

The Nat Geo Gen 2 is more about tracing the migration patterns of your ancestors than it is breaking down your own, personal make up. They are trying to map the world, it appears. There are 3 components to it. Hominin looks at your relationship to Neanderthals and Denisovans, Deep Ancestry covers your maternal and paternal haplogroups and regional ancestry does the 9 geographical areas of where your DNA, personally, comes from. This looks like it would leave me more satisfied. And it only costs 20 bucks more.

Yeup, you get what you pay for.

[up_the_junction]

@Biggirl

60% African, 30% European and 10% Mixed. WTeffingF? Mixed? I know I’m mixed, I paid for you to tell me what the hell the mix is! Well, they actually called it Mestizo (which means “mixed”). A place they dumped Latin Americans who can be any kind of Native American, European and African in any proportion, this company doesn’t feel like sorting it out.

Thing about South America - maybe parts of central America, as well - is they didn’t start making countries out of it until the early 18 hundreds, which is obv. yesterday in DNA terms.

It was mostly one big land mass which a couple of empires carved up as it suited.

[Biggirl]

@up_the_junction

Thing about South America - maybe parts of central America, as well - is they didn’t start making countries out of it until the early 18 hundreds, which is obv. yesterday in DNA terms.

It was mostly one big land mass which a couple of empires carved up as it suited.

Yes, but I’m not sure why that should matter in regards to ancestry.

[kayT]

Does it bother any of you who have done this that the day may come when insurance companies are going to refuse coverage if you have certain markers (assuming they don’t already do this)? Just to mention one thing that might be a negative outcome of sending off your DNA to a for-profit company who has pretty much no contract with you at all about what they can do with it.

[NDP]

@carnivorousplant

I believe there are a lot of Viking genes in England. Are they speaking of contemporary English, or Anglo-Saxon?

If most of my ancestors from England were, in turn, descendants of Norse/Danish invaders, I would think the percentage of my Scandinavian DNA would be a lot higher than 28% (which, to me, seems pretty low given that all the great-grandparents on my mother’s side immigrated from Norway to the US in the late 19th and early 20th century). I’m guessing they were either Frenchmen who joined the invading Normans in 1066 or were among the Anglo-Saxon-Jutes who came over around 500 A.D. That would explain why my Western European percentage is about 47%.

[Gatopescado]

@kayT

Does it bother any of you who have done this that the day may come when insurance companies are going to refuse coverage if you have certain markers (assuming they don’t already do this)?

I don’t claim to be an expert (or wish to derail this thread), but from what I know, this is the core of their business model.

[CelticKnot]

I read that at least one of these companies cheerfully handed over DNA to law enforcement to go on a fishing expedition.
I’m a little wary of doing this test.
My parents did though, with only one surprise. Mom is 1% Eskimo??? What???
We are European mutts; we knew that. But Eskimo?

[Sveltington]

@Gatopescado

Serious question for those that have done this (in no way wish to Threadshit):

What is the motivation for doing a test like this? What is it going to tell you that would make any possible difference in your day-to-day lives?

I just don’t “get it”. There is very little else I could care less about than what my DNA could tell me.

Please enlighten me. What is the point? What am I missing?

Difference in my day to day, none. I did this for my entertainment. I have never felt a warm bond with people just because we shared DNA and do not see that changing.

However Dad did “confess to his liaison” that provided her with at least two children. They may have learned they are not related to their father’s siblings. They may have learned that he was sterile. Their mother may be dead or refuse to tell them. Perhaps they are searching for the identity of their bio-dad. He is dead; but I have pictures and stories they might like. He was quite a character and was loved by many.

Also my Mom’s Dad said he was a certain ethnicity; but looking at my Mom and Aunt I do not buy it. I am curious. I was curious before I ever heard of DNA as a way of identifying ethnicity.

But none of this info will change my life in any substantive way.

[Cazzle]

@John_Mace

Can you opt out of the part where these companies match you up with people you are related to? I’m not really interested in having a bunch of “long lost relatives” trying to contact me.

But that’s the bit that’s really worth testing for!

My ethnicity says I’m one thing on one site, another thing on another… There’s a lot of overlap but some striking differences. The smaller the percentages, the less chance of finding factual confirmation - 25% of my results are made up of tiny chunks that could be noise rather than indicative of my true heritage.

In contrast…

My DNA matches to descendants/relatives of 15 of my 16 great grandparents prove my research correct on 15 lines - and my zero matches to the other known descendants of one prove the documented line is wrong. Then I have a cluster of matches who don’t match my paper trail but all share a common point of origin, suggesting it’s probably possible to identify the real ancestor with some more work and a breakthrough match.

Ethnicity is a gimmick. The matches are what prove a tree and are genuinely useful in genealogy. Your results may be the missing link someone is looking for to solve a mystery or prove a line, even if you aren’t interested in doing research yourself.

[naita]

@kayT

Does it bother any of you who have done this that the day may come when insurance companies are going to refuse coverage if you have certain markers (assuming they don’t already do this)? Just to mention one thing that might be a negative outcome of sending off your DNA to a for-profit company who has pretty much no contract with you at all about what they can do with it.

No. For one thing I can always move back to/stay in Norway if that happens. And for another this scenario requires the privacy laws regarding 23andMe’s handling of DNA data to change in a way that allows the insurance company to do the necessary detective work to link DNA with specific individuals, which seems unlikely.
Or require people who have had a DNA-test done to give that information to their insurance company, while not permitting them to demand a saliva sample from those who haven’t, which doesn’t seem likely either.

[k9bfriender]

@kayT

Does it bother any of you who have done this that the day may come when insurance companies are going to refuse coverage if you have certain markers (assuming they don’t already do this)? Just to mention one thing that might be a negative outcome of sending off your DNA to a for-profit company who has pretty much no contract with you at all about what they can do with it.

Right now, they cannot deny you for pre-existing conditions due to the ACA. If that were to continue, then that is not a problem.

Should pre-existing conditions become a deniable thing again, then it won’t be 23 and me that the insurance is getting these results from, they will simply require a DNA sample along with your application for insurance and run their own screening.