PDA

View Full Version : Living DNA Review & Results



sktibo
02-01-2017, 09:36 PM
In my case, Living DNA was definitely worth the money. That said, there were some problems with it. Before I talk about the good, I'm going to discuss the bad.

Northern Native American ancestry fell under "Mesoamerica"

It appears to be biased towards British ancestry. It left out continental European ancestry as either "unassigned" or it categorized some of what might be Germanic as East Anglia and Southeast England. There should be at least some amount of French and some amount of German in there. Continental Western European ancestry on paper is: 1.5% Dutch, 18.7% German, 0.2 % Spanish, 8.7% French. At around 29% Continental Europe on paper, at least something should show up. Hopefully they'll get the unassigned sorted out in the future.

Maternal Haplogroup didn't give me anything more detailed than 23andme gave me, both just tell me T2b.

On to the good:

My Y-DNA result was very detailed, and at last I have my paternal haplogroup.

It answered some significant questions about my British Isles ancestry. On paper I've got over 62% Isles ancestry. Living DNA confirms this as my majority region with 80.5% (Corrected to 69.3%). For reference to the accuracy of the results, my 4th great-grandparents from the Isles came from:
1x Kilmuir, Easter Ross, 3x Derbyshire, 4x Nottinghamshire, 1x Staffordshire, 4x Stirling (likely originally Perthshire), 5x Perthshire, 1x Edinburgh, 2x Lincolnshire, 2x East Yorkshire, 2x Wiltshire, 2x Gloucestershire, 1x Somerset, 1x Dorset, 2x unknown England and or Wales, 8x unknown Ireland (probably Northern) and one fifth great-grandparent from Orkney. (total is 39.5/64 4th great-grandparents)

I wanted to know how my Great-Grandmother's people spoke Welsh as their first language, when they all lived in SW England. While I have a good chunk from SW England, I also got 3.2% South Wales, when I was expecting Welsh Border. This answers it, they must have been South Welsh somewhere along the lines.

Turns out I'm not Irish, I only got 1.9% SW Scotland and Northern Ireland. This does answer a question about my grandfather's claim that his Irish ancestors came from County Cork. I think after looking at this, that they might have only sailed from County Cork, and were Scotch Irish (originally settlers who lived in Northern Ireland)

Instead of the 4% Eastern European I got on 23andme and AncestryDNA, I got a 3.3% from the Northwest Caucus region (Looks like southern Russia). This is interesting, because this seems to line up with my T2B assignment, and my Polish ancestry is far from certain. I'm willing to believe living DNA on this and I'll start trying to verify it with my paper trail.

Total paper trail numbers for reference: 21.09% Scot, 19.4% English, 18.79% German, 12.5% Welsh, 9.37% Irish, 8.71% French, 6.25% Polish, 2% Native American, 1.56% Dutch, 0.19% Spanish, possibly 0.09% Norwegian. Attached are my other DNA test results for comparison.

For the record, I'm very disappointed that I have little to no Gaelic DNA in me, but I'm happy to finally have answers to these questions, and to know the truth about who I inherited most of my genes from. If you have a large amount of British ancestry and you can't seem to figure some of it out with paper alone, I can't recommend this test enough. I think it's incredible.

Edit: I found this in the East Anglia and South East England description: East Anglia and the Southeast are the regions of the UK most similar to Germanic populations such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.
If you have Southeast England ancestry that you didn’t expect: If you expected Germanic ancestry, then it is likely that it has been mistaken for British ancestry. If you expected British ancestry, but not East Anglian, then it is possible that you possess a slightly higher Anglo-Saxon ancestry proportion than expected and East Anglia is used to represent this.

This certainly applies to me, having Dutch and German ancestry but no Southeast or East Anglian English ancestry. This changes my overall result to 11.2% Germanic, and 69.3% British, which is much closer to my paper trail. It's fantastic that they include this technical note with their results.

ArmandoR1b
02-01-2017, 10:08 PM
Northern Native American ancestry fell under "Mesoamerica"
Probably because of Mayan 1000 Genomes reference population used by LivingDNA and most of the other calculators. They might also consider Pima to be Mesoamerican.


Maternal Haplogroup didn't give me anything more detailed than 23andme gave me, both just tell me T2b.
Have you had an FMS test at FTDNA? What does the James Lick utility give you with the 23andme raw data file?


My Y-DNA result was very detailed, and at last I have my paternal haplogroup.
M153 is also tested by 23andme. In the old experience it shows up as R1b1b2a1a2b. The SNP ID is i3000029 and the mutation is A->T. Are you in the old experience or the new experience?

I see that we had a discussion on your Y-DNA at 23andme at http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8873-Y-Haplogroup-prediction-help but I don't see that we discussed your result for i3000029.

If you want to find a more downstream subclade the next step is BigY or WGS from Yseq.net

The M153 group in the BigTree is at http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=757 and for YFull they are at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M153/

sktibo
02-01-2017, 10:43 PM
Probably because of Mayan 1000 Genomes reference population used by LivingDNA and most of the other calculators. They might also consider Pima to be Mesoamerican.


Have you had an FMS test at FTDNA? What does the James Lick utility give you with the 23andme raw data file?


M153 is also tested by 23andme. In the old experience it shows up as R1b1b2a1a2b. The SNP ID is i3000029 and the mutation is A->T. Are you in the old experience or the new experience?

I see that we had a discussion on your Y-DNA at 23andme at http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8873-Y-Haplogroup-prediction-help but I don't see that we discussed your result for i3000029.

If you want to find a more downstream subclade the next step is BigY or WGS from Yseq.net

The M153 group in the BigTree is at http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=757 and for YFull they are at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M153/

I didn't try the James lick utility for mtdna, I will have to do that later today. Old 23andme experience, it just gave me a general r1b1a2a1a

ArmandoR1b
02-01-2017, 11:16 PM
I didn't try the James lick utility for mtdna, I will have to do that later today. Old 23andme experience, it just gave me a general r1b1a2a1a

I'm wondering if 23andme tested you for M153 after all. Do you know how to check your raw data for i3000029? I never saved the page for that but I did save the old mutation mapper URL and it will take you to the Browse Raw data page. If you go to https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/haplogroup_tree_mut_mapper/ then search R1b1b2a1a2b then where you see i3000029 (M153) click on i3000029 and it should take you to the Browse Raw data page with your result for i3000029 under Your Genotype. Do you have a result and is it A or T?

Edit: I found a page with an explanation on how to get to the Browse Raw Data page in old experience. It is at https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/202907670-Accessing-your-Raw-Data

sktibo
02-02-2017, 12:26 AM
I'm wondering if 23andme tested you for M153 after all. Do you know how to check your raw data for i3000029? I never saved the page for that but I did save the old mutation mapper URL and it will take you to the Browse Raw data page. If you go to https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/haplogroup_tree_mut_mapper/ then search R1b1b2a1a2b then where you see i3000029 (M153) click on i3000029 and it should take you to the Browse Raw data page with your result for i3000029 under Your Genotype. Do you have a result and is it A or T?

Edit: I found a page with an explanation on how to get to the Browse Raw Data page in old experience. It is at https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/202907670-Accessing-your-Raw-Data

It's A. Strange.

I dug up the old thread in which you helped me decipher my 23andme results... P312 was greyed out.. and I think that's upstream from m153?

ArmandoR1b
02-02-2017, 02:12 AM
It's A. Strange.
Yes it is strange that you have A for M153 which is ancestral or negative. You might want to send an email to LivingDNA to have your terminal SNP rechecked. Do they provide any other information about your Y-DNA other than your terminal SNP?


I dug up the old thread in which you helped me decipher my 23andme results... P312 was greyed out.. and I think that's upstream from m153?
P312 isn't tested in v3 or v4 which is why it is greyed out. Yes, P312 is upstream from both M153 and DF27.

sktibo
02-02-2017, 02:51 AM
Yes it is strange that you have A for M153 which is ancestral or negative. You might want to send an email to LivingDNA to have your terminal SNP rechecked. Do they provide any other information about your Y-DNA other than your terminal SNP?


P312 isn't tested in v3 or v4 which is why it is greyed out. Yes, P312 is upstream from both M153 and DF27.

Here are the images of my Y-line to begin with... I get the impression that 23andme V3 Y DNA has it's problems and so if there's a discrepancy I am inclined to go with Living DNA. However, you are the expert on the subject at hand Armando. The only other info I can find are a few sections on history, migration, and coverage. If you think I should send them an email to verify the terminal SNP, then I'll do that.

David Nicholson
02-03-2017, 01:27 PM
Hi Sktibo,

Thanks for the details of your results, just to let you know a few things;

1. We are obtaining a far larger reference database of samples from Europe and starting our own POBI like project in different countries across Europe, our aim is to luanch an update to this later in the year depending on quality of reference samples.

2. We are improving our YDNA caller at the moment, for some groups it works really well others not so well. The team are busy reviewing the quality of each individual YSNP on the chip.

Warmest Regards

David

02-03-2017, 02:09 PM
Here are the images of my Y-line to begin with... I get the impression that 23andme V3 Y DNA has it's problems and so if there's a discrepancy I am inclined to go with Living DNA. However, you are the expert on the subject at hand Armando. The only other info I can find are a few sections on history, migration, and coverage. If you think I should send them an email to verify the terminal SNP, then I'll do that.

Hey Sktibo, Im not expert, but looks like your "M153", seems quite a high resolution, Basque? according to this tree on eupedia
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-subclades

sktibo
02-03-2017, 08:01 PM
Hey Sktibo, Im not expert, but looks like your "M153", seems quite a high resolution, Basque? according to this tree on eupedia
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-subclades

It would line up with my oldest traceable paternal ancestor, for sure. Getting it double checked just to be sure

ArmandoR1b
02-05-2017, 04:42 PM
It would line up with my oldest traceable paternal ancestor, for sure. Getting it double checked just to be sure

If LivingDNA says it is a good result you can always have it checked with Yseq for only $17.50 plus $5 for shipping at https://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=10736

The Basque have a lot more than just M153. 229 Autochthonous Basques were tested for DF27 and various SNPs downstream from DF27 and published at http://www.fsigeneticssup.com/article/S1875-1768(15)30174-8/fulltext#sec0030

There are even some Basques that are U152 or L21 and others that aren't even R1b. See http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v24/n3/extref/ejhg2015114x2.xls and Martinez-Cruz et al. (https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molbev/mss091) The latter used to have a spreadsheet that could be downloaded but the link to it is broken now.

sktibo
02-06-2017, 06:39 PM
If LivingDNA says it is a good result you can always have it checked with Yseq for only $17.50 plus $5 for shipping at https://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=10736

The Basque have a lot more than just M153. 229 Autochthonous Basques were tested for DF27 and various SNPs downstream from DF27 and published at http://www.fsigeneticssup.com/article/S1875-1768(15)30174-8/fulltext#sec0030

There are even some Basques that are U152 or L21 and others that aren't even R1b. See http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v24/n3/extref/ejhg2015114x2.xls and Martinez-Cruz et al. (https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molbev/mss091) The latter used to have a spreadsheet that could be downloaded but the link to it is broken now.

Hi Armando, this is what living DNA said

"i3000029 is a custom ID marker on the 23andme chip. It doesn't represent a standard subcladeID."

They asked for my assigned 23 haplogroup after and then told me that 23 have since reassigned naming ECT... And that theirs is more specific.... Nothing helpful. I don't fully understand their response, but I think it means disregard the ancestral on the terminal SNP from 23? I appreciate your help interpreting it. Thanks

ArmandoR1b
02-06-2017, 08:39 PM
Hi Armando, this is what living DNA said

"i3000029 is a custom ID marker on the 23andme chip. It doesn't represent a standard subcladeID."

They asked for my assigned 23 haplogroup after and then told me that 23 have since reassigned naming ECT... And that theirs is more specific.... Nothing helpful. I don't fully understand their response, but I think it means disregard the ancestral on the terminal SNP from 23? I appreciate your help interpreting it. Thanks

It looks like they don't know that i3000029 represents position 21706360 mutation A>T. That is what shows up in Ybrowse at http://ybrowse.org/gb2/gbrowse/chrY/? for M153 and it is what shows up in 23andme Browse Raw Data so we know that what 23andme has is identical to the standard position and mutation for M153 at Ybrowse. There is still an obvious discrepancy between the LivingDNA result and the 23andme result.

The question might have better worded with "What allele to I have for position 21706360?" or you could just get the Yseq test then if negative at Yseq send another email to LivingDNA.

Even with the name change M153 still exists at 23andme meaning that it definitely was tested and they are using the 2016 shorthand SNP names now. See https://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/updates-to-23andme-paternal-haplogroup-assignments/

I have matches at 23andme with the M153 designation. I compared an old relative finder list and the matches in the new experience. All of the people that now have M153 had R1b1b2a1a2b in the old experience.

The old site used the 2009 ISOGG longhand names. See http://isogg.org/tree/2009/ISOGG_HapgrpR09.html where M153 shows up as R1b1b2a1a2b just like the 23andme mutation mapper at https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/haplogroup_tree_mut_mapper/

sktibo
02-06-2017, 11:16 PM
It looks like they don't know that i3000029 represents position 21706360 mutation A>T. That is what shows up in Ybrowse at http://ybrowse.org/gb2/gbrowse/chrY/? for M153 and it is what shows up in 23andme Browse Raw Data so we know that what 23andme has is identical to the standard position and mutation for M153 at Ybrowse. There is still an obvious discrepancy between the LivingDNA result and the 23andme result.

The question might have better worded with "What allele to I have for position 21706360?" or you could just get the Yseq test then if negative at Yseq send another email to LivingDNA.

Even with the name change M153 still exists at 23andme meaning that it definitely was tested and they are using the 2016 shorthand SNP names now. See https://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/updates-to-23andme-paternal-haplogroup-assignments/

I have matches at 23andme with the M153 designation. I compared an old relative finder list and the matches in the new experience. All of the people that now have M153 had R1b1b2a1a2b in the old experience.

The old site used the 2009 ISOGG longhand names. See http://isogg.org/tree/2009/ISOGG_HapgrpR09.html where M153 shows up as R1b1b2a1a2b just like the 23andme mutation mapper at https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/haplogroup_tree_mut_mapper/

Thank you, so it's likely I'm not M153. At least they got something downstream from DF27 correct. I'll shoot them another email specifying that I am negative for i3000029 (position 21706360), and if they can't check it for me I'll look into it through other means such as Yseq. Thanks once again

ArmandoR1b
02-07-2017, 12:01 AM
Thank you, so it's likely I'm not M153. At least they got something downstream from DF27 correct. I'll shoot them another email specifying that I am negative for i3000029 (position 21706360), and if they can't check it for me I'll look into it through other means such as Yseq. Thanks once again

Don't even mention i3000029 since I think that is what threw them off. Just mention position 21706360 and ask them what the allele is that you have for that position.

sktibo
02-07-2017, 12:23 AM
Don't even mention i3000029 since I think that is what threw them off. Just mention position 21706360 and ask them what the allele is that you have for that position.

Heard back from them already,

"My current analysis shows that you are positive "T" for 21706360:M153 A>T SNP. As stated previously, this is a difficult marker and it might represent a false positive call, though I really believe this to be unlikely. As we develop and refine our analysis method we will be able to assign greater confidence to this call, so i would ask you to bear with us on this. SNP chips are not always the most cooperative digital technologies!"

Calas
02-09-2017, 02:55 PM
I'm just thinking over my results a bit (too much time on my hands, clearly) and I've got a question: The majority of my results ended up in Northumbria and Cumbria, with only a tiny amount of ancestry from those actual regions. However, I have a pretty large chunk of ancestry from central England which wasn't represented at all, and a large amount from central Scotland which was minimally represented in the surrounding regions. It occurred to me that the Northumbrian & Cumbria are right in the middle of these two (mostly) unrepresented regions, and it may be that both of them got combined and represented by this large percentage between them. Is this a possibility with genetic software like this? I don't know anything about the actual technology so I thought I'd throw this idea out there. Thanks for any information on this.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8691-Living-DNA-launched-22-Sept-2016-British-Isles-focus&p=213138&posted=1#post213138 From here.


Thing is, is a number of people moved out of Northumbria & Cumbria with the Industrial Revolution in favor of Liverpool, Birmingham, etc. One can only be a coal miner's daughter for so long I suppose. So I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if some of your central England ancestry is actually northern migrants moving into the larger cities in pursuit of better lives. Do you have any distinctive surnames that can be concretely tied to central England or just sort of "Jones-common" surnames? A Norfolk mentioned it elsewhere, but one problem with tracing ancestry from the other side of the pond is all you have for reference is the internet. It does in a way limit you. So for all you know your "Jones", for example, might not be quite related to all the central-England "Jones".

Regarding your central Scotland where about in central Scotland. Inverness-shire, Perthshire, Peebleshire, etc? I would take it by your commentary of combining populations central southern Scottish more than mid-country central [e.g. Highlands]. But central southern, as like many a southern Scot, would, in a way, be English-migratory in favor again of what would be preceived as better lives. You commented on my results that my NW Scottish is the highest right now and I am not entirely surprised seeing as indeed most of my Highlands ancestry is Inverness-shire and I did say central county. However, there's enough all round Highlands and northernly/Inverness-shire Scot [I did say there's no ancestry above Strathpeffer] to balance out my results and keep me from tipping towards what would be a more southern Scottish/northern English ancestry like yours appears to be.

On the reverse, given my results, there likely isn't any real good northern / Highland Scottish reference for Living DNA. I said in response on my post that my Aberdeenshire should be higher. And my NW Scottish at 10.5% should be swapped with the SW Scottish at 18.9% for me to consider it accurate.

deadly77
02-09-2017, 06:21 PM
In my case, all my ancestors from outside the Northeast moved there during that time period. My Norfolk ancestors for several generations were farmers and agricultural labourers and then moved to the Northeast where they were working in the shipyards. My Irish ancestor also moved to the area via short spells in Barrow-in-Furness and Middlesborough, also shipyard work. Two branches of ancestors from South Yorkshire - coal miner from Dewsbury and engine fitter from Leeds also moved to the Northeast at that time.

sktibo
02-09-2017, 11:13 PM
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8691-Living-DNA-launched-22-Sept-2016-British-Isles-focus&p=213138&posted=1#post213138 From here.


Thing is, is a number of people moved out of Northumbria & Cumbria with the Industrial Revolution in favor of Liverpool, Birmingham, etc. One can only be a coal miner's daughter for so long I suppose. So I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if some of your central England ancestry is actually northern migrants moving into the larger cities in pursuit of better lives. Do you have any distinctive surnames that can be concretely tied to central England or just sort of "Jones-common" surnames? A Norfolk mentioned it elsewhere, but one problem with tracing ancestry from the other side of the pond is all you have for reference is the internet. It does in a way limit you. So for all you know your "Jones", for example, might not be quite related to all the central-England "Jones".

Regarding your central Scotland where about in central Scotland. Inverness-shire, Perthshire, Peebleshire, etc? I would take it by your commentary of combining populations central southern Scottish more than mid-country central [e.g. Highlands]. But central southern, as like many a southern Scot, would, in a way, be English-migratory in favor again of what would be preceived as better lives. You commented on my results that my NW Scottish is the highest right now and I am not entirely surprised seeing as indeed most of my Highlands ancestry is Inverness-shire and I did say central county. However, there's enough all round Highlands and northernly/Inverness-shire Scot [I did say there's no ancestry above Strathpeffer] to balance out my results and keep me from tipping towards what would be a more southern Scottish/northern English ancestry like yours appears to be.

On the reverse, given my results, there likely isn't any real good northern / Highland Scottish reference for Living DNA. I said in response on my post that my Aberdeenshire should be higher. And my NW Scottish at 10.5% should be swapped with the SW Scottish at 18.9% for me to consider it accurate.

Alright, I went to the head-honcho of genealogy in my family (my aunt) and took a look over her more detailed account of my Central English ancestors.... I really should have done this sooner!
A good chunk of them are traced to basically the same area in Derbyshire to the beginning of time (well, 1500), many others Nottinghamshire, same general area, 1600. Some of them migrated to these central areas but it looks like they came from the south of England instead of the North. Only one ancestor so distant I didn't record what that distance was came from the north down from South Yorkshire. It appears these people really didn't move much, and seeing all of this I am now extra confused as to why I didn't score any central England (You'd think at least a percent or two, right?)
The Scottish side of things is simple, thankfully. One of the 4th Perthshire G-Grandparents comes from my mother's side who was born in Perth. The rest, are eight fourth G-Grandparents who lived in Stirling and Perthshire. Four of these eight are descended from people who came from Balquhidder and Lochearnhead, and migrated down towards Stirling one town at a time, (Lochearnhead-> Comrie->Muthill->Braco (also Dunning) -> Stirling. Two of the four 4th GGparents only traced to Stirling have names which indicate their origins were north of Stirling, not south of it (Both originally Gaelic names). The other two appear to have come from Southwest Scotland, but this is accounted for with an expected amount in the DNA result. I've edited the original post here with birth locations of my 4x great grandparents from Britain.

ADW_1981
02-10-2017, 02:13 AM
Skitbo, LivingDNA correctly identified me as Z220 which is just a few steps above M153 on their phylogenetic tree. LivingDNA probably did get your M153 assignment correct.

sktibo
02-10-2017, 02:23 AM
Skitbo, LivingDNA correctly identified me as Z220 which is just a few steps above M153 on their phylogenetic tree. LivingDNA probably did get your M153 assignment correct.

Appreciate the info ADW, and might I say that's a great new profile picture you've got there. By the way, were you expecting the Orkney percentage you got or was it a surprise?

ADW_1981
02-10-2017, 02:32 AM
Appreciate the info ADW, and might I say that's a great new profile picture you've got there. By the way, were you expecting the Orkney percentage you got or was it a surprise?

Surprise. Possibly via my father as he has a few Shetland matches over at 23andMe. It is low enough that it could be noise.

sktibo
02-10-2017, 02:33 AM
Surprise. Possibly via my father as he has a few Shetland matches over at 23andMe. It is low enough that it could be noise.

were your people ever in Manitoba or Sask?

ADW_1981
02-10-2017, 02:41 AM
were your people ever in Manitoba or Sask?

I descend from only 2 waves, some of my great uncles an aunts moved from England to various places such as BC, Canada and Michigan, USA.

mid-1800's immigrants-> Montreal (English and eventually moved to Toronto/York)
early 1900's -> Parry Sound District (south-central Ontario) and Toronto

sktibo
02-10-2017, 02:47 AM
I descend from only 2 waves, some of my great uncles an aunts moved from England to various places such as BC, Canada and Michigan, USA.

mid-1800's immigrants-> Montreal (English and eventually moved to Toronto/York)
early 1900's -> Parry Sound County (central Ontario) and Toronto

Thanks, a lot of us Métis have Orkney connections, if you had prairies ancestors it could be indicative of that. But it sounds like your Orkney could come from just about anywhere or be noise. I think Orkney is one of the larger sample populations from the POBI

Jessie
02-10-2017, 03:17 AM
Thanks, a lot of us Métis have Orkney connections, if you had prairies ancestors it could be indicative of that. But it sounds like your Orkney could come from just about anywhere or be noise. I think Orkney is one of the larger sample populations from the POBI

Orkney is one of the more distinctive areas as well so easier to pick up in dna tests.

ArmandoR1b
02-10-2017, 04:48 PM
Skitbo, LivingDNA correctly identified me as Z220 which is just a few steps above M153 on their phylogenetic tree. LivingDNA probably did get your M153 assignment correct.

If the M153 assignment at LivingDNA is correct it is the first false negative that I have heard of at 23andme for M153. I would still like to see a Yseq result for him to have it verified 100%.

ArmandoR1b
02-10-2017, 04:51 PM
Heard back from them already,

"My current analysis shows that you are positive "T" for 21706360:M153 A>T SNP. As stated previously, this is a difficult marker and it might represent a false positive call, though I really believe this to be unlikely. As we develop and refine our analysis method we will be able to assign greater confidence to this call, so i would ask you to bear with us on this. SNP chips are not always the most cooperative digital technologies!"

They do leave open the possibility of a false positive.

sktibo
02-10-2017, 09:12 PM
They do leave open the possibility of a false positive.

I'll be bearing with them and seeing if any changes are made to my haplogroup. I won't be surprised if they are incorrect, but I'm happy to at least be defined up to DF27

Loderingo
02-12-2017, 11:07 PM
Hi Sktibo,

I have a few questions for you:

Can you link the regional % back to individual bits of DNA on a chromosome browser?
Are you getting any matches (or is the DB too small)?
Overall do you think it is worth doing if you have already tested Y and autosomal elsewhere? FYI - I am almost 100% British Isles ancestry

Thanks

Gareth

sktibo
02-12-2017, 11:32 PM
Hi Sktibo,

I have a few questions for you:

Can you link the regional % back to individual bits of DNA on a chromosome browser?
Are you getting any matches (or is the DB too small)?
Overall do you think it is worth doing if you have already tested Y and autosomal elsewhere? FYI - I am almost 100% British Isles ancestry

Thanks

Gareth

As for Y-DNA it doesn't seem to have any tools, like matches or a chromosome browser. If you're 100% British Isles ancestry, I don't think there's point in doing any other autosomal test... this is the only one that will actually break those regions down and tell you which one you match the most closely.

MacUalraig
02-13-2017, 07:29 AM
As for Y-DNA it doesn't seem to have any tools, like matches or a chromosome browser. If you're 100% British Isles ancestry, I don't think there's point in doing any other autosomal test... this is the only one that will actually break those regions down and tell you which one you match the most closely.

For admixture I presume you mean. For matches you really need to be in the Ancestry database, its been available here for 2 years now so UK numbers are building up nicely.

chelle
02-13-2017, 10:00 AM
For admixture I presume you mean. For matches you really need to be in the Ancestry database, its been available here for 2 years now so UK numbers are building up nicely.

Did you guys see that Ancestry has announced a new upcoming feature that will try and show regions too.
http://www.ancestryinsider.org/2017/02/tim-sullivan-announces-genetic.html

Robert McBride
02-13-2017, 10:40 AM
The beta version is up and running already. See the thread "AncestryDNA - New DNA Origins - Genetic Communities Sneak Preview"

chelle
02-13-2017, 11:46 AM
The beta version is up and running already. See the thread "AncestryDNA - New DNA Origins - Genetic Communities Sneak Preview"

I had seen on here before someone saying the they were one of the lucky few to be beta testing some new feature, but I hadn't realized it was this in depth. Looks pretty good.

sktibo
02-14-2017, 01:41 AM
The beta version is up and running already. See the thread "AncestryDNA - New DNA Origins - Genetic Communities Sneak Preview"

Can you apply for the beta somehow or are participants selected by the company? any way to get in? Thank you

chelle
02-14-2017, 06:17 AM
Can you apply for the beta somehow or are participants selected by the company? any way to get in? Thank you

I have often wondered that too. I bet they just randomly select people though.

Robert McBride
02-14-2017, 11:17 AM
Can you apply for the beta somehow or are participants selected by the company? any way to get in? Thank you

A few days ago I got an email from Ancestry telling me about the beta version and suggesting I check my new Genetic communities results , I hadn't heard of it before then.
I think some people in the U.S have had the beta version since the end of last year.

According to the link on Chelle's post http://www.ancestryinsider.org/2017/02/tim-sullivan-announces-genetic.html everyone else will get it next month.

sktibo
04-11-2017, 12:57 AM
If the M153 assignment at LivingDNA is correct it is the first false negative that I have heard of at 23andme for M153. I would still like to see a Yseq result for him to have it verified 100%.

Hi Armando, no Yseq test but living DNA contacted me with corrected Y DNA results. M153 was incorrect, but I am still downstream of DF27 at Z195. No false calls from 23andme. Your initial df27 prediction was correct and you were also correct in that my Y assignment was false. Thanking you for all your help and input

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-11-2017, 05:07 AM
Having read "Ancestry's" somewhat eccentric interpretation of British History in their adverts, which seems to commence with the Anglo Saxons - according to them "The British" and doesn't include Scotland, Wales or Norther Ireland I don't think I will be ordering a test anytime soon. :) John

A Norfolk L-M20
04-11-2017, 03:40 PM
Having read "Ancestry's" somewhat eccentric interpretation of British History in their adverts, which seems to commence with the Anglo Saxons - according to them "The British" and doesn't include Scotland, Wales or Norther Ireland I don't think I will be ordering a test anytime soon. :) John

Ancestry base their British Isles reference on a data set of 111 samples. Living DNA base their British reference on 2,000 samples.

JMcB
04-11-2017, 05:34 PM
Having read "Ancestry's" somewhat eccentric interpretation of British History in their adverts, which seems to commence with the Anglo Saxons - according to them "The British" and doesn't include Scotland, Wales or Norther Ireland I don't think I will be ordering a test anytime soon. :) John

John, that's so funny! I really got a laugh out of that!

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-11-2017, 05:58 PM
John, that's so funny! I really got a laugh out it!

So did I, but I swore a bit as well. :) John

JMcB
04-11-2017, 07:30 PM
So did I, but I swore a bit as well. :) John

I can imagine! ;-)

ArmandoR1b
04-13-2017, 09:57 PM
Hi Armando, no Yseq test but living DNA contacted me with corrected Y DNA results. M153 was incorrect, but I am still downstream of DF27 at Z195. No false calls from 23andme. Your initial df27 prediction was correct and you were also correct in that my Y assignment was false. Thanking you for all your help and input

I am pleased to read that was worked out and also that 23andme still has, from what I have seen, no false negatives for Y-DNA. They have no-calls at times but that's a completely different situation.

Any interest in getting the DF27 SNP Panel test at Yseq (https://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=10749)?

sktibo
04-14-2017, 12:29 AM
I am pleased to read that was worked out and also that 23andme still has, from what I have seen, no false negatives for Y-DNA. They have no-calls at times but that's a completely different situation.

Any interest in getting the DF27 SNP Panel test at Yseq (https://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=10749)?

Yes I would like to one day but at the moment I've no money to spend. By summer's end I expect to have some cash however

Robert McBride
04-21-2017, 06:35 PM
According to https://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/ Living Dna's Irish update is due in about 8 weeks!
They now have 1200 samples.

sktibo
04-21-2017, 07:57 PM
According to https://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/ Living Dna's Irish update is due in about 8 weeks!
They now have 1200 samples.

Hopefully when that rolls out those of us with incorrect calls will have them corrected, Irish regions or not. Thanks for the update Robert!

ollie444
04-21-2017, 08:14 PM
According to https://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/ Living Dna's Irish update is due in about 8 weeks!
They now have 1200 samples.

Interesting. I contacted them about raw DNA downloads and was told about two months (or 8 weeks)!

Robert McBride
04-22-2017, 11:15 AM
I contacted Living dna 12 days ago about a glaring mistake on their phylogenetic tree below M222 and 2 days later they just added an extra glaring mistake. I emailed them back about it straight away but they still haven't corrected it.
I ve posted screen shots of both the first tree and the "corrected" tree on the Living dna - Y results thread.

Judith
04-22-2017, 06:05 PM
A good chunk of them are traced to basically the same area in Derbyshire to the beginning of time (well, 1500), many others Nottinghamshire, same general area, 1600. Some of them migrated to these central areas but it looks like they came from the south of England instead of the North. Only one ancestor so distant I didn't record what that distance was came from the north down from South Yorkshire. It appears these people really didn't move much, and seeing all of this I am now extra confused as to why I didn't score any central England (You'd think at least a percent or two, right?)
.
I expect that your Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire will show as Yorkshire and here is why I think that.

Of my nth great uncles and cousins from Derbyshire about 90% moved to the South Yorkshire coalfields or the North East. before 1850s ish. Recent enough to show in the censuses but long enough ago for the POBI South Yorkshire and Northumberland samples to be "polluted" by Derbyshire miners arriving. After all the all 4 grandparents criterion only goes back to the 1900 to late 1800s depending on the age of the sampler
This is still speculation until my results arrive due June.

sktibo
04-22-2017, 07:25 PM
I expect that your Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire will show as Yorkshire and here is why I think that.

Of my nth great uncles and cousins from Derbyshire about 90% moved to the South Yorkshire coalfields or the North East. before 1850s ish. Recent enough to show in the censuses but long enough ago for the POBI South Yorkshire and Northumberland samples to be "polluted" by Derbyshire miners arriving. After all the all 4 grandparents criterion only goes back to the 1900 to late 1800s depending on the age of the sampler
This is still speculation until my results arrive due June.

Hopefully I'll receive my revised results in this lifetime and we'll be able to see if it is so. I'll keep your input in mind, I won't be surprised if you are correct

sktibo
05-08-2017, 08:00 PM
UPDATED RESULTS

15723

15724

15725

ollie444
05-09-2017, 10:19 AM
UPDATED RESULTS

15723

15724

15725

What's changed in your autosomal estimate?

EDIT: DOn't worry, just seen post on other thread.

sktibo
05-10-2017, 10:26 PM
15841

LDNA Isles region map with approximate ancestral locations shown as black dots, as far back as I can currently trace them. No towns or even counties for Irish ancestors, so they were not included.

No central English regions or Yorkshire(s) at all, which is quite strange as there is a large collection of black dots smack in the middle of England. I suppose it's possible, although unlikely, that I didn't inherit enough of this DNA from my ancestors, despite it being half of my Grandfather's ethnic composition?

simdadams
05-11-2017, 08:51 AM
Nice idea/approach I will try that with all my known paper bloodlines and compare

sktibo
05-11-2017, 09:39 AM
Nice idea/approach I will try that with all my known paper bloodlines and compare

wish i could take credit but i stole this idea from another forum member... can't remember who unfortunately

ollie444
05-11-2017, 11:12 AM
15841

LDNA Isles region map with approximate ancestral locations shown as black dots, as far back as I can currently trace them. No towns or even counties for Irish ancestors, so they were not included.

No central English regions or Yorkshire(s) at all, which is quite strange as there is a large collection of black dots smack in the middle of England. I suppose it's possible, although unlikely, that I didn't inherit enough of this DNA from my ancestors, despite it being half of my Grandfather's ethnic composition?

Posted this a while back. As you can see it's pretty good apart from around Birmingham area and East Anglia area. I think the test is plugging both of those regions into South/South East England from where I have virtually no ancestors, but have been given high percentages. The Aberdeenshire is only 4.1%, when it should be at least 20%. Overall the map seems to line up pretty well with birth locations. (Lots of the pins in Northumbria are people who moved up to there from East Anglia and the West Midlands, very little actual 'native' Northumbrian)

EDIT: My percentages might help as well:

158511585215853

sktibo
05-11-2017, 06:40 PM
@ollie444

interesting that it seems to have missed your "Central" regions as well, though they're not from the same place as mine. i wonder if in both our cases our people got placed into south central England, although, in mine I have lots if ancestry from there

ollie444
05-11-2017, 07:41 PM
@ollie444

interesting that it seems to have missed your "Central" regions as well, though they're not from the same place as mine. i wonder if in both our cases our people got placed into south central England, although, in mine I have lots if ancestry from there

I think that there was very little sampling from Shropshire in the study. There seemed to be some from Worcestershire though, which leaves me a bit perplexed. Still, early days yet.

sktibo
06-22-2017, 06:58 PM
I wanted to update this review thread post the June update.
Complete mode:
17136
17137
It's good to see how they broke down my mainland European ancestry: all of it except for my small Iberian percentage must be tied to my German and Eastern European ancestors, which combined is 25% of my ancestry. This indicates my French ancestry was categorized as British. Adding up my East Anglia, SE English, Scandinavian, Eastern Europe, Caucus, and ME percentages I get 19.6%, which isn't too far off.
The complete mode regions aren't accurate compared to my known ancestry, but they come close enough so that I can tell what they are representative of.

Cautious mode:
17138
17139

Despite the percentages being off and the categories being quite strange, the cautious mode maps actually begin to line up with my known ancestral locations. North America is highlighted instead of just Mesoamerica, and the Scottish regions highlighted are the ones I actually have ancestors from, unlike in standard mode in which Aberdeenshire and Cumbria are shown (I have no ancestors from Dumfries/Galloway, Cumbria, or any Aberdeenshire region) these are removed in cautious mode and instead SW Scotland and NW Scotland are highlighted. The assigned percentages are strange at best in this mode, but at least the correct regions are highlighted. The English regions show a bit less accuracy as South Central England is no longer highlighted in cautious mode.

I believe it's an improvement overall, and I'm very much hoping that the next update will be splitting up my ever growing Northumbrian percentage, which at the moment is 42.1%, and is higher than some individuals who have actual strong genetic ties to that region.

Amerijoe
06-22-2017, 09:21 PM
Sktibo, you have been following Livingdna more than most, therefore; do you see a correlation between high British ancestry results and apparent supporting paper trail. Ollie is a good example with high British percentage supporting his ancestral matched regions. I'm still researching my maternal line and have verified ancestry from Southwest Scotland, Ireland, Southeast England and Northwest Scotland. I used surnames for the paperless balance to discover point of origin and have discovered two names indicative of Aberdeenshire, also uncovered an ancestor from Ireland named Dinah Jones which is very Welsh in origin. I was unaware of Welsh immigration to Ireland during the 1700's which could account for the Welsh percentage.

Overall with a high British percentage as well, many of my indicated regions show a great deal of affinity for my maternal line. With Dorian being a mystery man, this is about as verified as I can get at the moment.

sktibo
06-22-2017, 09:38 PM
@Amerijoe
I think it often does but clearly living DNA has a larger reference population for the British Isles than for mainland Europe. Using myself as an example, I have over 80% British, but this is definitely too high a percentage for me - I'm around about 62% British isles. There is a Swiss man who gets over 50% British on Living who posted on the Facebook group. So I'm going to say it's not a guarantee that high British percentage on living DNA means high British percentage on a paper trail
Where I see a higher correlation of British percentage and paper trail is on 23andme.

ollie444
06-23-2017, 09:45 AM
Sktibo, you have been following Livingdna more than most, therefore; do you see a correlation between high British ancestry results and apparent supporting paper trail. Ollie is a good example with high British percentage supporting his ancestral matched regions. I'm still researching my maternal line and have verified ancestry from Southwest Scotland, Ireland, Southeast England and Northwest Scotland. I used surnames for the paperless balance to discover point of origin and have discovered two names indicative of Aberdeenshire, also uncovered an ancestor from Ireland named Dinah Jones which is very Welsh in origin. I was unaware of Welsh immigration to Ireland during the 1700's which could account for the Welsh percentage.

Overall with a high British percentage as well, many of my indicated regions show a great deal of affinity for my maternal line. With Dorian being a mystery man, this is about as verified as I can get at the moment.


@Amerijoe
I think it often does but clearly living DNA has a larger reference population for the British Isles than for mainland Europe. Using myself as an example, I have over 80% British, but this is definitely too high a percentage for me - I'm around about 62% British isles. There is a Swiss man who gets over 50% British on Living who posted on the Facebook group. So I'm going to say it's not a guarantee that high British percentage on living DNA means high British percentage on a paper trail
Where I see a higher correlation of British percentage and paper trail is on 23andme.

Maybe LivingDNA is more accurate for me because I'm 100% British?

Amerijoe
06-23-2017, 11:37 AM
Maybe LivingDNA is more accurate for me because I'm 100% British?

That is the point I was trying to make. Livingdna is definitely British centric in it's testing protocol. Most people in the 90% or higher B&I somewhat agree with the results and are able to personally verify them. Of course there are some minor discrepancies within regions that needs further refinement, but overall most in this category give a positive review.

Solothurn
06-23-2017, 02:21 PM
I wonder what population approximation the Swiss man would get if he utilised the Dodecad World9 oracle via Gedmatch Genesis?

9 of 10 came in as 'British' for me:

1 British_Isles @ 1.942738
2 British @ 2.461427
3 Cornwall @ 2.491249
4 Kent @ 2.734152
5 Orkney @ 3.058603
6 CEU30 @ 3.099110
7 Orcadian @ 3.171817
8 Irish @ 3.488526
9 German @ 4.257565
10 Argyll @ 4.275711

Maybe somebody could suggest he tries it :)

MacEochaidh
06-23-2017, 02:32 PM
@ Amerijoe

LivingDNA gives me 79.6% Britain and Ireland, which may be spot on. My ancestry is 75% Belfast (Dad and three grandparents) and 25% French Canadian (one Quebecoise grandmother). My paper trail shows much of my French coming from Brittany and Normandy, which may very well show up in my LDNA 6.5% Cornwall - related ancestry. There is also the possibility of Famine Irish in my Quebec/French ancestry.

sktibo
06-23-2017, 03:28 PM
I wonder what population approximation the Swiss man would get if he utilised the Dodecad World9 oracle via Gedmatch Genesis?

9 of 10 came in as 'British' for me:

1 British_Isles @ 1.942738
2 British @ 2.461427
3 Cornwall @ 2.491249
4 Kent @ 2.734152
5 Orkney @ 3.058603
6 CEU30 @ 3.099110
7 Orcadian @ 3.171817
8 Irish @ 3.488526
9 German @ 4.257565
10 Argyll @ 4.275711

Maybe somebody could suggest he tries it :)

he listed every other autosomal test:
on Geno 2.0 he got 8% British
Ftdna 14% British
23andme 13.2% British.

If you want to suggest that he run a dodecad calc, you could join the Facebook group "living DNA users" and ask him from there. Personally i don't think that's necessary. A major problem with living DNA is that their British samples outweigh their mainland European samples (I am assuming this is the case), and I'm betting that in the distant future, if Germany and France are sampled further, most of us are going to lose a lot of British percentage and our LDNA results will look more like the other autosomal tests.

Amerijoe
06-23-2017, 04:03 PM
he listed every other autosomal test:
on Geno 2.0 he got 8% British
Ftdna 14% British
23andme 13.2% British.

If you want to suggest that he run a dodecad calc, you could join the Facebook group "living DNA users" and ask him from there. Personally i don't think that's necessary. A major problem with living DNA is that their British samples outweigh their mainland European samples (I am assuming this is the case), and I'm betting that in the distant future, if Germany and France are sampled further, most of us are going to lose a lot of British percentage and our LDNA results will look more like the other autosomal tests.

Sktibo, you hit the nail on the head. All of these testing companies lack the necessary samples for a more precise breakdown. Maybe in the future when WGS becomes a normal requirement for health care some hotshot geneticist will put in place the necessary algorithms for whole genome ethnicity comparisons based on populations. That would be the cats ass! ;)

sktibo
06-23-2017, 08:42 PM
Sktibo, you hit the nail on the head. All of these testing companies lack the necessary samples for a more precise breakdown. Maybe in the future when WGS becomes a normal requirement for health care some hotshot geneticist will put in place the necessary algorithms for whole genome ethnicity comparisons based on populations. That would be the cats ass! ;)

Not only that but their samples are unbalanced too, and I think this might be affecting the results. I imagine that if we have 500 British samples and 100 German samples, even if someone is completely German they would get a ton of British simply because there are five times more people it can potentially match them to for that category. In Living DNA's case, it's almost a miracle anybody gets any Irish percentages at all as they have around about 2000 British samples vs 7 Irish, just a massive imbalance.

ollie444
06-24-2017, 09:06 AM
Not only that but their samples are unbalanced too, and I think this might be affecting the results. I imagine that if we have 500 British samples and 100 German samples, even if someone is completely German they would get a ton of British simply because there are five times more people it can potentially match them to for that category. In Living DNA's case, it's almost a miracle anybody gets any Irish percentages at all as they have around about 2000 British samples vs 7 Irish, just a massive imbalance.

If you have enough samples from one place to representative of the population, I don't think it would matter how many samples you have another population.

sktibo
06-24-2017, 03:42 PM
If you have enough samples from one place to representative of the population, I don't think it would matter how many samples you have another population.

that could be the case, Ollie, after all I am not a scientist!

ollie444
06-24-2017, 05:55 PM
that could be the case, Ollie, after all I am not a scientist!

Whatever the case, 7 Irish samples clearly isn't enough!

MacEochaidh
06-24-2017, 06:15 PM
Whatever the case, 7 Irish samples clearly isn't enough!

Here's what I can tell you about the seven Irish samples; none have ancestry from the north of Ireland, which includes all nine Counties of Ulster. I hope they're testing in Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan :)

sktibo
06-24-2017, 06:21 PM
Here's what I can tell you about the seven Irish samples; none have ancestry from the north of Ireland, which includes all nine Counties of Ulster. I hope they're testing in Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan :)

Thanks to your results MacEochaidh, I think we have some evidence that Northern Irish are closer to Living DNA's NW Scotland and Fionnsneachta's results indicate that Irish south of Donegal could be closer to the SW Scotland category. Now, what I would really like to know is if Jessie has native Northern Irish roots somewhere? I think she is around about 1/2 Connacht and 1/2 Southern/Central Irish? can't remember the county. Hopefully she'll chime in.. at over ten percent, I think her NW Scotland percentage was significant.

FionnSneachta
06-24-2017, 07:11 PM
Thanks to your results MacEochaidh, I think we have some evidence that Northern Irish are closer to Living DNA's NW Scotland and Fionnsneachta's results indicate that Irish south of Donegal could be closer to the SW Scotland category. Now, what I would really like to know is if Jessie has native Northern Irish roots somewhere? I think she is around about 1/2 Connacht and 1/2 Southern/Central Irish? can't remember the county. Hopefully she'll chime in.. at over ten percent, I think her NW Scotland percentage was significant.

I think she has ancestry in Roscommon/Sligo and Tipperary but I'm sure she'll clarify and give the percentage herself.

avalon
06-24-2017, 08:22 PM
I would just point out that the 7 Irish samples does only refer to the Republic of Ireland.

POBI and therefore I presume LivingDNA did collect around 40 samples from "Northern Ireland", these are the yellow circles and lime green triangles in POBI and I'm almost certain these samples are in the LivingDNA test.

sktibo
06-24-2017, 08:38 PM
I would just point out that the 7 Irish samples does only refer to the Republic of Ireland.

POBI and therefore I presume LivingDNA did collect around 40 samples from "Northern Ireland", these are the yellow circles and lime green triangles in POBI and I'm almost certain these samples are in the LivingDNA test.

yes they are part of the NW Scotland and SW Scotland and Northern Ireland categories. it's much easier to just write SW Scotland. The fact that the NW category is drawn on the map as being in part of Ireland shows that those green triangles certainly were included, despite the fact that they appear to have taken northern Ireland out of the category name. Every POBI reference individual was used and I think they may have added a few more samples to some regions

Judith
06-24-2017, 10:18 PM
If you have enough samples from one place to representative of the population, I don't think it would matter how many samples you have another population.
I think we all need to consider the modern PCAs in the papers on ancient DNA. England Scotland Ireland and wales are in different corners of a broad scatter (which include French and German overlap too). So with its MUCH larger sample of U.K. DNA livingDNA has a very broad definition of what can be the Isles, and the area of the PCA is large.
However with smaller sample numbers of other nations they have a limited definition of what is acceptable.
Their algorithm is certainly sophisticated and I do not know enough mathematics to begin to understand it, but it can only give balanced results when the sample sizes are similar surely!

Celt_??
06-25-2017, 12:25 AM
I think we all need to consider the modern PCAs in the papers on ancient DNA. England Scotland Ireland and wales are in different corners of a broad scatter (which include French and German overlap too). So with its MUCH larger sample of U.K. DNA livingDNA has a very broad definition of what can be the Isles, and the area of the PCA is large. However with smaller sample numbers of other nations they have a limited definition of what is acceptable.

My immigrant male, English ancestor was in "America" by 1738 in the Piedmont of Virginia. But his descendants (my ancestors) often married German immigrant women so I am about 40% Germanic, or Northwestern Europe in autosomal parlance. Living DNA in the five variations of my results reported to me since January 2017 found 0 % - that is zero percent - of Northwestern Europe in any report! They have reported everything BUT Northwestern Europe - and I do mean everything: Eastern Europe, Iberian, Italian, Scandinavian and Northern Turkey.

sktibo
06-25-2017, 01:26 AM
I think we all need to consider the modern PCAs in the papers on ancient DNA. England Scotland Ireland and wales are in different corners of a broad scatter (which include French and German overlap too). So with its MUCH larger sample of U.K. DNA livingDNA has a very broad definition of what can be the Isles, and the area of the PCA is large.
However with smaller sample numbers of other nations they have a limited definition of what is acceptable.
Their algorithm is certainly sophisticated and I do not know enough mathematics to begin to understand it, but it can only give balanced results when the sample sizes are similar surely!

That was what I was thinking too


My immigrant male, English ancestor was in "America" by 1738 in the Piedmont of Virginia. But his descendants (my ancestors) often married German immigrant women so I am about 40% Germanic, or Northwestern Europe in autosomal parlance. Living DNA in the five variations of my results reported to me since January 2017 found 0 % - that is zero percent - of Northwestern Europe in any report! They have reported everything BUT Northwestern Europe - and I do mean everything: Eastern Europe, Iberian, Italian, Scandinavian and Northern Turkey.

My NW Europe if we count France, Germany, and the Netherlands should be around the 29 percent mark. I only get about 7% Scandinavian on Complete mode, which is quite hilarious as I have the opposite problem on FTDNA in which I get 63% West and Central Europe! You're not alone. It's interesting to see that they categorized your German as Scandinavian too (I'm assuming that's what happened in your case)
If I were living DNA I'd be throwing together some more samples from France, Germany, Ireland, and wherever else they're severely lacking in as a hold over until the release of the major projects. We've got full blooded Irish people scoring 20% in the Irish category... come on Living DNA, it's not hard to find Irish samples. Throw together what you have for the time being!

Judith
06-25-2017, 08:07 AM
Hopefully their extensive plans for German testing will correct that?
Whereas my brother (and I in 23&me) get German at 2-5%

Northman
06-25-2017, 01:46 PM
For those who are considering testing LivingDNA, I am a native Brit with all ancestry native to Britain in the last 300 years. Here's my LivingDNA results and ancestor's birth locations:17179

sktibo
06-25-2017, 03:31 PM
For those who are considering testing LivingDNA, I am a native Brit with all ancestry native to Britain in the last 300 years. Here's my LivingDNA results and ancestor's birth locations:17179

Finally, someone who got more Northumbria than me! although you only beat me by about one percent, it's pretty strange that it looks like you have actual significant ancestry from that region whereas i only have a little bit. Are you actually 43% Northumbrian or did living DNA short you on your Scottish and other regions too? I notice some markers on Ireland and lots in central England on your map. I'm missing 12.5% Central English and 12.5% Irish of some sort, likely Scotch Irish. Missing a bit of Highland/NW Scotland too, though it's a possibility that I didn't inherit any as my Scottish Gaelic speaking lines only account for 4.6 ish % of my ancestry. (however, I have no ancestry from the Aberdeenshire regions and pretty much all of my Scottish percentages fell into that at 11.5%)

I'd like to see a percentage breakdown of your British ancestry, as while your map is helpful it doesn't really show how your British regions line up with living DNA's estimate.
I'm not sure if you've noticed but I've littered the forum with inquiries about how I ended up with such a massive percentage of Northumbria, and it looks like your results shown against your paper trail in percentage form may finally be able to answer this question for me.

Thanks very much, and I'm hoping you'll get back to me on this quickly! Your results and ancestry look to be the key to understanding what happened with my own.

Celt_??
06-25-2017, 05:06 PM
My NW Europe if we count France, Germany, and the Netherlands should be around the 29 percent mark. I only get about 7% Scandinavian on Complete mode, which is quite hilarious as I have the opposite problem on FTDNA in which I get 63% West and Central Europe! You're not alone. It's interesting to see that they categorized your German as Scandinavian too (I'm assuming that's what happened in your case)
If I were living DNA I'd be throwing together some more samples from France, Germany, Ireland, and wherever else they're severely lacking in as a hold over until the release of the major projects. We've got full blooded Irish people scoring 20% in the Irish category... come on Living DNA, it's not hard to find Irish samples. Throw together what you have for the time being!

What is even weirder is the interpretation of my autosomal results by GENO 2.0 NG and later by FTDNA after I transfered my GENO data to them: same chip set and same raw data just markedly different interpretations. { Last summer the testing for GENO was performed by FTDNA }

GENO 2.0 NG: Western and Central Europe - 53%, Great Britain and Ireland - 38%, Asia Minor - 4%, Scandinavia - 2% 17181

FTDNA My Origins: British Isles - 25%, Scandinavia - 38%, Southeast Europe - 26%, Iberia - 11% 17182

In any other test situation, one would say there was a mistake somewhere. Is there any source to ask at FTDNA I wonder?

Northman
06-25-2017, 06:32 PM
Finally, someone who got more Northumbria than me! although you only beat me by about one percent, it's pretty strange that it looks like you have actual significant ancestry from that region whereas i only have a little bit. Are you actually 43% Northumbrian or did living DNA short you on your Scottish and other regions too? I notice some markers on Ireland and lots in central England on your map. I'm missing 12.5% Central English and 12.5% Irish of some sort, likely Scotch Irish. Missing a bit of Highland/NW Scotland too, though it's a possibility that I didn't inherit any as my Scottish Gaelic speaking lines only account for 4.6 ish % of my ancestry. (however, I have no ancestry from the Aberdeenshire regions and pretty much all of my Scottish percentages fell into that at 11.5%)

I'd like to see a percentage breakdown of your British ancestry, as while your map is helpful it doesn't really show how your British regions line up with living DNA's estimate.
I'm not sure if you've noticed but I've littered the forum with inquiries about how I ended up with such a massive percentage of Northumbria, and it looks like your results shown against your paper trail in percentage form may finally be able to answer this question for me.

Thanks very much, and I'm hoping you'll get back to me on this quickly! Your results and ancestry look to be the key to understanding what happened with my own.

I actually live in Northumberland with recent ancestry from Nortumberland, borders and Lothian regions of Scotland. All would come under the ancient Kingdom of Northumbria. Does this help? Here are the locations of my great, great, great grandparents as the image isn't very clear:
12 are from County Durham/Tyne and Wear area
6 from Lothian/south east Scotland
5 from North Yorkshire
1 from NW Scotland
1 from Kent
1 from Cumbria
1 from Northamptonshire
1 from Manchester

17183

sktibo
06-25-2017, 07:07 PM
I actually live in Northumberland with recent ancestry from Nortumberland, borders and Lothian regions of Scotland. All would come under the ancient Kingdom of Northumbria. Does this help? Here are the locations of my great, great, great grandparents as the image isn't very clear:
12 are from County Durham/Tyne and Wear area
6 from Lothian/south east Scotland
5 from North Yorkshire
1 from NW Scotland
1 from Kent
1 from Cumbria
1 from Northamptonshire
1 from Manchester

17183

yes that is perfect, thank you so much. it looks like living DNA did a pretty good job on your results, they have me wondering if I'm adopted! well, if it weren't for the native American indicators on all my tests i might actually think so. I'm actually surprised that your Northumbria score isn't higher looking at your pedigree! I'm guessing many of your Edinburgh ancestors have connections to NW Scotland and NE Scotland?
Currently, my top theory is that my Northumbrian percentage is an average between my other genetic regions not detected by LDNA: France, Central England, Ireland or SW Scotland, and NW Scotland. However, it looks like it did a good job on detecting your results, and another forum member, deadly77, who is ancestrally Northumbrian, also got a good percentage from this region at around 35%.
This makes me wonder if I could be a freak example of extremely disproportionate genetic inheritance, as unlikely as it is perhaps it shouldn't be ruled out.

thank you very much for taking the time to post your ancestral information for me, I greatly appreciate it.
If you want to send me your eurogenes k36 percentages, I'd be happy to run them through nMonte and LucaszM's oracle for you if you haven't done so already.

Northman
06-25-2017, 07:17 PM
yes that is perfect, thank you so much. it looks like living DNA did a pretty good job on your results, they have me wondering if I'm adopted! well, if it weren't for the native American indicators on all my tests i might actually think so. I'm actually surprised that your Northumbria score isn't higher looking at your pedigree! I'm guessing many of your Edinburgh ancestors have connections to NW Scotland and NE Scotland?
Currently, my top theory is that my Northumbrian percentage is an average between my other genetic regions not detected by LDNA: France, Central England, Ireland or SW Scotland, and NW Scotland. However, it looks like it did a good job on detecting your results, and another forum member, deadly77, who is ancestrally Northumbrian, also got a good percentage from this region at around 35%.
This makes me wonder if I could be a freak example of extremely disproportionate genetic inheritance, as unlikely as it is perhaps it shouldn't be ruled out.

thank you very much for taking the time to post your ancestral information for me, I greatly appreciate it.
If you want to send me your eurogenes k36 percentages, I'd be happy to run them through nMonte and LucaszM's oracle for you if you haven't done so already.

Yes, if we go back another generation, most of my Scottish ancestry are from NW Scotland, NE Scotland and Orkney Isles. I also have French ancestry and Norwegian/Swedish ancestry creeping in at 1500's.

Here's my K36 results: 17184

sktibo
06-25-2017, 08:17 PM
Yes, if we go back another generation, most of my Scottish ancestry are from NW Scotland, NE Scotland and Orkney Isles. I also have French ancestry and Norwegian/Swedish ancestry creeping in at 1500's.

Here's my K36 results: 17184

Posting your results here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10347-(Unofficial)-oracle-for-Eurogenes-K36-256-reference-populations&p=251798#post251798 post #1317

deadly77
06-25-2017, 11:46 PM
I actually live in Northumberland with recent ancestry from Nortumberland, borders and Lothian regions of Scotland. All would come under the ancient Kingdom of Northumbria. Does this help? Here are the locations of my great, great, great grandparents as the image isn't very clear:
12 are from County Durham/Tyne and Wear area
6 from Lothian/south east Scotland
5 from North Yorkshire
1 from NW Scotland
1 from Kent
1 from Cumbria
1 from Northamptonshire
1 from Manchester

17183

Hi Northman - thanks for posting your results and paper trail. Good to see a fellow Geordie on here. I'm also originally from the Northeast (Newcastle Upon Tyne as well) with most of my recent family coming from South Tyneside as well as some earlier from further afield in the region that LivingDNA defines as Northumbria. That's my largest region on paper trail and on LivingDNA. LivingDNA originally gave me 26.4% Northumbria when I first got my resulted, but they've now upped that to 35.4% in standard/complete and 48.2% Northumbria-related in cautious.
17202172031720417205

sktibo
06-25-2017, 11:50 PM
@deadly77
Not sure if we noticed this before about your results, forgive me if I've forgotten and am repeating myself
But your Cautious Northumbrian grouping is actually the combination of your SW Scotland, Cumbria, and Northumbria, which would make one hell of a lot more sense than Northumbria, Devon, Ireland, and NW Scotland IMO.. it would be, dare I say, a completely logical grouping.

@Northman
Do you have complete and cautious modes for your Living DNA test? Would you please post them if so?

deadly77
06-26-2017, 12:18 AM
@deadly77
Not sure if we noticed this before about your results, forgive me if I've forgotten and am repeating myself
But your Cautious Northumbrian grouping is actually the combination of your SW Scotland, Cumbria, and Northumbria, which would make one hell of a lot more sense than Northumbria, Devon, Ireland, and NW Scotland IMO.. it would be, dare I say, a completely logical grouping.

@Northman
Do you have complete and cautious modes for your Living DNA test? Would you please post them if so?

Yep, you're right - 35.4+7.5+5.3=48.2% so the numbers match up. If you add those regions together it would make more sense in my opinion. Adding up the percentages from Northumbria and Devon 35.4+4.6=40.0% - I didn't get any NW Scotand or Ireland from LivingDNA - wasn't expecting any of the former, was expecting a small amount of the latter, although that's likely due to the small number of reference samples for Ireland that we've discussed a few times.

Like Northman, I'm getting a little bit of Devon (mine 4.6%, Northman 6.4%) not in paper trail that doesn't look like in his either unless it's further back. The relative ratio of Devon to Northumbria isn't too far off (11.5 vs 12.9% Devon as a percentage from Northumbria+Devon).

sktibo
06-26-2017, 12:38 AM
Yep, you're right - 35.4+7.5+5.3=48.2% so the numbers match up. If you add those regions together it would make more sense in my opinion. Adding up the percentages from Northumbria and Devon 35.4+4.6=40.0% - I didn't get any NW Scotand or Ireland from LivingDNA - wasn't expecting any of the former, was expecting a small amount of the latter, although that's likely due to the small number of reference samples for Ireland that we've discussed a few times.

Like Northman, I'm getting a little bit of Devon (mine 4.6%, Northman 6.4%) not in paper trail that doesn't look like in his either unless it's further back. The relative ratio of Devon to Northumbria isn't too far off (11.5 vs 12.9% Devon as a percentage from Northumbria+Devon).

My Northumbria + Cumbria percentages are also what gets me my cautious mode percentage for Northumbria. I just don't understand why they didn't group on the map the regions that were clearly placed together:

South England Related ancestry, 17.3%:
Claims to be SE English, Devon, South English, and SW Scottish.
Is actually Devon 5.6 + South Central English 4.4 + South England 5.2 + Southeast England 2.1 = 17.3

Orkney Related ancestry, 13.4%:
Claims to be SW Scottish and Orkney Islands.
Is actually Orkney 1.9 + Aberdeenshire 11.5 = 13.4

Northumbria Related ancestry, 44.6%:
Claims to be NW Scotland, Devon, Ireland, and Northumbria.
Is actually Cumbria 2.4 + Northumbria 42.1 = 44.5 [off by 0.1% but is the only possible match]

I've got 5.6% Devon too, but I have one fourth G-Grandparent who was apparently born in Devon on my mother's side and some Ancestry possibly within Devon or on the Border on my father's side. However my percentage of Devon does fall in between yours and Northman's, as my Northumbrian percentage does.

deadly77
06-26-2017, 01:22 AM
My Northumbria + Cumbria percentages are also what gets me my cautious mode percentage for Northumbria. I just don't understand why they didn't group on the map the regions that were clearly placed together:

South England Related ancestry, 17.3%:
Claims to be SE English, Devon, South English, and SW Scottish.
Is actually Devon 5.6 + South Central English 4.4 + South England 5.2 + Southeast England 2.1 = 17.3

Orkney Related ancestry, 13.4%:
Claims to be SW Scottish and Orkney Islands.
Is actually Orkney 1.9 + Aberdeenshire 11.5 = 13.4

Northumbria Related ancestry, 44.6%:
Claims to be NW Scotland, Devon, Ireland, and Northumbria.
Is actually Cumbria 2.4 + Northumbria 42.1 = 44.5 [off by 0.1% but is the only possible match]

I've got 5.6% Devon too, but I have one fourth G-Grandparent who was apparently born in Devon on my mother's side and some Ancestry possibly within Devon or on the Border on my father's side. However my percentage of Devon does fall in between yours and Northman's, as my Northumbrian percentage does.

For my other cautious regions:

NW England related - should include NW England, Cumbria, SW Border and Lincolnshire. My cautious region of 31.2% NW England related seems to be pretty close to a sum of my NW England (15.6%) SW Border (9.6%) Central England (3.9%) South Yorkshire (2.2%) =31.3%

Cornwall related - should include Cornwall and South England, but Cornwall (1.9%) + Devon (4.6%) matches the cautious 6.5% LivingDNA gives me for Cornwall related.

ollie444
06-26-2017, 07:20 PM
If you have enough samples from one place to representative of the population, I don't think it would matter how many samples you have another population.


I think we all need to consider the modern PCAs in the papers on ancient DNA. England Scotland Ireland and wales are in different corners of a broad scatter (which include French and German overlap too). So with its MUCH larger sample of U.K. DNA livingDNA has a very broad definition of what can be the Isles, and the area of the PCA is large.
However with smaller sample numbers of other nations they have a limited definition of what is acceptable.
Their algorithm is certainly sophisticated and I do not know enough mathematics to begin to understand it, but it can only give balanced results when the sample sizes are similar surely!


That was what I was thinking too



My NW Europe if we count France, Germany, and the Netherlands should be around the 29 percent mark. I only get about 7% Scandinavian on Complete mode, which is quite hilarious as I have the opposite problem on FTDNA in which I get 63% West and Central Europe! You're not alone. It's interesting to see that they categorized your German as Scandinavian too (I'm assuming that's what happened in your case)
If I were living DNA I'd be throwing together some more samples from France, Germany, Ireland, and wherever else they're severely lacking in as a hold over until the release of the major projects. We've got full blooded Irish people scoring 20% in the Irish category... come on Living DNA, it's not hard to find Irish samples. Throw together what you have for the time being!

I am too of the view that the more samples from a particular region, the better. However, some people are scoring around 50% Irish with just seven samples, which does suggest that a huge number isn't needed to sway results away from the UK.

avalon
06-26-2017, 07:43 PM
I am too of the view that the more samples from a particular region, the better. However, some people are scoring around 50% Irish with just seven samples, which does suggest that a huge number isn't needed to sway results away from the UK.

There was poster on here a while back called Calas who got banned but she had a friend from Donegal who scored 83% Ireland. So yeh, even with a sample of 7 you can get a high score but you would have to be a very close genetic match to that sample of 7.

I believe the 83% was correctly reported as a screenshot was posted.

ollie444
06-26-2017, 07:47 PM
If you have enough samples from one place to representative of the population, I don't think it would matter how many samples you have another population.


I think we all need to consider the modern PCAs in the papers on ancient DNA. England Scotland Ireland and wales are in different corners of a broad scatter (which include French and German overlap too). So with its MUCH larger sample of U.K. DNA livingDNA has a very broad definition of what can be the Isles, and the area of the PCA is large.
However with smaller sample numbers of other nations they have a limited definition of what is acceptable.
Their algorithm is certainly sophisticated and I do not know enough mathematics to begin to understand it, but it can only give balanced results when the sample sizes are similar surely!


There was poster on here a while back called Calas who got banned but she had a friend from Donegal who scored 83% Ireland. So yeh, even with a sample of 7 you can get a high score but you would have to be a very close genetic match to that sample of 7.

I believe the 83% was correctly reported as a screenshot was posted.

Yes seven is definitely too few. I don't think you need as many, and I'm sure they won't have as many, as they already have in the UK. They will need a decent number to break Ireland down into the regions they are suggesting though.

Northman
06-26-2017, 08:00 PM
@deadly77
Not sure if we noticed this before about your results, forgive me if I've forgotten and am repeating myself
But your Cautious Northumbrian grouping is actually the combination of your SW Scotland, Cumbria, and Northumbria, which would make one hell of a lot more sense than Northumbria, Devon, Ireland, and NW Scotland IMO.. it would be, dare I say, a completely logical grouping.

@Northman
Do you have complete and cautious modes for your Living DNA test? Would you please post them if so?

Here's my Standard and Cautious. The one I posted previously was my Complete:
1721917220

ollie444
06-26-2017, 08:04 PM
Here's my Standard and Cautious. The one I posted previously was my Complete:
1721917220

So few regions, wow.

sktibo
06-27-2017, 01:31 AM
Here's my Standard and Cautious. The one I posted previously was my Complete:
1721917220

was northumbria grouped in both your yorkshire and NW Scotland grouping? is that why it is coloured black on your cautious map?

Jessie
06-27-2017, 01:33 AM
There was poster on here a while back called Calas who got banned but she had a friend from Donegal who scored 83% Ireland. So yeh, even with a sample of 7 you can get a high score but you would have to be a very close genetic match to that sample of 7.

I believe the 83% was correctly reported as a screenshot was posted.

I personally doubt that result. Most Irish tested don't even get half Irish at the moment.

sktibo
06-27-2017, 01:51 AM
There was poster on here a while back called Calas who got banned but she had a friend from Donegal who scored 83% Ireland. So yeh, even with a sample of 7 you can get a high score but you would have to be a very close genetic match to that sample of 7.

I believe the 83% was correctly reported as a screenshot was posted.

That's not correct I'm afraid.
It was not a screenshot. Calas did not post screenshots because the results Calas posted were fabricated. First Calas claimed their "Irish friend" was from Donegal and later they changed their mind and said they were actually Connacht Irish... just like someone does when they're making up a story on the go. Did you notice how Calas posted, i think it was over ten results of "family and friends"? no one has that many DNA testing relatives and friends. These tests aren't cheap. Not a single screenshot in the bunch. The internet attracts all kinds of strange people, and even on Anthrogenica we need to be careful what we believe. Calas has now moved onto another account, and has gone through several since. I won't spoil who it is currently for you, but watch for the similar writing style and patterns in how they post and you will notice it.
I hope you didn't share your Gedmatch number with "Calas".
In case you did I suggest you delete and reupload your kit. I think one of the reasons they were banned was from posting people's gedmatch information without consent.

It is a ridiculously weird hobby for someone to come onto a genetics forum and invent results for themselves and people they claim to know, but crazy people are a reality and this is still not as crazy as some things I'm sure we've all experienced. If you want to know more about this feel free to PM me.

So, you do actually need more than seven samples to produce a decently accurate - or a very high scoring - result. I don't think it's possible with what they have..

Northman
06-27-2017, 11:50 AM
was northumbria grouped in both your yorkshire and NW Scotland grouping? is that why it is coloured black on your cautious map?

It is grouped with my North Yorkshire and my Devon and I think this is why it appears black. It isn't grouped with my NW Scotland.

avalon
06-27-2017, 06:30 PM
That's not correct I'm afraid.
It was not a screenshot. Calas did not post screenshots because the results Calas posted were fabricated. First Calas claimed their "Irish friend" was from Donegal and later they changed their mind and said they were actually Connacht Irish... just like someone does when they're making up a story on the go. Did you notice how Calas posted, i think it was over ten results of "family and friends"? no one has that many DNA testing relatives and friends. These tests aren't cheap. Not a single screenshot in the bunch. The internet attracts all kinds of strange people, and even on Anthrogenica we need to be careful what we believe. Calas has now moved onto another account, and has gone through several since. I won't spoil who it is currently for you, but watch for the similar writing style and patterns in how they post and you will notice it.
I hope you didn't share your Gedmatch number with "Calas".
In case you did I suggest you delete and reupload your kit. I think one of the reasons they were banned was from posting people's gedmatch information without consent.

It is a ridiculously weird hobby for someone to come onto a genetics forum and invent results for themselves and people they claim to know, but crazy people are a reality and this is still not as crazy as some things I'm sure we've all experienced. If you want to know more about this feel free to PM me.

So, you do actually need more than seven samples to produce a decently accurate - or a very high scoring - result. I don't think it's possible with what they have..

Interesting sktibo, I knew calas had been banned but wasn't sure of the reasons. It is true that she posted a lot of results.

However, I have tracked down the post in question and she did indeed post what looks like a LivingDNA screenshot showing 83% Ireland.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9752-Here-s-another-one-for-you-Living-DNA-results-relative

Do you think this screenshot was fabricated?

evon
06-27-2017, 06:40 PM
I have noticed a lot of trolls in relation to Romani ancestry this summer, I think some of them still post here, but many have been banned already Calas and Wolfegang among them... I have stopped sharing my Gedmatch number with people because even longstanding members of this forum are leaky as a rotten ship..

sktibo
06-27-2017, 06:43 PM
Interesting sktibo, I knew calas had been banned but wasn't sure of the reasons. It is true that she posted a lot of results.

However, I have tracked down the post in question and she did indeed post what looks like a LivingDNA screenshot showing 83% Ireland.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9752-Here-s-another-one-for-you-Living-DNA-results-relative

Do you think this screenshot was fabricated?

I apologize, that is indeed a screenshot, however it is strange that it isn't a complete list of results. I do still doubt it was a real result because of the individual that posted it

sktibo
06-27-2017, 06:45 PM
I have noticed a lot of trolls in relation to Romani ancestry this summer, I think some of them still post here, but many have been banned already Calas and Wolfegang among them... I have stopped sharing my Gedmatch number with people because even longstanding members of this forum are leaky as a rotten ship..

Calas and Wolfegang were the same individual

evon
06-27-2017, 06:47 PM
Calas and Wolfegang were the same individual

The person is still on the forum by the way, new name now (two or three to be precise).. At least it seems to be the case..

avalon
06-27-2017, 06:55 PM
I apologize, that is indeed a screenshot, however it is strange that it isn't a complete list of results. I do still doubt it was a real result because of the individual that posted it

It is strange but it I think it would be quite hard to alter a screenshot accurately like that, and would anyone really go to such lengths to do that!?

I think it is genuine and like I said before you don't need a big sample size to get a high score for a region. You just need to be a close match to the 7 samples.

sktibo
06-27-2017, 07:02 PM
It is strange but it I think it would be quite hard to alter a screenshot accurately like that, and would anyone really go to such lengths to do that!?

I think it is genuine and like I said before you don't need a big sample size to get a high score for a region. You just need to be a close match to the 7 samples.

Well if anyone would go to such lengths it would be Calas, who is by my count on their seventh account here, collects gedmatch results from people to use without consent, and regularly invents results for people he claims to know for reasons sane people cannot imagine. I ask myself, "is it possible to alter a screenshot like that?" and I think that answer would be "yes" and therefore, I cannot consider it to be a legitimate result. I'm not saying it isn't for sure, but since there's a chance it might not be real, it is safer to assume that it is not I think.

Is anyone here good with image modification or photoshop? I really don't know much about that sort of thing. If you are such a person could you please chime in and offer your opinion on whether or not this sort of modification would be do-able?
Thank you

sktibo
06-27-2017, 07:04 PM
The person is still on the forum by the way, new name now (two or three to be precise).. At least it seems to be the case..

Yes, I've only spotted one of them, they normally have multiple accounts at the same time. The mods seem to have picked up on this and have banned a few from time to time, but clearly this individual is incredibly persistent, and looks to be hell bent on remaining on this forum.

MacUalraig
06-27-2017, 07:14 PM
Well if anyone would go to such lengths it would be Calas, who is by my count on their seventh account here, collects gedmatch results from people to use without consent, and regularly invents results for people he claims to know for reasons sane people cannot imagine. I ask myself, "is it possible to alter a screenshot like that?" and I think that answer would be "yes" and therefore, I cannot consider it to be a legitimate result. I'm not saying it isn't for sure, but since there's a chance it might not be real, it is safer to assume that it is not I think.

Is anyone here good with image modification or photoshop? I really don't know much about that sort of thing. If you are such a person could you please chime in and offer your opinion on whether or not this sort of modification would be do-able?
Thank you

If you are used to doing it you could knock it up pretty quickly. Note that only the one line is shown plus some of the other claimed percs were under 1% which in the results I'm tracking is a first (unless someone has seen another 0.x% that can be trusted?). Calas made up an entire family tree at one stage which would have taken longer than that.

sktibo
06-27-2017, 07:25 PM
If you are used to doing it you could knock it up pretty quickly. Note that only the one line is shown plus some of the other claimed percs were under 1% which in the results I'm tracking is a first (unless someone has seen another 0.x% that can be trusted?). Calas made up an entire family tree at one stage which would have taken longer than that.

So that would be no problem then as it's only one line, and therefore the result likely wasn't real. Thank you!

Pylsteen
06-27-2017, 07:29 PM
Isn't this off-topic? Let's leave it all to those who notice and to the mods :-)

sktibo
06-27-2017, 07:33 PM
Isn't this off-topic? Let's leave it all to those who notice and to the mods :-)

Ultimately this ties into the question of 'how many samples do we need to produce decent results" So it's actually relevant to the interpretation of results from Living DNA, which is a significant part of what this thread is about

Pylsteen
06-27-2017, 07:42 PM
Ultimately this ties into the question of 'how many samples do we need to produce decent results" So it's actually relevant to the interpretation of results from Living DNA, which is a significant part of what this thread is about

Ok, that's important. I was just of the opinion that a fraud, if proven and exposed, doesn't need further attention.

avalon
06-27-2017, 08:14 PM
Well if anyone would go to such lengths it would be Calas, who is by my count on their seventh account here, collects gedmatch results from people to use without consent, and regularly invents results for people he claims to know for reasons sane people cannot imagine. I ask myself, "is it possible to alter a screenshot like that?" and I think that answer would be "yes" and therefore, I cannot consider it to be a legitimate result. I'm not saying it isn't for sure, but since there's a chance it might not be real, it is safer to assume that it is not I think.

Is anyone here good with image modification or photoshop? I really don't know much about that sort of thing. If you are such a person could you please chime in and offer your opinion on whether or not this sort of modification would be do-able?
Thank you

Well, I'm genuinely flabbergasted. Calas did tend to post stuff that was quite nuts but you have to be truly insane, to go onto an internet forum and fabricate living dna results for imaginary friends and then go to such lengths as to photoshop screenshots.

Its almost comical.

Amerijoe
06-27-2017, 08:26 PM
Well, I'm genuinely flabbergasted. Calas did tend to post stuff that was quite nuts but you have to be truly insane, to go onto an internet forum and fabricate living dna results for imaginary friends and then go to such lengths as to photoshop screenshots.

Its almost comical.

Is she the one who was related to just about every Scottish Laird and lived at an airport? How many more bells and whistles do you have to hear before you smell bullcrap? :lol:

FionnSneachta
06-27-2017, 08:27 PM
Is anyone here good with image modification or photoshop? I really don't know much about that sort of thing. If you are such a person could you please chime in and offer your opinion on whether or not this sort of modification would be do-able?
Thank you

I've attached an image of my altered results. Look now Ireland is my highest result instead of Southwest Scotland. I'm Irish I tell you! So yeah it's possible.

17242

avalon
06-27-2017, 08:34 PM
Ultimately this ties into the question of 'how many samples do we need to produce decent results" So it's actually relevant to the interpretation of results from Living DNA, which is a significant part of what this thread is about

There was another high irish score of over 90% which i did doubt myself at the time, so that might be incorrect too.

And i still think someone could get a high irish score if they were closely related to the seven individuals. A lot depends on how the living dna algorithm works though.

Amerijoe
06-27-2017, 08:37 PM
Post note about Calas, has she given up airports and now living in a flower garden? ;)

FionnSneachta
06-27-2017, 08:39 PM
There was another high irish score of over 90% which i did doubt myself at the time, so that might be incorrect too.

And i still think someone could get a high irish score if they were closely related to the seven individuals. A lot depends on how tbe algorithm works though.

I'd say that you definitely could. You'd just have to be lucky enough to have a similar enough Irish signature to what's already in the database. I'd be impressed if someone got a high score but I wouldn't just dismiss them as liars because most sane people wouldn't do that.

avalon
06-27-2017, 08:52 PM
I'd say that you definitely could. You'd just have to be lucky enough to have a similar enough Irish signature to what's already in the database. I'd be impressed if someone got a high score but I wouldn't just dismiss them as liars because most sane people wouldn't do that.

Yes, that would be my view. Funnily enough, because of the screenshot i believed the one from calas but the 90%+ one I was doubtful about because there was no screenshot. Of course, that one might be accurate, who knows, it just seemed very high and i thought the 83% was at the upper end of what was possible with the 7 samples.

Now, everyone is under suspicion. :)

FionnSneachta
06-27-2017, 08:58 PM
Yes, that would be my view. Funnily enough, because of the screenshot i believed the one from calas but the 90%+ one I was doubtful about because there was no screenshot. Of course, that one might be accurate, who knows.

Now, everyone is under suspicion. :)

Yeah automatically when there's a screenshot you take it for granted that it's right. Did the person with 90%+ post other percentages do you know or remember? Just because I clearly am one of those people with too much time on my hands, I've just given myself 83.2% Ireland. From now on you'll all know to be wary of whatever results that I post :)

17243

avalon
06-27-2017, 09:06 PM
Yeah automatically when there's a screenshot you take it for granted that it's right. Did the person with 90%+ post other percentages do you know or remember? Just because I clearly am one of those people with too much time on my hands, I've just given myself 83.2% Ireland. From now on you'll all know to be wary of whatever results that I post :)

17243

Can't quite remember the details but it was 92% ireland i think plus some european % i believe.

avalon
06-27-2017, 09:21 PM
Is she the one who was related to just about every Scottish Laird and lived at an airport? How many more bells and whistles do you have to hear before you smell bullcrap? :lol:

Yes, sure. She/he was full of it but to actually invent imaginary friends and fabricate their living dna results, by going to the trouble of assigning % to regions and making sure it all adds up to 100%, and doing this for multiple individuals, and she backed it up with paper trails, this is a whole different level of crazy. :biggrin1:

Celt_??
06-27-2017, 09:27 PM
@deadly77
Not sure if we noticed this before.....But your Cautious Northumbrian grouping is actually the combination of your SW Scotland, Cumbria, and Northumbria, which would make one hell of a lot more sense than Northumbria, Devon, Ireland, and NW Scotland IMO.. it would be, dare I say, a completely logical grouping.

@ sktibo

Would you give your professional opinion about my current results? Complete ---- Standard ---- Cautious

17245 17246 17247

For example, why does East Anglia (which was zero on my first LDNA report) go from 3.1% on Complete and Standard to 49.5% on Cautious? Is this my Germanic finally showing up? Thank you!

JonikW
06-27-2017, 09:43 PM
@ sktibo

Would you give your professional opinion about my current results? Complete ---- Standard ---- Cautious

17245 17246 17247

For example, why does East Anglia (which was zero on my first LDNA report) go from 3.1% on Complete and Standard to 49.5% on Cautious? Is this my Germanic finally showing up? Thank you!

I'm no expert but I would assume the Lincolnshire goes straight to East Anglia. The two areas are adjoining, pretty much the same region culturally and both had the same high level of Anglian settlement as far as we can tell from the archaeology.

timberwolf
06-27-2017, 09:58 PM
In cautious mode Lincolnshire is included as part of my East Anglia related ancestry.

In complete mode I get

Lincolnshire 15.3
East Anglia 4.6
Southeast England 3.2

Which adds up to 23.1

In cautious mode

I am given East Anglia related ancestry of 23.1

Pylsteen
06-27-2017, 10:11 PM
I get about 50% East Anglia related ancestry. It must together with NW European relared ancestry reflect my Dutch, so if you expect continental Germanic, East Anglia is likely to reflect this.

timberwolf
06-27-2017, 10:26 PM
Not too sure to be honest.

There was a lot of Dutch and Flemish protestants who settled in East Anglia (particularly Norwich) during the 16th Century, and also Dutch engineers and workers who helped drain the Fens in the 17th century.

This may reflect the similarity of Dutch and East Anglia????

sktibo
06-27-2017, 11:21 PM
Well, I'm genuinely flabbergasted. Calas did tend to post stuff that was quite nuts but you have to be truly insane, to go onto an internet forum and fabricate living dna results for imaginary friends and then go to such lengths as to photoshop screenshots.

Its almost comical.

Yes, it's absolutely insane isn't it? I'll never be able to wrap my head around it but that appears to be the case

sktibo
06-27-2017, 11:23 PM
Yes, sure. She/he was full of it but to actually invent imaginary friends and fabricate their living dna results, by going to the trouble of assigning % to regions and making sure it all adds up to 100%, and doing this for multiple individuals, and she backed it up with paper trails, this is a whole different level of crazy. :biggrin1:

actually on several occasions they failed to make it add up to 100. I noticed this when I was collecting gedmatch numbers from British and Irish people, and Calas was very keen to offer up friends and family

Celt_??
06-27-2017, 11:48 PM
I get about 50% East Anglia related ancestry. It must together with NW European relared ancestry reflect my Dutch, so if you expect continental Germanic, East Anglia is likely to reflect this.

That is especially interesting since we are both Rib - U152.

MacEochaidh
06-28-2017, 12:17 AM
That's not correct I'm afraid.
It was not a screenshot. Calas did not post screenshots because the results Calas posted were fabricated. First Calas claimed their "Irish friend" was from Donegal and later they changed their mind and said they were actually Connacht Irish... just like someone does when they're making up a story on the go. Did you notice how Calas posted, i think it was over ten results of "family and friends"? no one has that many DNA testing relatives and friends. These tests aren't cheap. Not a single screenshot in the bunch. The internet attracts all kinds of strange people, and even on Anthrogenica we need to be careful what we believe. Calas has now moved onto another account, and has gone through several since. I won't spoil who it is currently for you, but watch for the similar writing style and patterns in how they post and you will notice it.
I hope you didn't share your Gedmatch number with "Calas".
In case you did I suggest you delete and reupload your kit. I think one of the reasons they were banned was from posting people's gedmatch information without consent.

It is a ridiculously weird hobby for someone to come onto a genetics forum and invent results for themselves and people they claim to know, but crazy people are a reality and this is still not as crazy as some things I'm sure we've all experienced. If you want to know more about this feel free to PM me.

So, you do actually need more than seven samples to produce a decently accurate - or a very high scoring - result. I don't think it's possible with what they have..

This is very frightening. Is there a way I could find out if I am Calas (or one of Calas' other accounts)? Since I found out about my Dad's adoption I have been having problems with my identity. "Who said that!!" ..... okay...I gotta go...

sktibo
06-28-2017, 12:34 AM
I've attached an image of my altered results. Look now Ireland is my highest result instead of Southwest Scotland. I'm Irish I tell you! So yeah it's possible.

17242

Any chance I can get a 50% Ireland 50% NW Scotland result? that's my dream ethnicity

sktibo
06-28-2017, 12:35 AM
This is very frightening. Is there a way I could find out if I am Calas (or one of Calas' other accounts)? Since I found out about my Dad's adoption I have been having problems with my identity. "Who said that!!" ..... okay...I gotta go...

We're all a little Calas

MacEochaidh
06-28-2017, 12:43 AM
We're all a little Calas

Oh dear.... that can't be good :)

Mike_G
06-28-2017, 12:47 AM
We're all a little Calas

You guys had better hope that he/she's not proficient in voodoo.

MacEochaidh
06-28-2017, 01:06 AM
You guys had better hope that he/she's not proficient in voodoo.

Well, there goes any chance of sleeping tonight!

sktibo
06-28-2017, 02:36 AM
@ sktibo

Would you give your professional opinion about my current results? Complete ---- Standard ---- Cautious

17245 17246 17247

For example, why does East Anglia (which was zero on my first LDNA report) go from 3.1% on Complete and Standard to 49.5% on Cautious? Is this my Germanic finally showing up? Thank you!

So your cautious East Anglia is your Lincolnshire 24.9 + Central England 18 + SE England 3.6 + East Anglia 3.1 = 49.6%. The cautious groupings are often off by 0.1%.
Your cautious Aberdeenshire is your Ireland 1.4 + SW Scotland 2.2 + NW Scotland 5.3 + Aberdeenshire 7.4 = 16.3%. Again this one is off by 0.1.
Your cautious Cornwall is Cornwall 5.5 + Devonshire 4.5 = 10%.
Your cautious S Wales Border is S Wales 2 + S Wales Border 4.2 + NW England 1.8 = 8%. Off by 0.1.

So far, they group regions together that are actually similar, and then claim them to connect to other regions not used in the combination to get that percentage. Currently, I have no idea why they have the groupings on the map that are shown, I asked them about this when the modes were released but still have not heard back. If I were you I would interpret that East Anglian percentage as a cautious grouping for Central and Eastern England, meaning it totals 49.6%, and while it has attempted to assign this percentage between East Anglia, SE England, C England, and Lincolnshire, the percentages may in fact be incorrect, so it is being cautious in grouping these together. Your Germanic has got to be in these regions, on the Facebook "Living DNA Users" group, a Swiss man posted his living DNA results - he got around about 50% British, and pretty much all of it was assigned to Eastern and Central England IIRC. He has no British ancestry, but a bunch of missing Swiss German. I'll have to pop over there and double check this, but if his are, yours could well be too.

Ok... so he got:
– 50.4% Great Britain and Ireland
– 14.3% Tuscany
– 12.7% France
– 2.4% East Balkans
– 16.4% Europe (unassigned)
– 3.8% World (unassigned)...
of which were :
- 17.0% Central England
- 11.2% East Anglia
- 7.1% Southeast England
- 4.5% South Central England
- 2.7% South England
- 2.5% Devon
- 1.7% Cornwall
- 1.5% Aberdeenshire
- 2.3% Great Britain and Ireland (unassigned)

and he is 60% French Swiss and 40% German Swiss. These may be obsolete or pre-updated results, but they get the gist of it I think. Note how he didn't get any Germanic or Scandinavian and instead got a ton of British. With Cornwall of course, because at Living DNA everybody gets some Cornwall.

Pylsteen
06-28-2017, 08:11 AM
Not too sure to be honest.

There was a lot of Dutch and Flemish protestants who settled in East Anglia (particularly Norwich) during the 16th Century, and also Dutch engineers and workers who helped drain the Fens in the 17th century.

This may reflect the similarity of Dutch and East Anglia????


This is partly true, though the similarities are likely go back to the Anglo-Saxon period; Angles and Saxons were related to Frisians and and also settled among them. Generally the Dutch north can be seen as Frisian, the coast as having a strong Frisian substrate, with Franks settling later on; the (north-)east is traditionally seen as Saxon. The south is traditionally seen as Frankish, and may harbour more relations with Belgium (Gallo-Roman).

Pylsteen
06-28-2017, 08:14 AM
That is especially interesting since we are both Rib - U152.

Do you know where your Y-line came from? I think mine is likely to have come from medieval Brabant; a Celtic origin is likely, though since I don't know the subclade, a Roman one is also possible, or it could even be an early offshoot from U152 (Rhine Beaker?). I don't think though that this is inherently related to the East-Anglian-like ancestry,.

JonikW
06-28-2017, 10:07 AM
So your cautious East Anglia is your Lincolnshire 24.9 + Central England 18 + SE England 3.6 + East Anglia 3.1 = 49.6%. The cautious groupings are often off by 0.1%.
Your cautious Aberdeenshire is your Ireland 1.4 + SW Scotland 2.2 + NW Scotland 5.3 + Aberdeenshire 7.4 = 16.3%. Again this one is off by 0.1.
Your cautious Cornwall is Cornwall 5.5 + Devonshire 4.5 = 10%.
Your cautious S Wales Border is S Wales 2 + S Wales Border 4.2 + NW England 1.8 = 8%. Off by 0.1.

So far, they group regions together that are actually similar, and then claim them to connect to other regions not used in the combination to get that percentage. Currently, I have no idea why they have the groupings on the map that are shown, I asked them about this when the modes were released but still have not heard back. If I were you I would interpret that East Anglian percentage as a cautious grouping for Central and Eastern England, meaning it totals 49.6%, and while it has attempted to assign this percentage between East Anglia, SE England, C England, and Lincolnshire, the percentages may in fact be incorrect, so it is being cautious in grouping these together. Your Germanic has got to be in these regions, on the Facebook "Living DNA Users" group, a Swiss man posted his living DNA results - he got around about 50% British, and pretty much all of it was assigned to Eastern and Central England IIRC. He has no British ancestry, but a bunch of missing Swiss German. I'll have to pop over there and double check this, but if his are, yours could well be too.

Ok... so he got:
– 50.4% Great Britain and Ireland
– 14.3% Tuscany
– 12.7% France
– 2.4% East Balkans
– 16.4% Europe (unassigned)
– 3.8% World (unassigned)...
of which were :
- 17.0% Central England
- 11.2% East Anglia
- 7.1% Southeast England
- 4.5% South Central England
- 2.7% South England
- 2.5% Devon
- 1.7% Cornwall
- 1.5% Aberdeenshire
- 2.3% Great Britain and Ireland (unassigned)

and he is 60% French Swiss and 40% German Swiss. These may be obsolete or pre-updated results, but they get the gist of it I think. Note how he didn't get any Germanic or Scandinavian and instead got a ton of British. With Cornwall of course, because at Living DNA everybody gets some Cornwall.

Interesting. In the interest of accuracy it's far from the case now that everyone has Cornwall, as a look back at the post-update forums shows. ;)

FionnSneachta
06-28-2017, 11:37 AM
Any chance I can get a 50% Ireland 50% NW Scotland result? that's my dream ethnicity

Ask and you shall receive. Is this going to be my job now? Just create false desired ethnicities! :biggrin1:

17256

The best way to prove you have real results is to provide the map.

Celt_??
06-28-2017, 11:41 AM
So your cautious East Anglia is your Lincolnshire 24.9 + Central England 18 + SE England 3.6 + East Anglia 3.1 = 49.6%. The cautious groupings are often off by 0.1%.
Your cautious Aberdeenshire is your Ireland 1.4 + SW Scotland 2.2 + NW Scotland 5.3 + Aberdeenshire 7.4 = 16.3%. Again this one is off by 0.1.
Your cautious Cornwall is Cornwall 5.5 + Devonshire 4.5 = 10%.
Your cautious S Wales Border is S Wales 2 + S Wales Border 4.2 + NW England 1.8 = 8%. Off by 0.1.

...If I were you I would interpret that East Anglian percentage as a cautious grouping for Central and Eastern England, meaning it totals 49.6%, and while it has attempted to assign this percentage between East Anglia, SE England, C England, and Lincolnshire, the percentages may in fact be incorrect, so it is being cautious in grouping these together. Your Germanic has got to be in these regions...

Very thoughtful analysis, skitbo! Thank you. Your reasoning makes sense to me: if one starts with their Cautious (conservative) analysis, my ~ 40% Germanic was "initially" assigned to their East Anglia-related ancestry and then subdivided into their best guess of Lincolnshire 24.9%, Central England 18%, SE England 3.6% and East Anglia 3.1% according to POBI research and LDNA's proprietary algorithms. That your Swissman's results and Pylsteen's mostly Dutch results were similar bolsters your analysis.

Celt_??
06-28-2017, 12:29 PM
Do you know where your Y-line came from? I think mine is likely to have come from medieval Brabant; a Celtic origin is likely, though since I don't know the subclade, a Roman one is also possible, or it could even be an early offshoot from U152 (Rhine Beaker?). I don't think though that this is inherently related to the East-Anglian-like ancestry,.

My mother's maiden name was Miller, a descendant of David Miller (Mueller) an 1820 immigrant from Homburg, Germany. My father's mother was a Fisher, the descendant of the 1762 immigrant William Fisher from "Germany".

sktibo
06-28-2017, 03:56 PM
Ask and you shall receive. Is this going to be my job now? Just create false desired ethnicities! :biggrin1:

17256

The best way to prove you have real results is to provide the map.

I knew I was really Irish all along! :D
excellent point about the maps

sktibo
06-28-2017, 03:57 PM
Very thoughtful analysis, skitbo! Thank you. Your reasoning makes sense to me: if one starts with their Cautious (conservative) analysis, my ~ 40% Germanic was "initially" assigned to their East Anglia-related ancestry and then subdivided into their best guess of Lincolnshire 24.9%, Central England 18%, SE England 3.6% and East Anglia 3.1% according to POBI research and LDNA's proprietary algorithms. That your Swissman's results and Pylsteen's mostly Dutch results were similar bolsters your analysis.

Happy to help!

avalon
06-28-2017, 07:55 PM
Interesting. In the interest of accuracy it's far from the case now that everyone has Cornwall, as a look back at the post-update forums shows. ;)

That's interesting. So have you noticed in complete mode that people have now lost the Cornwall % they previously had in standard?

On the general point about complete/cautious, does anyone actually know what LivingDNA have done differently to update the results? I can see that cautious is grouping of similar regions, but have they increased their reference population and then run the test again to get complete, or is there something else going on?

It looks to me as though some people got very small changes in complete but others quite big changes.

sktibo
06-28-2017, 08:25 PM
Interesting. In the interest of accuracy it's far from the case now that everyone has Cornwall, as a look back at the post-update forums shows. ;)

Are you sure?

JonikW
06-28-2017, 08:33 PM
Are you sure?
Yes, definitely been postings with none whatsoever, not even Cornwall-related. I've particularly noticed because I expected Cornwall and got it.

sktibo
06-28-2017, 08:48 PM
Yes, definitely been postings with none whatsoever, not even Cornwall-related. I've particularly noticed because I expected Cornwall and got it.

Almost everybody still has a Cornwall percentage on complete mode, I went through the updated results thread and stopped halfway through because only two people did not have it...

JonikW
06-28-2017, 09:19 PM
Almost everybody still has a Cornwall percentage on complete mode, I went through the updated results thread and stopped halfway through because only two people did not have it...

I just counted five on pages five, six and seven on the update thread, when people started reposting. Won't look any further. Just observing that it's false to say everyone has Cornwall on LivingDNA. I know how much you value accuracy so thought I would point it out.

sktibo
06-28-2017, 09:39 PM
I just counted five on pages five, six and seven on the update thread, when people started reposting. Won't look any further. Just observing that it's false to say everyone has Cornwall on LivingDNA. I know how much you value accuracy so thought I would point it out.

Oh! You thought I meant literally everyone! I see now. Yes, some people don't have a Cornwall percentage even on complete. When I said "Everyone gets some Cornwall!" I was trying to be funny, and I was using hyperbole for comic effect. I think it is hilarious how many of us are assigned Cornwall, it seems those without it are in the minority.

JonikW
06-28-2017, 09:44 PM
Oh! You thought I meant literally everyone! I see now. Yes, some people don't have a Cornwall percentage even on complete. When I said "Everyone gets some Cornwall!" I was trying to be funny, and I was using hyperbole for comic effect. I think it is hilarious how many of us are assigned Cornwall, it seems those without it are in the minority.

Apologies for my lack of humour! I'm a big fan of your observations on these forums and look forward to more good stuff from you.:)

sktibo
06-28-2017, 09:45 PM
Apologies for my lack of humour! I'm a big fan of your observations on these forums and look forward to more good stuff from you.:)

All good my friend. Thanks! That's kind of you to say. I spend half my life on the Living DNA forum... right now I'm refreshing the page as I avoid working...
A lot of the time my observations end up being incorrect, but I think I called it in your case - your test needed to be re-done! BTW did you verify if that German ancestor of yours was real?

JonikW
06-28-2017, 09:51 PM
All good my friend. Thanks! That's kind of you to say. I spend half my life on the Living DNA forum... right now I'm refreshing the page as I avoid working...
A lot of the time my observations end up being incorrect, but I think I called it in your case - your test needed to be re-done! BTW did you verify if that German ancestor of yours was real?

Well, I did find that Bavarian ancestor from the 18th century. I'd be happy if he was still in my DNA, although it doesn't look like it now. Perhaps when LivingDNA does their German update?:) Seriously though, keep up the good work. It's by asking the kind of questions that you do that we all advance and learn something.

sktibo
06-28-2017, 09:58 PM
Very thoughtful analysis, skitbo! Thank you. Your reasoning makes sense to me: if one starts with their Cautious (conservative) analysis, my ~ 40% Germanic was "initially" assigned to their East Anglia-related ancestry and then subdivided into their best guess of Lincolnshire 24.9%, Central England 18%, SE England 3.6% and East Anglia 3.1% according to POBI research and LDNA's proprietary algorithms. That your Swissman's results and Pylsteen's mostly Dutch results were similar bolsters your analysis.

Hey Celt_?? I actually just got my Geno 2.0 Results in today and IIRC they're very similar to yours. Can you pop over to the Geno 2.0 section when you get a chance so we can discuss that? I made a new thread about my results there.. I'm guessing our percentages of British Isles and Mainland European ancestry might be similar so if we figure that out we might get a better idea of which of our British percentages are actually attributed to Continental Europe.

Celt_??
06-29-2017, 12:28 AM
HI, Sktibo - What is the internet link? I haven't been at their blog or whatever before. BTW, my test was performed by FTDNA last Summer and I read they are using a different chip and another analytic company now. So our results may not compare. Tell me what time to meet you at the link?

These are my results: 17280 17281 17282

Thanks and Best,,,William

sktibo
06-29-2017, 04:14 AM
HI, Sktibo - What is the internet link? I haven't been at their blog or whatever before. BTW, my test was performed by FTDNA last Summer and I read they are using a different chip and another analytic company now. So our results may not compare. Tell me what time to meet you at the link?

These are my results: 17280 17281 17282

Thanks and Best,,,William

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11123-Geno-2-0-Results

jonathanmcg1990
06-29-2017, 02:41 PM
Hey Celt_?? I actually just got my Geno 2.0 Results in today and IIRC they're very similar to yours. Can you pop over to the Geno 2.0 section when you get a chance so we can discuss that? I made a new thread about my results there.. I'm guessing our percentages of British Isles and Mainland European ancestry might be similar so if we figure that out we might get a better idea of which of our British percentages are actually attributed to Continental Europe.

Sktibo out all the companies I have tested with I was most disappointed and they seem to get their results out of thin air

sktibo
06-29-2017, 03:02 PM
Sktibo out all the companies I have tested with I was most disappointed and they seem to get their results out of thin air

Yeah, my results actually add up to 96 % which is quite funny. would you please post them over in the geno 2.0 section I'd like to see them

Celt_??
07-01-2017, 02:18 AM
Rozenfeld Post in Abstracts from SMBE 2017 : A genetic compendium of Ireland: documenting continuity and change across Irish prehistory

Lara Cassidy1,* 1Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Abstract: Throughout the 10,000 year human occupation of Ireland, the island has witnessed several profound cultural shifts. The first four ancient Irish genomes published demonstrate that two pivotal transitions, that to agriculture and later to metallurgy, were both catalyzed by extensive population migration to the island. Moreover, both Y-chromosome and haplotype-based analyses suggest continuity between Irish Bronze Age genomes and modern Celtic-speaking populations. Adding to these conclusions, data is presented here from over 50 ancient Irish genomes (>1X) spanning from the Mesolithic to Late Iron Age (4500 BC –500 AD). Through a combination of pseudo-diploid analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, D-and F-statistics) and haplotype-sharing methods, applicable through the use of genotype imputation, this dataset both confirms our published results and offers a more detailed view of the genetic processes surrounding these transitions. We explore the impact of hunter-gatherer introgression on early farming populations; the possibility of geographical and temporal structure in the Neolithic period; the complex nature by which metallurgy was introduced to the island in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age; and signals of continuity between the Early Bronze and Late Iron Age periods.

Might be of interest to Irish folk testing with LDNA: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11140-Abstracts-from-SMBE-2017

Pylsteen
07-03-2017, 11:46 AM
I would like to say that I find their customer service really helpful and polite; I don't know if that is because of the difference between British customs and me being used to Dutch directness, but it does give me a positive feeling about them.

ollie444
07-03-2017, 12:55 PM
I would like to say that I find their customer service really helpful and polite; I don't know if that is because of the difference between British customs and me being used to Dutch directness, but it does give me a positive feeling about them.

Surely directness is good? I can't stand it when people beat around the bush!

Pylsteen
07-03-2017, 01:41 PM
Surely directness is good? I can't stand it when people beat around the bush!

Yes, I agree, I just appreciate that they answered quickly, and even updated me about a query I made without me first asking how far they are with it.

Kathlingram
07-05-2017, 12:18 PM
Surely directness is good? I can't stand it when people beat around the bush!

Yes I think customer service at Living_DNA is good..HOWEVER ( notice in caps) I am still concerned that my results originally were incorrect and then corrected with a somewhat glib "corrupted pipeline" explanation.. Still wondering why after 8+ years of testing at various companies, mostly as a Beta tester am I 100% British Isles? What is it that I misunderstood about the other populations and countries tested.? are they ALL still not inputted?
I must message them again..polite is one thing but...

Kathlingram
07-05-2017, 01:10 PM
Yes I think customer service at Living_DNA is good..HOWEVER ( notice in caps) I am still concerned that my results originally were incorrect and then corrected with a somewhat glib "corrupted pipeline" explanation.. Still wondering why after 8+ years of testing at various companies, mostly as a Beta tester am I 100% British Isles? What is it that I misunderstood about the other populations and countries tested.? are they ALL still not inputted?
I must message them again..polite is one thing but...

I did send a query to Help at Living_DNA about this.. 10 days in I need more than "pipeline corrupted".. I understand this stuff after 11 years testing at most places..

Kathlingram
07-05-2017, 04:01 PM
I did send a query to Help at Living_DNA about this.. 10 days in I need more than "pipeline corrupted".. I understand this stuff after 11 years testing at most places..

So I did hear back.. Good for them.."We are only able to establish the percentage similarity of your DNA to the population samples available in our reference dataset. Currently, in the family ancestry part of our testing package, we can compare with and report on your ancestry up to 80 worldwide regions.

Unfortunately, even our fine-scale algorithm cannot distinguish between some very genetically similar countries. In these cases, we group them into genetically-distinct clusters that often reflect natural geographical boundaries. In order to clearly distinguish results into more specific regions/countries, sample data fulfilling very specific criteria will have to be collected and included in our reference datasets. This is a process that takes years.

Many populations are themselves formed from the mixture of other populations. Our algorithm will attempt to match you directly to a population/region, where we have it in our reference database. If:
we do not have your region of interest and/or,
we have a low sample size for that region, or,
if there is further population structure within that population/region,
then in the interim, we are likely to assign some ancestry to the regions we do have that contribute to your region of interest."


as well as "In accordance from feedback from the community, our raw data files are currently undergoing an overhaul, so autosomal downloads may be unavailable during this time. We expect that they'll be back within the month.

Unfortunately, we do not currently have the resources to maintain an in-house forum. Our director and support team administrators are monitoring our social media accounts closely.

Thank you for bearing with us."

mimi
07-07-2017, 04:56 PM
As a Brit I am happy with my results. 98.6% Europe of which 96.7 is GB & Ireland. My recent paper trail dovetails well with their south Central 33.3% and Southeast 25.3% and they even picked up my GGgrandmother who hailed from Scotland. My only "odd" percentage is 1.4 from North Turkey but it is nice to have a little mystery. Overall a very satisfied customer.