PDA

View Full Version : Living DNA results now more accurate for non-British populations



Aiden
07-20-2020, 10:41 PM
Greek, German, Austrian mix
https://i.postimg.cc/7YKFxXjf/d6xrhd6knl151.jpg


Filipino
https://i.postimg.cc/sxvp5jDF/tys4i57l5j951.jpg


Dutch
https://i.postimg.cc/jSVzJYp9/eqve08d257b51.png


Spanish Mexican
https://i.postimg.cc/XYcyGGcG/mulcxxhswab51.jpg

geebee
07-21-2020, 02:01 AM
It certainly isn't better for all non-British populations.

Granted, I do have some British ancestry: about 41%, if you also include my Irish ancestry. But I don't have the nearly 77% Great Britain and Ireland that LivingDNA predicts.

On the other hand, I have about 34% (Palatine) German, 6.25% Alsatian, 1.2% Swiss, and 3.1% French, while LivingDNA predicts only 16.4% Northern German. I also have 12.5% East Iberian (Menorcan) ancestry, even though LivingDNA predicts only 6.7%. And they don't see my 2% Native American at all. This is in spite of the fact that Ancestry, FTDNA, and 23andMe are all able to find this component.

Admittedly, the percentages I'm saying I have are all paper trail percentages. Of course I might have a greater or lesser amount of any of these DNA components. My point is, even though I'm mostly non-British, you couldn't tell that from LivingDNA's percentages.

It's pretty clear that a large portion of my German ancestry is being characterized as British simply because a significant portion of British ancestry is closely related to it. It certainly isn't because of the British ancestry of Germans!

But worse than that, even some of my Spanish ancestry is likely being misidentified as British. So, no, from my vantage point LivingDNA is not "now more accurate for non-British populations". At least, not for all of them.

Aiden
07-21-2020, 03:32 AM
It certainly isn't better for all non-British populations.

Granted, I do have some British ancestry: about 41%, if you also include my Irish ancestry. But I don't have the nearly 77% Great Britain and Ireland that LivingDNA predicts.

On the other hand, I have about 34% (Palatine) German, 6.25% Alsatian, 1.2% Swiss, and 3.1% French, while LivingDNA predicts only 16.4% Northern German. I also have 12.5% East Iberian (Menorcan) ancestry, even though LivingDNA predicts only 6.7%. And they don't see my 2% Native American at all. This is in spite of the fact that Ancestry, FTDNA, and 23andMe are all able to find this component.

Admittedly, the percentages I'm saying I have are all paper trail percentages. Of course I might have a greater or lesser amount of any of these DNA components. My point is, even though I'm mostly non-British, you couldn't tell that from LivingDNA's percentages.

It's pretty clear that a large portion of my German ancestry is being characterized as British simply because a significant portion of British ancestry is closely related to it. It certainly isn't because of the British ancestry of Germans!

But worse than that, even some of my Spanish ancestry is likely being misidentified as British. So, no, from my vantage point LivingDNA is not "now more accurate for non-British populations". At least, not for all of them.

This is my fear, that individuals with more Euro mixed backgrounds might not get accurate results with Living DNA. I'll be testing with them soon to see for myself, as I am similar to you being mixed european. I'm also planning to test with 24 Genetics using my raw data uploads, to see the differences in my results since my actual results from the kit and updated version is a bit... meh

iloko
07-21-2020, 08:38 AM
I log in to my account about every other day, though my results seem to be the same as they were for past year or so..... Was there an update recently? Will my results get updated soon? I'm Filipino.

geebee
07-21-2020, 01:20 PM
This is my fear, that individuals with more Euro mixed backgrounds might not get accurate results with Living DNA. I'll be testing with them soon to see for myself, as I am similar to you being mixed european. I'm also planning to test with 24 Genetics using my raw data uploads, to see the differences in my results since my actual results from the kit and updated version is a bit... meh

Just keep in mind that no company really compares our DNA to our ancestral populations, but to modern reference panels that they've likely put together themselves -- using both public and proprietary samples. So all we ever really see is which of those panels our SNPs suggest we're most similar to.

Further, with most companies there's a forced choice. That is, at each location our DNA will be assigned to the category associated with one of those reference panels. We're usually given no identical of how close of a call it might have been -- how "certain" the assignment was.

23andMe is somewhat of an exception, in the sense that there are broader categories and narrower categories. So instead of having to decide between, say, British & Irish or French & German if it might be either one, the algorithm can simply "fall back" to Broadly Northwestern European. Or Broadly European might even be chosen, if a particular stretch of DNA doesn't clearly fit either Broadly Northwestern European or Broadly Southern European.

By contrast, other companies may always make a more specific assignment, but you'll never know whether it was a close call or not. You might be able at least to get some sense of that if you're given a range for each category. Presumably, a broader range implies less "certainty" than a narrower one -- but it's never really "certain" even then.

Also remember that those reference panels aren't necessarily truly representative of their region. If the people of a region show a lot of overlap with other regions, a company might want to reduce that overlap in their reference panel selection. So they effectively are choosing what may be a component of the region to represent the region, and eliminating anything that doesn't "match" this component.

So let's say that there's an overlap between Great Britain and Germany. Samples will likely be dropped from the panel if they don't match other samples in the panel sufficiently. This might be a good idea, as long as we remember than the end result may be that this may reduce the true diversity of a region -- as far as the associated reference panel is concerned. So even if you're 100% from the region, you may still find yourself assigned to other regions -- it will be for the same region that some of your ancestors, if they could be tested, might also be assigned to different regions, even if they didn't actually come from those regions.

msmarjoribanks
07-21-2020, 09:04 PM
It certainly isn't better for all non-British populations.

Granted, I do have some British ancestry: about 41%, if you also include my Irish ancestry. But I don't have the nearly 77% Great Britain and Ireland that LivingDNA predicts.

On the other hand, I have about 34% (Palatine) German, 6.25% Alsatian, 1.2% Swiss, and 3.1% French, while LivingDNA predicts only 16.4% Northern German. I also have 12.5% East Iberian (Menorcan) ancestry, even though LivingDNA predicts only 6.7%. And they don't see my 2% Native American at all. This is in spite of the fact that Ancestry, FTDNA, and 23andMe are all able to find this component.

Admittedly, the percentages I'm saying I have are all paper trail percentages. Of course I might have a greater or lesser amount of any of these DNA components. My point is, even though I'm mostly non-British, you couldn't tell that from LivingDNA's percentages.

It's pretty clear that a large portion of my German ancestry is being characterized as British simply because a significant portion of British ancestry is closely related to it. It certainly isn't because of the British ancestry of Germans!

But worse than that, even some of my Spanish ancestry is likely being misidentified as British. So, no, from my vantage point LivingDNA is not "now more accurate for non-British populations". At least, not for all of them.

Same for me. Mine is different, and arguably somewhat better than it was, but it's still missing my German -- classifying it as English. And given that, I can't trust the English results/locations even if I otherwise would be inclined to.

I now get 100% European, with 82.3% Great Britain and Ireland (various places), 15.4% Scandinavian (one Swedish great-grandmother, so not unreasonable), 2.3% Basque, but still no German. The real amount is likely 15% or more.

It went from giving me no Irish (or Scottish, my Irish is generally colonial era Protestant Irish, so who knows what it really is, some names are likely English) to 6.7% Ireland, 6% SW Scotland and Northern Ireland, and 2.5% NW Scotland, but I lost all of my North Wales (which I do have), although I kept my 5.8% South Wales. So maybe it's doing better (for me) with Irish/Scottish now, maybe not, but the German is still a big miss.

Nqp15hhu
07-21-2020, 09:30 PM
They keep removing my ancestry results that I paid for.

JonikW
07-21-2020, 09:31 PM
I'm still smiling about my results since the upgrade:

Last updated February 1, 2020
Your recent ancestry results
Europe (North and West)
62.7%
South Germanic
48%
Northwest Germanic
13.5%
Northeast Germanic
1.1%
Great Britain and Ireland
34.3%
South Wales Border
15.7%
South Central England
10.8%
Cornwall
2.3%
Southeast England
2.2%
South Wales
1.8%
Northern Ireland and Southwest Scotland
1.4%
Europe (South)
3%
Basque
3%

My Dad's latest results are spot on though so I'm hoping the next iteration resolves whatever went wrong with the panel this time. They did acknowledge that South Germanic is an issue they've had with other British testers so I'm hoping for the best.

Aiden
07-22-2020, 12:06 PM
Eupedia forum are saying that Living DNA is the gold standard, but opinions here seem rather mixed. Interesting.

JMcB
07-22-2020, 03:44 PM
Eupedia forum are saying that Living DNA is the gold standard, but opinions here seem rather mixed. Interesting.

Frankly, I think there’s far too much variability to call any one company the Gold Standard. People have different experiences with different companies and it varies from person to person. I am “reasonably” happy with Ancestry and LDNA but other people think they’re the worst. Some people swear by 23&me, while for me; they come in dead last.

Whether LDNA is now more accurate for non British users, I can’t say. I can say, that after initially calling my Italian (Sicilian) ancestry fairly well. They then decided to stop reporting smaller percentages. So instead of reporting my previous 5.9% Southern European as what it really was, they folded it back into the British Isles. So as far as I’m concern, they are now less accurate, when it comes to non British populations. In other words, each to their own.

Riverman
07-22-2020, 03:54 PM
For me Living DNA is just like a two population Oracle. Its not horribly wrong, but it lumps all minor ancestries into bigger categories and creates two large components, of which one is accurate, while the other is an artificial construct of what remains and doesn't reflect anything real at all at that percentage.

@JMcB: What was wrong with your 23andme result? Because in my experience they are spot on with their major categories and only have difficulties with the minor and regional assignment, which to me is of secondary importance, especially if companies still mix up the major divisions.

JMcB
07-22-2020, 09:42 PM
For me Living DNA is just like a two population Oracle. Its not horribly wrong, but it lumps all minor ancestries into bigger categories and creates two large components, of which one is accurate, while the other is an artificial construct of what remains and doesn't reflect anything real at all at that percentage.

@JMcB: What was wrong with your 23andme result? Because in my experience they are spot on with their major categories and only have difficulties with the minor and regional assignment, which to me is of secondary importance, especially if companies still mix up the major divisions.

Hello Riverman,

Basically, they under reported my British Isles ancestry by 30%. They over reported my French & German ancestry by approximately 22%. They threw in some Scandinavian that I don’t really have but that’s a common mistake and it was only 6.5%, so that, in itself, is not a big deal. In fairness to them, they are the only company that correctly placed my Sicilian in Sicily. So I’ll give them credit for that but as I said, of all the commercial companies, they come in last. At least, in my case.

Aiden
07-22-2020, 10:37 PM
For me Living DNA is just like a two population Oracle. Its not horribly wrong, but it lumps all minor ancestries into bigger categories and creates two large components, of which one is accurate, while the other is an artificial construct of what remains and doesn't reflect anything real at all at that percentage.

i heard that Living DNA use PCA charts to determine results.

msmarjoribanks
07-22-2020, 10:58 PM
I'm still smiling about my results since the upgrade:

Last updated February 1, 2020
Your recent ancestry results
Europe (North and West)
62.7%
South Germanic
48%
Northwest Germanic
13.5%
Northeast Germanic
1.1%
Great Britain and Ireland
34.3%
South Wales Border
15.7%
South Central England
10.8%
Cornwall
2.3%
Southeast England
2.2%
South Wales
1.8%
Northern Ireland and Southwest Scotland
1.4%
Europe (South)
3%
Basque
3%

My Dad's latest results are spot on though so I'm hoping the next iteration resolves whatever went wrong with the panel this time. They did acknowledge that South Germanic is an issue they've had with other British testers so I'm hoping for the best.

That's so funny given that many of us with actual mixed German and English ancestry get no German at all. You and JMcB show that they really just can't tell English from German well at all.

Riverman
07-23-2020, 12:12 AM
Well, Anglo-Saxons were like Northern Germans/Dutch, and even parts of the Celto-Roman admixture was quite similar, so we shouldn't wonder if Bavarians get British and Wessex German. That's just too close.

I think that can only be balanced out by a regional penalty, which means you predetermine what a specific ancestral component means in an overall regional genome. But that way a lot gets swallowed for such region-like genomes and you lose consistency. Like West Asian in a Bulgarian will be more likely to be declared "Balkan" than in an overall Dutch genome. Or one English-German mix gets disproportionately high German, the next one English, depending on the region he gets assigned and even for the very same segments.
23andme are the only ones assigning segments with an elobarate algorithm for most ethnicities, with all consequences, while the others seem to go much (at least relatively) more for the regional penalty or how they do it.
That way they can make many individuals close to one reference happy and have probably a 50:50 chance for the rest, but they never come to the same resolution and sacrifice consistency.

msmarjoribanks
07-23-2020, 12:55 AM
Eupedia forum are saying that Living DNA is the gold standard, but opinions here seem rather mixed. Interesting.

Are they? I haven't been there in ages, but that's weird. I think most of us here would disagree.

Aiden
07-23-2020, 01:01 AM
That's so funny given that many of us with actual mixed German and English ancestry get no German at all. You and JMcB show that they really just can't tell English from German well at all.

The results below belong to a mixed German and English individual, and they get German on Living DNA

https://i.postimg.cc/MG6WrL1G/Cheryl-June-Updated-German.png

Aiden
07-23-2020, 01:05 AM
Are they? I haven't been there in ages, but that's weird. I think most of us here would disagree.

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/which_ancestry_dna_test_to_choose.shtml


If one had to rely solely on autosomal reports, the most detailed and interesting one at the moment would be Living DNA's as it boasts the most reference populations and these populations are linked to real ethnic groups.

msmarjoribanks
07-23-2020, 01:07 AM
Frankly, I think there’s far too much variability to call any one company the Gold Standard. People have different experiences with different companies and it varies from person to person. I am “reasonably” happy with Ancestry and LDNA but other people think they’re the worst. Some people swear by 23&me, while for me; they come in dead last.

Whether LDNA is now more accurate for non British users, I can’t say. I can say, that after initially calling my Italian (Sicilian) ancestry fairly well. They then decided to stop reporting smaller percentages. So instead of reporting my previous 5.9% Southern European as what it really was, they folded it back into the British Isles. So as far as I’m concern, they are now less accurate, when it comes to non British populations. In other words, each to their own.

Yeah, I think it really depends on the ancestry too. IME, 23andMe and Ancestry are great for NW European ancestry, and both are very close to each other and to my research record right now for me, but Ancestry seems to be bad with Italian and perhaps other Southern European results. Ancestry used to be downgraded by me for missing my German, but it no longer does, However, it still does for others (and calls the BI results E, W, and NW Europe as a result of that and similar issues with France). It shifted my results from mostly English to a pretty accurate result from the last update, but also shifted my sister's results from a somewhat more accurate result (but not great -- lots of her English had been classed as Norwegian) to a new weird mostly English result (ditching most of her Swedish and Irish, and all of her French and German -- but then I've always thought my own Irish was likely inflated by Welsh which is supposed to be in the English, etc. category these days).

My sister and I score really close on Gedmatch, so I think this is all just luck.

IME, MyH is way more off and just weird for my family (although the basics are largely right) and FTDNA divides my sister and my ancestry between EE (which we do not have) and an inflated BI percentage because they entirely miss our Swedish and German.

msmarjoribanks
07-23-2020, 01:08 AM
I log in to my account about every other day, though my results seem to be the same as they were for past year or so..... Was there an update recently? Will my results get updated soon? I'm Filipino.

There's been an update in the past few months, or at least my results have changed. I need to look at my parents' uploads.

msmarjoribanks
07-23-2020, 01:18 AM
The results below belong to a mixed German and English individual, and they get German on Living DNA

https://i.postimg.cc/MG6WrL1G/Cheryl-June-Updated-German.png

Yeah, some clearly do (and some who have no known German ancestry do), but I and others don't, even though I unquestionably have some Western German (Rhineland-Palatinate) and Swiss ancestry, from American colonial times. It's anywhere between 15 and 20% as it's hard to tell apart English and German names often when researching colonial ancestry.

23andMe gives me 21% French and German (I have a bit of French and Dutch, but this is likely high), and Ancestry gives me 16% Germanic Europe (which is reasonable, but it misses the French and underreports the Swedish). Even MyH gives me 11.5% N and W European, 7.5% Scandinavia, 1.5% Finnish, and 1.9% Baltic.

So LivingDNA still has issues for me, but again I get that NW European is all too similar to really try to pick apart.

JMcB
07-23-2020, 02:30 AM
That's so funny given that many of us with actual mixed German and English ancestry get no German at all. You and JMcB show that they really just can't tell English from German well at all.

Just to clarify, LDNA did fine when it comes to my German ancestry. In their recent update, they gave me 7.8% NW Germanic and on paper, I should be approximately 6.2% German. So in that regard, I have no complaints with them at all. Perhaps, you’re thinking about the 23&me results I mentioned above, in response to Riverman’s question.

Riverman
07-23-2020, 08:19 AM
To me the distinction of German and English without a penalty/regional preference is oftentimes impossible segment by segment, this means that if you are more precise about what kind of ancestry you assign to which region and people, you always have to come to this problem of differentiating the closest groups, which is where 23andme struggles. But they get on the other hand, with this method, minor admixtures with a regional profile more often right. I know where the others are wrong, because 23andme did a good job for me, but I'm actually unable to reproduce something much better with Oracle or G25, because all standard admixture procedures prefer to choose a synthetic construct which swallows the components and its worst with Living DNA from the companies. I guess they do their better job with English sometimes since they might have the biggest reference data for the British people? Surely not for Central Europe.

Aiden
07-23-2020, 02:12 PM
I came across this interesting comment on a article about the major DNA testing companies I thought I'd share

https://janesgenes.com/international-dna-testing-companies-and-the-countries-they-service/


I would imagine it’s because 23andme have simplistic regions based on socio-economic regions as opposed to autosomal genetic regions. Living DNA base their regions on autosomal PCA plots, therefore countries may be split into different regions.

I would not test with a company that places Finland in North-west Europe. Finns are genetically Eastern European. Although they are genetically isolated, they are still genetically closer to Russians, and Estonians than they are to Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, and English etc.

I would not test with a company that lumps France and Germany into one sub region, based on the United Nations socio-economic region of Western Europe. Corsicans cluster with Tuscans and Sardinians, and should be in Southern Europe, East Austrians cluster with Hungarians, and Czechs, and should be in Eastern Europe, Italian Swiss cluster with Italians in general, and should be in Southern Europe, and French Basques cluster with Spanish Basques, and should be in Southern Europe. Living DNA gets this right, as autosomal genetics is not economics.

As someone of Ashkenazi origin, I would test with 23andme, as they do not know where Ashkenazi Jews cluster either. A quick study of PCA charts shows that Ashkenazim cluster among Southern Europeans, and people of the “Near East”. My Living DNA results confirm this. My Eastern European percentage (despite the fact that my family come from there) is much smaller than my Southern European and “Near Eastern” percentages. 23andme claim Ashkenazim are genetically Eastern European. Geneticists such as Behar have proved this to be incorrect.

Riverman
07-23-2020, 02:35 PM
I don't agree with many arguments of this comment and the rest is unimportant. Because what they really do is assigning segments correctly at 23andme and you can even test it for yourself, by comparing shared segments with relatives with their assignment. They also are more consistent and their documentation is reasonable.
I think the person was just not satisfied with being assigned at 99 percent to Ashkenazi Jewish, which is usually the case on 23andme, but wanted to see something more interesting probably. 23andme didn't do really bad mistakes with the maps, but LivingDNA did. Look for example at their "South Germanic" map, its like a joke! If I would teach geography, that's a fail in the examination! They did put the Italian and Rhaeto-Romanic parts of Switzerland in the "South Germanic" category on the map, but South Tyrol and Lower Austria not? Wtf!

Details of the comment:

I would not test with a company that lumps France and Germany into one sub region, based on the United Nations socio-economic region of Western Europe.

That's because they are fairly close, check the PCA out for Western Germans and North Eastern French. Not the "United Nations..."


Corsicans cluster with Tuscans and Sardinians, and should be in Southern Europe

At least they recognise the Mediterranean islanders at all more often.


Italian Swiss cluster with Italians in general, and should be in Southern Europe

Better using neutral state borders rather than crippling a map like Living DNA does.


East Austrians cluster with Hungarians, and Czechs, and should be in Eastern Europe

Actually some Eastern Bavarians, Northern Austrians, some Hungarians and Western Czech cluster all close because they are so closely related and have signicant Germanic and pre-Slavic Central European (Celtic and related) ancestry. The Slavic ancestral component is strong in them, but they are still at best intermediate between West and East, usually closer to the West. Eastern Germans sometimes have more Slavic ancestry actually. And if anything, that should be Central Europe, not Eastern Europe. Because its not Eastern Europe genetically nor geographically. And to split both Czechia and Austria, with Western Czechs and Italian Swiss as South Germanic and Lower Austrians/Burgenland not is really the most absurd drawing of borderlines I saw in a long time.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/mlXFcSyC-sBDrCrwMNlSjMIMSB9-_24aNMnrZHLapVQ_ImqgkPAo-NFGMb3gUKc8HX7ZAGzbl5Ryy32cqgbfrkhHuhQgcUK2MQtXvf6 gTm8I2If089P5aRVhTYoQJyQeYBsW6S6Q

I even think they split Saxony... Just to make their map look "more sophisticated", when in fact the political divisions by states and federal states would have been more accurate than this.

As to where to put Ashkenazi, that's pretty much a "free choice", since they have not one place of origin in Europe. Oh, and Living DNA is not good at recognising it anyway.

msmarjoribanks
07-23-2020, 02:54 PM
Just to clarify, LDNA did fine when it comes to my German ancestry. In their recent update, they gave me 7.8% NW Germanic and on paper, I should be approximately 6.2% German. So in that regard, I have no complaints with them at all. Perhaps, you’re thinking about the 23&me results I mentioned above, in response to Riverman’s question.

Yeah, I thought you were saying LDNA grossly exaggerated your German vs. English. I misread.

msmarjoribanks
07-23-2020, 03:01 PM
In addition to what Riverman said, 23andMe lumping Germany and France together isn't bad also because they give you a more specific listing of whether they think they detect various ancestries within the group (and then the more controversial feature where they try to identify it more specifically).

23abc
07-24-2020, 06:58 AM
I heard good things but the results may be the worst of all time.

https://imgur.com/Hdv0LGL.png

Assuming I actually was Southern Italian, here is how I'd model it with G25:

https://imgur.com/ayiq68t.png

But, Apulia is less WANA shifted than even the Dodecanese and the majority of my admixture from Anatolia doesn't come so far east as Armenia, rather the western half of Anatolia.

Quite a waste of money.