Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ABDNA Test Results...

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

  • #31
    It depends on the grandmother . . . Mother and child are almost alike.

    Originally posted by Maria_W
    Here is an instance where 3 generations tested and got different results.

    Grandfather IE 7, EA 0, NA 0, SSAF 93.
    Mother IE 20, EA 0, NA 0, SSAF 80.
    Child IE 21, EA 0, NA 4, SSAF 75.
    IE score increases each generation from the grandfather.
    EA is 0 all generations.
    NA is missing in 2 generations. But present in child.
    SSAF decreases in each generation from grandfather.
    So this shows that parents scores can be less than children. Is it correct. Have no idea....

    Maria

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Maria_W
      NAS.

      How do you feel about your test results? And what about the rest of your family.

      My results are: 90% Indo European, 0% East Asian, 10% Amerindian, 0% SSAF. (Verification of oral tradition and written records)

      My husband results are: 98% Indo European, 2% East Asian, 0% Amerindian, 0% SSAF. (To be honest he really insn't into DNA.)

      My mother results are: 89% Indo European, 0% East Asian, 7% Amerindian, 4% SSAF(No known SSAF heritage )

      My father results are: 100% Indo European, 0% East Asian, 0% Amerindian, 0% SSAF. (My fathers score perplexes me becasue I have traced him back to the Potowomecke Tribe. My mother comes from Mary and my father from Kiziah. Daughters of Wahangonoche, weroance of the Potowomecke. I talked to Linda from ABDNA and she said that he could have 0-6% Amerindian heritage. He passed away on Sept 23, 2007. I miss him so much!...)

      So...Have just tested my youngest daughter. Hope to get results within next couple of weeks. Then I will test my oldest daughter and grandaughter, 2 brothers and 1 sister.
      Have Amerindian heritage from the Virginia Algonquian (Potowomecke). Have known tribal historian Bill Deyo for 4 years.

      Maria
      When you say you have traced your maternal and paternal ancestry back to a specific tribe, would these be ggggg grandparents, is this in the 1600s?

      The ABDNA test is a blunt instrument, a sledge hammer, when people are expecting surgical precision. Any number you get on this test has to be interpreted in light of the percentage of NA in a documented genealogy, and a realization that the true score on the test, no matter what number is given with the "most likely estimate" red dot, could mathematically speaking be below zero when considering the confidence bands (the blue and yellow circles around the dots).

      If your ancestor(s) who are NA lived in the 1600s, then by taking 175 SNPs alleged to be ancestrally informative you have little chance of seeing more than one or two markers appear from a particular ancestor from early times. A test based on different technologies such as STRs (which would give about five times the amount of information per marker relative to a SNP due to measuring the number of nucleotide repeats at a particular site) could get by with 100 well - selected markers but there does not appear to be a reliable way to detect anything below 5% admixture - even 10% would be iffy. With the ABDNA test it simply does not have the capacity to reliably assess low levels of admixture. Its primary application is in forensics to identify the primary continental group from which a person's ancestors arose. Looking in the mirror should give one the answer as readily.

      If you were to post your findings on the Rootsweb DNA-Genealogy List you would have access to a number of experts in statistical analyses and what you will hear is that the test cannot do what we all hope it can do. My NA documented link extends into the 1800s so I have a somewhat better chance in seeing perhaps a pattern by testing 5 cousins who are the fewest generations removed from the NA ancestor. Hence instead of testing your children you need to find distant cousins who are say 5 generations removed from the NA ancestor. If they are further removed from that (e.g., 8 generations), any results will be highly suspect - no matter what the numerical score. It is just a number and cannot be taken at face value. By sheer chance the number may actually be dead on correct (which seems to be the case with me), but that is likely random chance operating. It is natural for the human mind to want to make meaning of blotches of black and white - to fill in the gaps to "see something". But is this a valid approach?

      Truthfully, what is needed to support a paper genealogy indicating NA ancestry is someone in the family, it may be a very distant cousin, to take a Y-DNA or mtDNA test for direct male line and direct female line and hope that their results are consitent with known NA haplogroups (e.g., Q3 for Y-DNA). It is only then that your level of confidence in the persistence of NA ancestry to the present day can be enhanced.

      The bottom line is that for most of us the use of DNA evidence is going to be of little help even with a good paper trail back showing NA ancestry in Colonial times, and useless or worse misleading, for those who have only a vague oral tradition to rely upon. I wish it were not so.

      DKF.

      Comment


      • #33
        Multigeneration...

        Most of My European ancestry is well documented so I am now trying to concentrate on my Amerindian ancestry.

        Mother (Audrey) 7% Amerindian (0-17 range)
        Father (Eugene) 0% Amerindian (0-6 range)
        Daughter (Maria) 10% Amerindian (4-19 range) Never really measured it that close till today.

        I intent to do my 2 brothers and 1 sister. My sister is biologically my half sister(different father). Will interesting to see what results they get.

        I just sent my youngest daughter Crystal kit back in about 10 days ago. Can't wait to get results. Then I will do my oldest daughter Sheryl and my 8 year old grandaughter Dana Cheyenne. By the time I get done with tests I will have 4 generations to compare.

        I really don't know anything about my husbands side. He really isn't interested in researching it and neither is his family. So...Hard to say if his range has any validity to it. Although his mother does look like she mixed with European and Native American. She has dark hair, dark eyes, high cheekbones, skin color is darker. Unless we can test her, we'll never know. She is 81 now.

        My husband, Sheryl and Crystal father and Dana's grandfather. (Randolph) 0% Amerindian. (0-6 range)

        Maria

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DKF
          The ABDNA test is a blunt instrument, a sledge hammer, when people are expecting surgical precision. Any number you get on this test has to be interpreted in light of the percentage of NA in a documented genealogy, and a realization that the true score on the test, no matter what number is given with the "most likely estimate" red dot, could mathematically speaking be below zero when considering the confidence bands (the blue and yellow circles around the dots).


          http://www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/faq/

          They argue for the accurracy of even a low 3% in the faq.

          Comment


          • #35
            AncestryByDna explanation of Native American

            I posted this in another thread. I think it should go here also.


            Originally posted by rainbow
            Here is the explanation I was given by email months ago:

            Dear Elizabeth:

            Dr. Thomas passed your email back to me to again respond to your inquiry. I think the information I gave you last Fall still holds true. The "Native American" genetics
            found in many Europeans such as Italians, Greeks and Turks do overlap with those of American Indian Native American genetics. Their genomic information is basically derived from the same group of markers. Also, as I am sure I stated previously, the influence of the Roman armies has been found throughout the parts of Europe that they occupied. Just like the influences of the invasions and occupations from East Asia (for example, Genghis Khan) are felt within the Scandinavian and Eastern European regions. The information in your AncestryByDNA 2.5 genomic marker test results may come from many thousands of years of genetic heritage.

            Our Native American database is taken primarily from Indian groups in Central America. The markers in our genomics tests do coincide with those from Central Asia....and we have identified migrational information that indicates when these populations started moving, they went both North and East to the Bering Land Bridge AND also South and West back to Southeastern Europe through Turkey. This may have occurred thousands of years ago, but in very sensitive tests, the same markers may be found in both groups. We call them "Native American" because the strongest influence from these markers is found within the Western Hermisphere.
            (In truth, NO American is "Native" since everyone in the Western Hemisphere is believed to have migrated here. Actually, all humans came out of Africa if you go back far enough in time.)

            We rechecked all your DNA information. The blue bar graph depictions (MLEs) and the range intervals shown (red range bars shown in the middle of the blue bars) are 95% and 85% accurate respectively. Your percentages and ranges do fall within the ranges seen for Native American ancestry in our mostly European customers' results. I may previously have told you of my own, being Italian, were 10% N.A. with ranges from 3% to 19%. Your 17% N.A. ancestry was on the high side, but because of the Confidence Interval range you had for that population group (9% -24%), it was still viable as a result. (REFERENCE: Frudakis, Tony N., Powerful but Requiring Caution: Genetic Tests of Ancestral Origins, National Genealogical Society Quarterly, 93 [December 2005], 260-268. - The N.A. percentage given for Europeans as an example in this peer-reviewed scientific article is about 15%.)

            We also checked all your genotype data and they were quite normal and with very few marker failures. Our very stringent Quality Control requirement indicates that we may allow as many as 15 genotype marker "Failures" to still produce an accurate result and you had only 7. Thus, we consider your results quite accurate and within the possible range for Native American markers within strongly European anthropological populations.

            You stated you have also taken a DNA Tribes test which indicated no Native American ancestry. DNA Tribes performs an autosomal test using the CODIS system, STR (Short Tandem Repeat) markers which does not use the information provided by the discovery of the human genome in 2001. Our AncestryByDNA 2.5 test is based on the Ancestry Informative Markers (AIMs) which are SNPs (Short Nucleotide Polymorphisms) only available since the advent of the human genome revelation. Thus, our test is based on different information than the CODIS STR autosomal information: it is genomic in origin, not just genetic. DNAPrint Genomics is the only company in the world that does such a SNP autosomal test as the technology is new and it is proprietary. We perform the autosomal SNP test for people all over the world, including many law enforcement agencies who use our DNAWitness tests to apprehend criminals.

            We do base our information on the Native American SNP information we have collected. Just because we call it "Native American" does not mean that no other genomic markers from any populations other than the commonly known Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere will apply. The four major world population groups we do identify are described by anthropologists, so we cannot just make up another population group other than the ones described. The human genome is 99.9% identical in all people. It is merely the tiniest fraction of that 0.1% among all people that can identify individual genetic heritages. Ultimately, if you could trace all human ancestry back to the origins of mankind, we all came from the same genomic common ancestor. (FYI: Even the chimpanzee's genome which also split off from a common ancestor further back is 98.3% identical to the human genome.)

            For the reasons cited above, we believe that the AncestryByDNA 2.5 test you took is quite accurate with regard to what is in your personal DNA and that can be determined by this type of genomic test. This does not mean that the test you took from DNA Tribes is wrong or that DNAPrint's genomic autosomal SNP test is wrong. THey just show differing results, based on different technologies producing different types of data.

            Ms. Emanuela I. Charlton, Ph.D.
            Customer Services

            ---------------------------------

            Comment


            • #36
              Looking in the Mirror

              DKF,

              I have not taken the ABDNA or Autsomal DNA test but to quote " Looking in the mirror should give one the answer as readily." is not so. 3 pictures attached great grandmother, grandmother, mother. If you pay close attention to the middle picture of my "VERY WHITE " grandmother she is 1/2 Indian
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #37
                So she is lighter....

                Yaffa.
                Yes, I admit she is lighter than the other women. But in my opinion it doesn't make her any less Amerindian... No disrespect meant but this statement about looking in the mirror doesn't always work out...

                Maria

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Maria_W
                  Yaffa.
                  Yes, I admit she is lighter than the other women. But in my opinion it doesn't make her any less Amerindian... No disrespect meant but this statement about looking in the mirror doesn't always work out...

                  Maria
                  Maria,

                  I didnt make that statement. I was replying to a statement made by DKF. DKF replied to you about your NA ancestry and the ABDNA testing. He/She is the one that stated you can tell by looking in a mirror. I was proving a point to DKF that like you said looking in the mirror doesn't always work out.

                  Jodi

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Sorry...

                    Yaffa.

                    I was agreeing with you about your grandmother being lighter but no less Amerindian. The part about looking in the mirror was meant for DKF. Sorry I should have seperated the two statements, my bad! Not sure what he is getting at.

                    Maria

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      ????

                      Originally posted by Maria_W
                      Yaffa.

                      I was agreeing with you about your grandmother being lighter but no less Amerindian. The part about looking in the mirror was meant for DKF. Sorry I should have seperated the two statements, my bad! Not sure what he is getting at.

                      Maria
                      Maria

                      I don't what DKF is getting at either.From what I got from the post DKF was telling you that your ABDNA test wouldn't register an NA ancestor of the 1600's accurately that it would only possibly register an ancestor from the 1800's like his/hers. That the ABDNA has to be a closer relation to turn up more accurately and that you should be able to look in the mirror and tell what you are.I don't know anything about the ABDNA test to say weather what DKF is stating about the test is true. All I know is that you can't look at someone and assume what their cutural backround is.

                      Jodi

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Yaffa
                        Maria

                        I don't what DKF is getting at either.From what I got from the post DKF was telling you that your ABDNA test wouldn't register an NA ancestor of the 1600's accurately that it would only possibly register an ancestor from the 1800's like his/hers. That the ABDNA has to be a closer relation to turn up more accurately and that you should be able to look in the mirror and tell what you are.I don't know anything about the ABDNA test to say weather what DKF is stating about the test is true. All I know is that you can't look at someone and assume what their cutural backround is.

                        Jodi
                        We are not talking about cultural background, but geographical / biological ancestry. The test can only detect the number and configuration of a set of autosomal ancestral markers. I have "known" this test well since the first weeks of its introduction; and the ins and outs of this measure has been discussed at length on the Rootsweb List with experts from a variety of disciplines weighing in. The consensus is that the test cannot be taken at face value, only interpreted in light of the confidence intervals that surround the "most likely estimate" red dot. There is a database that was created by Charles Kerchner for people to register their expected results and their ABDNA results. In general there was little correspondence between the two among those who have a clear paper trail. With those who have "rumors" or "oral traditions" they tend to be happy with results that match their hopes (which is understandable) but there is no independent validation since they have run out of leads via traditional genealogy.

                        The test is best for forensic purposes, but only when the majority ancestry is the unknown variable. One of my grandaughters is half Korean. The mirror will reveal that she is half Korean and half Euro-Canadian. If I wish to flush some money I could test her, but I know beforehand that she will not recieve a 50/50 score since the test is not sufficiently sensitive. I have no doubt that she would score at some level of East Asian, but the actual value could be 20% or 80% and thus misleading. Her children - well any conceivable result can be expected for my great grandchildren who may be biologically say 25% Korean but some would likely score zero East Asian. If my grandaughter married a Greek (who frequently score high NA) some may be 0% East Asian and 20% Native American. A false negative and false positive result all rolled up into one. How can a test with this degree of precision be expected to pick up trace percentages of NA in those whose most recent NA ancestors were born in the 1600s. In my experience people will interpret the results to best meet their expectations (I am as prone as anyone). To overcome this tendency the data must be approached with the greatest caution.

                        DKF.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hi DFK

                          I agree that if the Native American ancestor was in the 1600's then it is too distant to show up in the ABNA test.
                          I understand that the ABDNA Native American/Central Asian is the same thing genetically, just not culturally, and are thousands of years apart. Just like Australian Aborigines are genetically mostly African, but they've been separated for thousands of years.
                          In my case there is a lot of unknown on my father's side. I only know his mothers direct paternal line. I know the names of the wives but nothing at all about their parents. My trust for ABDNA and my paternal grandmother is about even. I know she keeps secrets very well and any Amerind ancestry would just be another secret. It is possible that I have Amerind. But not certain.
                          Everyone has had 128 GGGGG grandparents. 32 from each grandparent.
                          Of the 32 great-great-great-great-great grandparents on my father's mother's side, I know of just 2. That is 30 unaccounted for/unknown. If 22 of the 30 unknown were Native American, that would come to 17%. Can also read as "eleven gggg grandparents=17%."
                          On my fathers' fathers' side I know of none because of a dead end in Europe.
                          Either it's Central Asian to Europe to America, or Cental Asian to Bering land bridge to America. Either way, genetically, it is the same.
                          Last edited by rainbow; 19 October 2007, 05:23 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Ok

                            Originally posted by DKF
                            We are not talking about cultural background, but geographical / biological ancestry. The test can only detect the number and configuration of a set of autosomal ancestral markers. I have "known" this test well since the first weeks of its introduction; and the ins and outs of this measure has been discussed at length on the Rootsweb List with experts from a variety of disciplines weighing in. The consensus is that the test cannot be taken at face value, only interpreted in light of the confidence intervals that surround the "most likely estimate" red dot. There is a database that was created by Charles Kerchner for people to register their expected results and their ABDNA results. In general there was little correspondence between the two among those who have a clear paper trail. With those who have "rumors" or "oral traditions" they tend to be happy with results that match their hopes (which is understandable) but there is no independent validation since they have run out of leads via traditional genealogy.

                            The test is best for forensic purposes, but only when the majority ancestry is the unknown variable. One of my grandaughters is half Korean. The mirror will reveal that she is half Korean and half Euro-Canadian. If I wish to flush some money I could test her, but I know beforehand that she will not recieve a 50/50 score since the test is not sufficiently sensitive. I have no doubt that she would score at some level of East Asian, but the actual value could be 20% or 80% and thus misleading. Her children - well any conceivable result can be expected for my great grandchildren who may be biologically say 25% Korean but some would likely score zero East Asian. If my grandaughter married a Greek (who frequently score high NA) some may be 0% East Asian and 20% Native American. A false negative and false positive result all rolled up into one. How can a test with this degree of precision be expected to pick up trace percentages of NA in those whose most recent NA ancestors were born in the 1600s. In my experience people will interpret the results to best meet their expectations (I am as prone as anyone). To overcome this tendency the data must be approached with the greatest caution.

                            DKF.
                            DKF,

                            Sorry, I misunderstood you. I haven't taken the test because I have heard the results can be in accurate. I have seen people post mixed feelings about the tests for both ABDNA and autosomal. For now I am trying to locate different lines in my family to cross reference Y and MT which I feel at this point is a better approach to getting the in betweens as far back as you can go. We have a lot of missing paper due to courthouse fire in the Civil War, No marriage records because it was illegal in many places for a person of color to marry white, Also during certain time periods NA were not permitted to own land or be citizens of the US until 1924 so records become sketchy if they did not stay with their tribe. I personally don't see how ABDNA and autosomal testing will solve these issues at this point in time. I do hope one day there is a more accurate test available.

                            Jodi

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by rainbow
                              Hi DFK

                              I agree that if the Native American ancestor was in the 1600's then it is too distant to show up in the ABNA test.
                              I understand that the ABDNA Native American/Central Asian is the same thing genetically, just not culturally, and are thousands of years apart. Just like Australian Aborigines are genetically mostly African, but they've been separated for thousands of years.
                              In my case there is a lot of unknown on my father's side. I only know his mothers direct paternal line. I know the names of the wives but nothing at all about their parents. My trust for ABDNA and my paternal grandmother is about even. I know she keeps secrets very well and any Amerind ancestry would just be another secret. It is possible that I have Amerind. But not certain.
                              Everyone has had 128 GGGGG grandparents. 32 from each grandparent.
                              Of the 32 great-great-great-great-great grandparents on my father's mother's side, I know of just 2. That is 30 unaccounted for/unknown. If 22 of the 30 unknown were Native American, that would come to 17%. Can also read as "eleven gggg grandparents=17%."
                              On my fathers' fathers' side I know of none because of a dead end in Europe.
                              Either it's Central Asian to Europe to America, or Cental Asian to Bering land bridge to America. Either way, genetically, it is the same.
                              Rainbow, this is where I think a study of the history of the area where your "unknown" ancestors came from would be essential. Mine came from an area close to the Six Nations Reserve, which was once actually a part of that Reserve in the 1800s. Pretty good clue. If there was an aboriginal tribal group who resided in the vicinity of your ancestors, your confidence in the ABDNA testing would quite sensibly rise. If there was never any tribal group in the area(s) since the 1600s then any confidence in the validity of the 17% result would diminish.

                              Clearly your finding has a very tightly wound set of confidence bands around the red dot (meaning that the position of the red dot is very likely correct). It does not mean that you have 17% NA heritage, just that on this test by the definitions and algorithm used this is your score. As we know, you could be Pakistani or Greek with a profile of this nature.

                              Bottom line, in my opinion, it is knowing the history of the region from which your unknown ancestors were living that is essential to taking a good stab at interpreting the results.

                              DKF.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Yaffa
                                DKF,

                                Sorry, I misunderstood you. I haven't taken the test because I have heard the results can be in accurate. I have seen people post mixed feelings about the tests for both ABDNA and autosomal. For now I am trying to locate different lines in my family to cross reference Y and MT which I feel at this point is a better approach to getting the in betweens as far back as you can go. We have a lot of missing paper due to courthouse fire in the Civil War, No marriage records because it was illegal in many places for a person of color to marry white, Also during certain time periods NA were not permitted to own land or be citizens of the US until 1924 so records become sketchy if they did not stay with their tribe. I personally don't see how ABDNA and autosomal testing will solve these issues at this point in time. I do hope one day there is a more accurate test available.

                                Jodi
                                Jodi, you have the rare blessing of having a NA mtDNA haplogroup. Unless your ancestors came from Central or Eastern Asia recently, the most likely interpretation is that your direct maternal line is NA. You have already found the "gold ring".

                                Ascertaining percentage is problematic with the presently available autosomal tests. At one time I had plans to generate a better mousetrap using autosomal STR and other blended approaches rather than single SNPs as used with the two tests presently on the market. That is still in the works but I am not holding my breath as to when it will see the light of day (if ever). But for the present the reality is that with the false negatives and false positives how can anyone be able to interpret whatever results they are sent using the tools available today?

                                Take heart, there is money, a lot of it, to be made in developing a robust BGA test and surely it is only a matter of time before another appears on the horizon. Of course we will all rush to take it because it is new, and it will only be over time that the consumer will be able to assess its merits.

                                DKF.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X