Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNAPrint vs. decodeme vs. 23andme

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

  • tomcat
    replied
    Originally posted by Starr173
    ... Why doesn't 23andme offer just the ancestry painting and the global similarity option for those of us who already know our mtDNA and y-dna haplogroups? I'm also not too keen on knowing my risks for various disorders. Knowing your family history can tell you almost the same thing. No I'm not completely sold on 23andme for those reasons.
    An affordable and comprehensive admixture-mapping DNA test has long been a goal of epidemiologists as a means of quickly screening persons for their liability to inherited disease. Genealogists are not likely to have the use of such an instrument before epidemiologists. Similarly, the focus of DNAPrint is forensics and identity testing.

    So, there is a bit of a technological race going-on as to which instruments come to market first: a broad-application admixture tool or application-specific tools showing disease markers, on the one hand, and hair-eye-skin color (e.g.) on the other.

    At the recently reduced price, 23andMe is a superior value to AbDNA or all the DNApint offerings combined. Although 23andMe results still offer more potential information than usable information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by Starr173
    Mexicans usually show more Native-American than Puerto Ricans because the Native population in Mexico was much larger. Puerto Ricans show more European or African. Still admixture for each individual whether Mexican or Puerto Rican varies greatly.
    I suspect that Puerto Rico shows up with admixture like Cuba but I have met very few Cubans that will admit there is Native in their blood lines. Most I have met will only claim they came from the mother country of Spain.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by Starr173
    Yes, church records in Puerto Rico also listed race. The term they most often used was "pardo" which in the 1500's referred to Native-American/Spanish mixes. Later on the term came to mean "mulattos." Also, before the abolition of slavery, slaves were listed as such. It's probably much the same all around Latin America being that they were all governed by Spain.
    Yes and then you also have the issue of Indian Saves from the US that were taken into the Islands. Im sure slaves were traded off from one Island to another. So trying to figure out in the Islands if Native DNA came from the US or were originally from the Islands would be hard. I have never checked ship records. The US was not specific on keeping records on race as the Spanish were. I suspect that US slave ship records on Indians might be a rare find if they exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starr173
    replied
    Originally posted by Yaffa
    Thats what they say about Mexico but this has proven to be wrong. Many people from Mexico have a lot of NA blood including DNA results. Just from reading marriage records. The Spanish were very specific on listing race for a long period of time. I don't know what the records look like in Puerto Rico and if they were listing race the way they did in Mexico.
    Yes, church records in Puerto Rico also listed race. The term they most often used was "pardo" which in the 1500's referred to Native-American/Spanish mixes. Later on the term came to mean "mulattos." Also, before the abolition of slavery, slaves were listed as such. It's probably much the same all around Latin America being that they were all governed by Spain.

    Mexicans usually show more Native-American than Puerto Ricans because the Native population in Mexico was much larger. Puerto Ricans show more European or African. Still admixture for each individual whether Mexican or Puerto Rican varies greatly.
    Last edited by Starr173; 1 December 2008, 08:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Also

    Also, There was Indian slavery from the US going into the Islands up through the 1700's

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Originally posted by Starr173
    Mr. Faux, what would you say of my 8% Native-American on DNAPrint 2.5? My ancestry is from Puerto Rico and the Native-American population died out in the early 1500's. By the 1600's they were no pure Native-Americans. So, I too, do not have any recent Native-American ancestry but DNAPrint was still able to pick up 8%.
    Thats what they say about Mexico but this has proven to be wrong. Many people from Mexico have a lot of NA blood. Just from reading marriage records. Even looking at the DNA results. The Spanish were very specific on listing race for a long period of time. I don't know what the records look like in Puerto Rico and if they were listing race the way they did in Mexico.
    Last edited by Yaffa; 1 December 2008, 07:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by Starr173
    Mr. Faux, what would you say of my 8% Native-American on DNAPrint 2.5? My ancestry is from Puerto Rico and the Native-American population died out in the early 1500's. By the 1600's they were no pure Native-Americans. So, I too, do not have any recent Native-American ancestry but DNAPrint was still able to pick up 8%.
    I also have 8% NA on the ABDNA test, however none of my ancestors have never made any footprint in the new world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by Starr173
    Why doesn't 23andme offer just the ancestry painting and the global similarity option for those of us who already know our mtDNA and y-dna haplogroups? I'm also not too keen on knowing my risks for various disorders. Knowing your family history can tell you almost the same thing. No I'm not completely sold on 23andme for those reasons.
    They would then have to redesign the chip not to include Y-DNA and mtDNA, that would mean more hazzle and more cost so they might as well just include them in the same batch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starr173
    replied
    Originally posted by DKF
    Frankly, no one can tell you what results to expect. There could be sufficient haploblocks from NA ancestors if perchance in Puerto Rico you have an assortment of ancestors who were admixed, irrespective of the lack of anyone who was in the 100% NA range back to the 1600s. I would expect many Puerto Ricans to have a "sprinkling" of NA (and African) on their autosomes but I suppose one would see everything from 100% European to say 5% NA. The blessing of 23andme is that they even show any block that they consider Asian and it could be just a small blotch on one chromosome that is colored Orange. Bottom line is that it is a gamble and it is possible that even if you show as 100% some of your kin could have a small amount of NA - the luck of the draw and all that during the chromosome shuffling process.

    There are so many additional features. For example for females mtDNA haplogroup, health and trait info, comparison to groups from around the world on half a million markers and placement shown by the whole genome. On the latter I fall most clearly within the NW German group but also on the border of the Norwegian, France, and England groups (only) - which absolutely fits knowing what I do about my ancestry. One can make direct comparisons with what has been published in the recent literature to see how this amazing technology works. For example, depending on N or S, Italians cluster in the Southern European group and likely within the Italian group, although the S Italians may find themselves overlapping in the Middle Eastern group which makes sense knowing the history of the area (and geography).
    Mr. Faux, thank you for your reply. It was very scientific and well-thought out. Why doesn't 23andme offer just the ancestry painting and the global similarity option for those of us who already know our mtDNA and y-dna haplogroups? I'm also not too keen on knowing my risks for various disorders. Knowing your family history can tell you almost the same thing. No I'm not completely sold on 23andme for those reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • DKF
    replied
    Originally posted by Starr173
    Mr. Faux, what would you say of my 8% Native-American on DNAPrint 2.5? My ancestry is from Puerto Rico and the Native-American population died out in the early 1500's. By the 1600's they were no pure Native-Americans. So, I too, do not have any recent Native-American ancestry but DNAPrint was still able to pick up 8%.
    Frankly, no one can tell you what results to expect. There could be sufficient haploblocks from NA ancestors if perchance in Puerto Rico you have an assortment of ancestors who were admixed, irrespective of the lack of anyone who was in the 100% NA range back to the 1600s. I would expect many Puerto Ricans to have a "sprinkling" of NA (and African) on their autosomes but I suppose one would see everything from 100% European to say 5% NA. The blessing of 23andme is that they even show any block that they consider Asian and it could be just a small blotch on one chromosome that is colored Orange. Bottom line is that it is a gamble and it is possible that even if you show as 100% some of your kin could have a small amount of NA - the luck of the draw and all that during the chromosome shuffling process.

    There are so many additional features. For example for females mtDNA haplogroup, health and trait info, comparison to groups from around the world on half a million markers and placement shown by the whole genome. On the latter I fall most clearly within the NW German group but also on the border of the Norwegian, France, and England groups (only) - which absolutely fits knowing what I do about my ancestry. One can make direct comparisons with what has been published in the recent literature to see how this amazing technology works. For example, depending on N or S, Italians cluster in the Southern European group and likely within the Italian group, although the S Italians may find themselves overlapping in the Middle Eastern group which makes sense knowing the history of the area (and geography).

    Leave a comment:


  • Starr173
    replied
    Mr. Faux, what would you say of my 8% Native-American on DNAPrint 2.5? My ancestry is from Puerto Rico and the Native-American population died out in the early 1500's. By the 1600's they were no pure Native-Americans. So, I too, do not have any recent Native-American ancestry but DNAPrint was still able to pick up 8%.

    Leave a comment:


  • DKF
    replied
    Originally posted by Maria_W
    OK heres my results:

    On DNA Print I recieved 10% Native American and 90% Indo European. (175 markers)
    On DeCodeMe on my X chromosome I recieved 4% African American, 9% Asian and 87% Indo European.
    On my Autosomal I recieved 2% African American, 6% Asian and 92% Indo European (1,000,000 markers)

    Read carefully...Without including any of the above results from either test I have Potowomecke ancestry from the 1600's from Stafford Cty, VA. My mother (though her Waugh line) and it now looks like my father, who I had suspected last year before he died, found new information (though his Elkins line). They both come off of the 2 daughters of Wahangonoche, last weroance of the Potowomeke tribe. So it appears I have double lines of decent....

    So what are the extra test results of decodeme saying?

    Maria
    Maria and all interested parties:

    I have had a chance to examine the profiles of a number of people who have taken the decodeme, 23andme, and ABDNA testing (and that includes me).

    Clearly if you "want" to find Native American ancestry one would be well advised to go to ABDNA for your testing. If someone is interested in the facts and not the romance, it will have to be 23andme testing.

    In one instance, someone of European ancestry (but will a long Colonial USA pedigree) and no known Asian, Native American or African ancestry received a percentage of say 23% NA or Asian (I don't wish to identify the person). They insisted that he or she had an unknown grandparent who was not European. This has caused no end of speculation as to what the correct version is. The genealogy is crystal clear - no minority ancestry. But the DNA result was so clear and dramatic. Well, this person took the 23andme test and guess what.....drum roll please.........100% European.

    Thus for those obtaining 10 to 20% Native American with any known NA ancestors back in the 1600s or undocumented then if it is the truth they seek, my suggestion is to take the 23andme test and see what a test with 20,000 ancestral informative markers will say. If they paint any part of any chromosome and even if only 1%, this would be considered likely valid. I have seen enough profiles of people with European heritage (always 100% European unless from Finland then 1% or less Asian is typical). For someone with a North Dakota ancestor from 8 generations ago, 2% Asian with markers sprinkled over a number of chromosomes. Others with lengthy Colonial ancestry have often come back with say 1% African or 1% Asian. Again, I would consider this significant (suggesting an ancestor who was African or NA within the past 200 or a bit more years).

    I and I am sure many others would be pleased if those with little to no documented NA ancestry but with 10% or above on the ABDNA test would weigh in with their 23andme results - good news or not good news. For me only the truth will do. Even though I can see some haplotype blocks on the decodeme browser for African or Asian I believe my 100% European by 23andme. My NA ancestor born in 1747 was simply too far back for anything to show (although they have not painted the X chromosome yet where my largest blocks reside). I may have a relative who is 4 generations closer to the NA ancestor take the test and see what results emerge. It is always a bit of a risk if part of one's identity hinges on being part NA but in my opinion it does no one any good to put forward DNA results which essentially are wrong and misleading. Hopefully anyone in this category is up for the challenge - the results may confirm what ABDNA says, but who knows.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starr173
    replied
    Originally posted by Maria_W
    OK heres my results:

    On DNA Print I recieved 10% Native American and 90% Indo European. (175 markers)
    On DeCodeMe on my X chromosome I recieved 4% African American, 9% Asian and 87% Indo European.
    On my Autosomal I recieved 2% African American, 6% Asian and 92% Indo European (1,000,000 markers)

    Read carefully...Without including any of the above results from either test I have Potowomecke ancestry from the 1600's from Stafford Cty, VA. My mother (though her Waugh line) and it now looks like my father, who I had suspected last year before he died, found new information (though his Elkins line). They both come off of the 2 daughters of Wahangonoche, last weroance of the Potowomeke tribe. So it appears I have double lines of decent....

    So what are the extra test results of decodeme saying?

    Maria
    I've seen your results for you and your family on these boards. Thanks for sharing all your results. It really gives others info on the different testing companies and how accurate they are at detecting admixture. From what I see, who is correct? 23andme detects the least admixture and finds Caucasians primarily 100% European.
    I saw your Dad's results and I was wondering if he took the DNAPrint 2.5 or 2.0? I ask this because I've seen that the old 2.0 failed to detect admixture in many cases.
    It seems like your X chromosome has more Native-American(Asian) than your autosomal. I guess since there are two X's you can't tell if its coming from your Mom or Dad.
    But it's cool that an autosomal test can pick up admixture from the 1600's!

    Leave a comment:


  • Maria_W
    replied
    DNA Print vs DeCodeMe...

    OK heres my results:

    On DNA Print I recieved 10% Native American and 90% Indo European. (175 markers)
    On DeCodeMe on my X chromosome I recieved 4% African American, 9% Asian and 87% Indo European.
    On my Autosomal I recieved 2% African American, 6% Asian and 92% Indo European (1,000,000 markers)

    Read carefully...Without including any of the above results from either test I have Potowomecke ancestry from the 1600's from Stafford Cty, VA. My mother (though her Waugh line) and it now looks like my father, who I had suspected last year before he died, found new information (though his Elkins line). They both come off of the 2 daughters of Wahangonoche, last weroance of the Potowomeke tribe. So it appears I have double lines of decent....

    So what are the extra test results of decodeme saying?

    Maria
    Last edited by Maria_W; 3 November 2008, 09:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • juan carlos
    replied
    Originally posted by Starr173
    Thanks for the replies. That's interesting what DFK said. That any admixture above 1% on 23andme probably reveals actual admixture since they set the bar so high that most Europeans score 100% Euro.
    That means that if 23andMe tells you you're 2% something, you can rest assured that is the case.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X