PDA

View Full Version : Geno 2.0 vs 23andme/ancestry results



Missouri1455
12-05-2016, 02:28 PM
I have already done geno 2.0; but i have been thinking to do either 23andme or ancestry dna; but was wondering if one witnessed big difference between the results?

Would my results differ big time between what i got on geno 2.0 and 23andme/ancestry dna? Can anyone post their results from both companies?

estevard
12-06-2016, 04:59 AM
I have done the earlier version of Geno 2.0 and the earlier AncestryDNA chip. How you compare the two really depends on what your objectives are. What do you want to find out?

The Geno test was interesting from an anthropological perspective, tracing ancestral migration paths. It looked at three levels: hominin ancestry (<60,000 years ago); deep ancestry (1000 - 100,000 years ago) and regional ancestry (5000 - 10,000 years ago).

My Geno 2.0 results were:

Hominin
Neanderthal: 2.6%
Denisovan: 2.9%

Deep
Mitochondrial: U4b3
Y: R1b-L513

Regional
Northern European: 46%
Mediterranean: 35%
Southwest Asian: 18%
Modern reference population: British (UK)

Comment: The Denisovan estimate is curious given that I am 100% European and only people whose ancestors moved through Asia into Oceania and Australasia around 50K years ago tend to have Denisovan. The reference estimate is good, however, as I am three-quarters British.

Unlike Geno 2.0. AncestryDNA looks only at autosomal DNA (and not mitochondrial or Y). For someone of mixed European ancestry (over thousands of years) the ethnicity estimate is not all that informative. For each of their reference populations they give a potential range (in parentheses below) and an estimate.

My AncestryDNA results were:

Europe West: (13-72%) 43%
Ireland: (4-33%) 18%
Scandinavia: (0-37%) 17%
Europe East: (1-25%) 13%
Finland/Northwest Russia: (0-11%) 5%
Great Britain: (0-12%) 4%

Comment: I have pretty reliable paper records back to my great-grandparents so the ethnicity estimates don't add much to what I already know (or think I know;)) but they don't contradict what I already know (or think I know;)), either. For me the most useful part of the AncestryDNA test is genealogical, not anthropological, that is the cousin matching.

So my advice FWIW is if your interest is in ethnicity then AncestryDNA might not be as good as alternatives but if your interest is in genealogy then I would recommend it.

Missouri1455
12-06-2016, 05:18 PM
I have done the earlier version of Geno 2.0 and the earlier AncestryDNA chip. How you compare the two really depends on what your objectives are. What do you want to find out?

The Geno test was interesting from an anthropological perspective, tracing ancestral migration paths. It looked at three levels: hominin ancestry (<60,000 years ago); deep ancestry (1000 - 100,000 years ago) and regional ancestry (5000 - 10,000 years ago).

My Geno 2.0 results were:

Hominin
Neanderthal: 2.6%
Denisovan: 2.9%

Deep
Mitochondrial: U4b3
Y: R1b-L513

Regional
Northern European: 46%
Mediterranean: 35%
Southwest Asian: 18%
Modern reference population: British (UK)

Comment: The Denisovan estimate is curious given that I am 100% European and only people whose ancestors moved through Asia into Oceania and Australasia around 50K years ago tend to have Denisovan. The reference estimate is good, however, as I am three-quarters British.

Unlike Geno 2.0. AncestryDNA looks only at autosomal DNA (and not mitochondrial or Y). For someone of mixed European ancestry (over thousands of years) the ethnicity estimate is not all that informative. For each of their reference populations they give a potential range (in parentheses below) and an estimate.

My AncestryDNA results were:

Europe West: (13-72%) 43%
Ireland: (4-33%) 18%
Scandinavia: (0-37%) 17%
Europe East: (1-25%) 13%
Finland/Northwest Russia: (0-11%) 5%
Great Britain: (0-12%) 4%

Comment: I have pretty reliable paper records back to my great-grandparents so the ethnicity estimates don't add much to what I already know (or think I know;)) but they don't contradict what I already know (or think I know;)), either. For me the most useful part of the AncestryDNA test is genealogical, not anthropological, that is the cousin matching.

So my advice FWIW is if your interest is in ethnicity then AncestryDNA might not be as good as alternatives but if your interest is in genealogy then I would recommend it.

Interesting, so up to now i scored 55% arabian on geno 2.0; so i wonder what it will go up to on 23andme; and oddly the closest population they referred to me were the iranians and lebanese so maybe i might score something similar to that region on 23andme.

Missouri1455
12-06-2016, 05:19 PM
I have done the earlier version of Geno 2.0 and the earlier AncestryDNA chip. How you compare the two really depends on what your objectives are. What do you want to find out?

The Geno test was interesting from an anthropological perspective, tracing ancestral migration paths. It looked at three levels: hominin ancestry (<60,000 years ago); deep ancestry (1000 - 100,000 years ago) and regional ancestry (5000 - 10,000 years ago).

My Geno 2.0 results were:

Hominin
Neanderthal: 2.6%
Denisovan: 2.9%

Deep
Mitochondrial: U4b3
Y: R1b-L513

Regional
Northern European: 46%
Mediterranean: 35%
Southwest Asian: 18%
Modern reference population: British (UK)

Comment: The Denisovan estimate is curious given that I am 100% European and only people whose ancestors moved through Asia into Oceania and Australasia around 50K years ago tend to have Denisovan. The reference estimate is good, however, as I am three-quarters British.

Unlike Geno 2.0. AncestryDNA looks only at autosomal DNA (and not mitochondrial or Y). For someone of mixed European ancestry (over thousands of years) the ethnicity estimate is not all that informative. For each of their reference populations they give a potential range (in parentheses below) and an estimate.

My AncestryDNA results were:

Europe West: (13-72%) 43%
Ireland: (4-33%) 18%
Scandinavia: (0-37%) 17%
Europe East: (1-25%) 13%
Finland/Northwest Russia: (0-11%) 5%
Great Britain: (0-12%) 4%

Comment: I have pretty reliable paper records back to my great-grandparents so the ethnicity estimates don't add much to what I already know (or think I know;)) but they don't contradict what I already know (or think I know;)), either. For me the most useful part of the AncestryDNA test is genealogical, not anthropological, that is the cousin matching.

So my advice FWIW is if your interest is in ethnicity then AncestryDNA might not be as good as alternatives but if your interest is in genealogy then I would recommend it.

Interesting, so up to now i scored 55% arabian on geno 2.0; so i wonder what it will go up to on 23andme; and oddly the closest population they referred to me were the iranians and lebanese so maybe i might score something similar to that region on 23andme.

aistea
01-11-2017, 05:12 PM
I did Geno 2.0 NewGen, 23andme v4, Ancestry v2 and Genes for Good.

If I had to do it all over again I'd only do Ancestry v2 and probably Geno 2.0 NewGen

sktibo
02-07-2017, 03:14 AM
I haven't done Geno 2.0 but I'd recommend either 23 or Ancestry. I feel that 23's ethnicity estimate is a little bit better, but I would go with Ancestry if you're into building a family tree and paying a subscription fee at least some of the time. Both companies more or less gave me the same information: on my minor ethnicities, they more or less agreed on the amounts, on my major ethnicity, it varied between the two... 23 assigning me 52.3% and Ancestry giving me 73%.. However, they both agreed that one ethnic group is dominant to a large degree. If you're interested in the Irish population reference then go with Ancestry as 23 doesn't split British from Irish.
I don't think you can go wrong with either... pick the cheaper option?

vettor
02-07-2017, 05:04 AM
Don't waste your money on any 23andme from V4 version to today

Shaikorth
02-07-2017, 10:56 PM
Median AncestryDNA results for various academic samples:

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170207/ncomms14238/extref/ncomms14238-s4.xlsx

Examples (medians don't add to 100%, West European in Orcadians can vary from 0% to 38% but a median isn't shown for it):
British: Great Britain 36% Irish 26% Europe West 12% Scandinavia 6% etc

Orcadian: Irish 43% Scandinavia 21% Great Britain 3%