Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New EURO DNA 2.0

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New EURO DNA 2.0

    Has anyone else checked out the new EURO DNA 2.0 product from DNA Print? It looks interesting but I am not sure if it will be worth it. It is pretty expensive.

  • #2
    Just going to have a look now...but why couldn't they perfect the difference between East Asian and Native American?!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by burto
      Just going to have a look now...but why couldn't they perfect the difference between East Asian and Native American?!

      I am not sure about that. This test focuses on European sub-ancestry not Native American or Asian ancestry.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by J Man
        Has anyone else checked out the new EURO DNA 2.0 product from DNA Print? It looks interesting but I am not sure if it will be worth it. It is pretty expensive.
        It is impressive (1300+ SNP's) as are the studies on which it was based (10,000+ SNP's). I am not eligible to take it but wish I could. Wonder how long we'll have to wait for an upgrade of the AbDNA 2.5?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tomcat
          It is impressive (1300+ SNP's) as are the studies on which it was based (10,000+ SNP's). I am not eligible to take it but wish I could. Wonder how long we'll have to wait for an upgrade of the AbDNA 2.5?

          Not sure about that. It would be nice if they updated the 2.5 test soon also. I would like to see if my 4% East Asian or 3% African actually mean anything or are just noise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Maybe...

            I am thinking about doing the Euro 2.0 test. Yes I would rather have the 3.0 updated. Maybe I will ask them when it will be done. I had seen it on the website but not any date as to when it would be done.
            Maria

            Comment


            • #7
              New Amerindian test 1.0

              By the way I also saw that AncestrybyDNA was working on a new Amerindian 1.0, no release date though. Can't wait.
              Maria

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Maria_W
                By the way I also saw that AncestrybyDNA was working on a new Amerindian 1.0, no release date though. Can't wait.
                Maria
                Wow where does it say that so I can read it and see it for my own eyes?!
                That would be fantastic! In the mean time, I wonder if the Euro 2.0 would help those of us with East Asian scores determine whether they are from German/East European/Russian ancestors and not Native Americans?
                I read in their manual that Western Europeans rarely get an EA match and if they do it's below 2% so this 11% EA Mum got can't be from her English side....so it must be from her US side, but what where from exactly?!

                Comment


                • #9
                  With the arrival of Euro 2.0 DNAP has loosened the qualifications for taking the Euro 1.0. Whereas they previously restricted Euro 1.0 to those with less than 15% NA, SsA, or EA on AbDNA 2.5, they now allow that anyone with a 50% IE AbDNA score can take Euro 1.0. They even allow, with caveats, that anyone can take the Euro 2.0.

                  As all retail customers of DNAP products are paying volunteers, one wonders why DNAP doesn't set-up a formal testing protocol for those who have high non-IE AbDNA results? Offer Euro 1.0 or 2.0 at a discount to those with high non-IE scores and analyze the results to determine the utility of the 300+ or 1300+ European AIM's among non-Europeans. That might produce datasets for an updated AbDNA or an Asian 1.0 or an African 1.0 or an Amerindian 1.0.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'd love to know if it could help me understand whether my Grandpa's heritage was German/Russian/Native American etc.
                    It's quite pricey...not sure whether it's worth the risk? Would love any suggestions-want to try and narrow down where this East Asian reading could have come from. Mum's scores are on my signature.
                    Disappointed to hear there will be no 3.0 or Native American test.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It looks to me now that the new EURO-DNA 2.0 ancestries correspond to ancient populations that have been in different parts of Europe for a long time. I could be wrong but here is what I think the ancestries may actually really be.

                      SEE=Ancient Mediterranean possibly Neolithic ancestry
                      CE=Ancient Indo-European ancestry from peoples like the Celts, Germans and Slavs
                      IB=Ancient Iberian ancestry from the pre-Roman Iberian peoples possibly Paleolithic in origin
                      BAS=Ancient Southwest European ancestry from the Paleolithic era
                      NEE=Ancient Finno-Ugrian ancestry from Northeastern Europe

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thanks for posting on the Euro 2.0 - I didn't know they were offering it.

                        I went to the site, but have not yet read the article. Is it true that they give the values at the actual 1000+ locations tested? If yes, that would be a big improvement over prior versions, where I think they only gave the %s because of proprietary formulas. Perhaps now that it's been published, it's not longer private. If they really provide that info (along with the chromosome number, gene location and hopefully along with frequencies for each marker for the 5 diifferent reference poulations) then that wipes out the objection many have had over the test. It means even if the %s should prove to be useless, one would still have ones own dna to do searches on as new info became available. Does anyone know if they really provide the info?
                        I wasn't able to find a link to a "sample report'.

                        I wonder what the best way is to think about the data one would get. For instance, based on ordinary genealogy I am 50% Iberian (Sephardic), 25% Italian (southern), 12.5% England (nothern) and 12.5% German (possilby german/french border). So that predicts on the genetic tests, I'd be 50% Iberian (IB), 25% Southern East Europe (SEE) and 25% Continental Europen (CE) with 0% for the other two (BAS and NEE)

                        so now how would I think about it if the %s were different? Note First, they say the error rate is about 8%. They seem to suggest this would mean for me if I was less than 43% iberian or more than 58% iberian, then this would be significantly different than expectation of 50% (for me). Note though that this 8% is an average - it differs for the 5 different groups they have (I don't remember what it is for iberian). So what would I make of that - i guess if it was less than 43% iberian, and it was replaced by more SEE I guess I could say the sephardic roots were really more similar to the other Jews, or it was interbreeding with the Greek host countries after they left spain in 1492.

                        but suppose it showed substantially more or less than continetnl european - more than 33% (has to differ by more than 8% to be meaningful, again qualified by different groups having different error rates), say with less than expected italian (SEE)- what would that indicate? perhaps I got more continetal europen markers just by "luck" of the draw? i.e that would mean thaat while I still get 50% from each parent, perhaps the genes I got from one side were more uniquely british say, wheres the genes I got from the italian side were less unique and not used to distinguish between the populations. is this what it might indicate?

                        I wonder how closely the %s would match ones own assesment based on skiin color and other phenotypes.

                        So if you know your ancestry, will the genetic test provide more info?

                        Another thing worth keeping in mindis the website says that on average, they can detect the influence of a great grandparent 50% of the time. You need to look at the chart though because it can be much greater than 50% or much less- depending on the region of europe the great grandparent comes from. So for those hoping to verify a contribution of a rumored great granparent, you might want to look at the chart to see what the % chance is they will be able to detect his/her ethnic presense. For great, great grandparents, only rarely can it be detected - I think just for one of the 5 groups.

                        guess depends on what you want it for and whether you would learn anything from it.

                        just trying to do an analysis for how one would think about the data and how important it might be toget.

                        alot will also depend on the quality of that article- e.g. these new shot gun approahces tht use these new chips to sequence so many base pairs easily (the same approach that's been leading to published discoveries about med diseases like diabetes) require very large numbers of subjects to be useful.
                        i'll have to read it.

                        i wonder if in my case, i'd be better off with their entry-level test (assuming they now reveal the locations and values and not just the %s) that gives middle eastern and asian etc. %s- this way I could tell how much if any of the sephardic roots are middle east. Since I seem to know already pretty well what ethnic roots through all 8 great grandparents and beyond from paper and pen genealogy not sure if the european test will help.
                        but it's still interesting- especially if there were some surprises...
                        Last edited by penguin; 16 July 2007, 09:11 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by penguin
                          ...
                          So if you know your ancestry, will the genetic test provide more info?
                          ...
                          One could 'use' the test as a type of 'proof' confirming of paper records. That seems to be the way many regard these tests. One sees many postings from the tested whose results are anomalous to their paper genealogy. There must be as many, possibly the majority, of those tested who get the confirmation they sought and have no reason to post questions or complaints about their results, the test, the statistics, etc.

                          I agree that if AbDNA is publishing actual marker names of the SNP's used in Euro 2.0 that would be a plus as I expect the marker set will employed in many more studies. That would be a change in policy for AbDNA but they seem to have become, with the release of Euro 2.0, slightly more transparent and pro-active in sharing information that could aid in interpretation of results.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by penguin
                            Thanks for posting on the Euro 2.0 - I didn't know they were offering it.

                            I went to the site, but have not yet read the article. Is it true that they give the values at the actual 1000+ locations tested? If yes, that would be a big improvement over prior versions, where I think they only gave the %s because of proprietary formulas. Perhaps now that it's been published, it's not longer private. If they really provide that info (along with the chromosome number, gene location and hopefully along with frequencies for each marker for the 5 diifferent reference poulations) then that wipes out the objection many have had over the test. It means even if the %s should prove to be useless, one would still have ones own dna to do searches on as new info became available. Does anyone know if they really provide the info?
                            I wasn't able to find a link to a "sample report'.

                            I wonder what the best way is to think about the data one would get. For instance, based on ordinary genealogy I am 50% Iberian (Sephardic), 25% Italian (southern), 12.5% England (nothern) and 12.5% German (possilby german/french border). So that predicts on the genetic tests, I'd be 50% Iberian (IB), 25% Southern East Europe (SEE) and 25% Continental Europen (CE) with 0% for the other two (BAS and NEE)

                            so now how would I think about it if the %s were different? Note First, they say the error rate is about 8%. They seem to suggest this would mean for me if I was less than 43% iberian or more than 58% iberian, then this would be significantly different than expectation of 50% (for me). Note though that this 8% is an average - it differs for the 5 different groups they have (I don't remember what it is for iberian). So what would I make of that - i guess if it was less than 43% iberian, and it was replaced by more SEE I guess I could say the sephardic roots were really more similar to the other Jews, or it was interbreeding with the Greek host countries after they left spain in 1492.

                            but suppose it showed substantially more or less than continetnl european - more than 33% (has to differ by more than 8% to be meaningful, again qualified by different groups having different error rates), say with less than expected italian (SEE)- what would that indicate? perhaps I got more continetal europen markers just by "luck" of the draw? i.e that would mean thaat while I still get 50% from each parent, perhaps the genes I got from one side were more uniquely british say, wheres the genes I got from the italian side were less unique and not used to distinguish between the populations. is this what it might indicate?

                            I wonder how closely the %s would match ones own assesment based on skiin color and other phenotypes.

                            So if you know your ancestry, will the genetic test provide more info?

                            Another thing worth keeping in mindis the website says that on average, they can detect the influence of a great grandparent 50% of the time. You need to look at the chart though because it can be much greater than 50% or much less- depending on the region of europe the great grandparent comes from. So for those hoping to verify a contribution of a rumored great granparent, you might want to look at the chart to see what the % chance is they will be able to detect his/her ethnic presense. For great, great grandparents, only rarely can it be detected - I think just for one of the 5 groups.

                            guess depends on what you want it for and whether you would learn anything from it.

                            just trying to do an analysis for how one would think about the data and how important it might be toget.

                            alot will also depend on the quality of that article- e.g. these new shot gun approahces tht use these new chips to sequence so many base pairs easily (the same approach that's been leading to published discoveries about med diseases like diabetes) require very large numbers of subjects to be useful.
                            i'll have to read it.

                            i wonder if in my case, i'd be better off with their entry-level test (assuming they now reveal the locations and values and not just the %s) that gives middle eastern and asian etc. %s- this way I could tell how much if any of the sephardic roots are middle east. Since I seem to know already pretty well what ethnic roots through all 8 great grandparents and beyond from paper and pen genealogy not sure if the european test will help.
                            but it's still interesting- especially if there were some surprises...

                            I took the EURO-DNA 1.0 test a year or so ago. I found my results to be very interesting and a little surprising. Paper geneaology has me being 50% Irish/British, 25% Southern Italian and 25% Finn. My test results though were 50% MED, 40% NOR and 10% ME. It seems that I inherited a lot of MED markers from my Italian grandfather or maybe also from another grandparent which is pretty cool I think. I also am wondering from which grandparents I inherited my NOR ancestry from. I am hoping this new test will shed more light on this. I am paticularly interested to see if I actually inherited any DNA from my Finnish grandmother.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by J Man
                              I . I am paticularly interested to see if I actually inherited any DNA from my Finnish grandmother.
                              good point - so your parent inherited 50% from his/her Finnish mother, but you may have 0% of the finish genes, rather than the mean of 25%. Statstically unlikely, but notheless possible.

                              out of curiosity, if you had been predcting your euro 1 results based on your own appearance, how close would they be to right? (sort of distateful i guess to think along those line, but can't help but wonder if our most obvious phetoypes remain a very good predictor of what the genotype will be).

                              I agree with you, tomcat, that people can use it to verify paper stuff. Too bad its all not free. guess it's hard to put a price on what verification is worth.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X