My Origins changed

[A.Lock]

I logged on today after about 3 weeks of being off the site and my origins has completely changed! Before it stated I was 36% Scandinavian, 26% Southern European, 26% British Isles, 10% Eastern European and like 1% West Asian.

Now it says I am 55% Western and Central European, 15% Eastern European, 13% British Isles, 8% Scandinavian, 7% Southern European, and 2% Finland and Northern Siberia.

What happened! Now when I tell people what my mixture is they will think I been lying!

[dna]

You are not alone, some people had reported the same experience over last weeks.

No official explanation, yet... But see http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=38182

W. (Mr.)

[Odis]

I just noticed last night my Origins changed quite a bit, but now have 1% not classed...

[dna]

I just noticed last night my Origins changed quite a bit, but now have 1% not classed...

Having total 99% or 101% is normal. It is not a bug. That happens due to the rules of rounding.

For example, if one's population percentages are exactly 68.5% and 31.5%, then when properly (mathematically) rounded they are displayed as 69% and 32%. And that adds up to 101%. In general, 101% could be the total when two population percentages end in .5

And with percentages for populations like 23.3%, 33.4%, and 43.3%, they would be displayed as 23%, 33% and 43%, totaling 99%.

W. (Mr.)

[Odis]

OK thanks....

[gatty]

Mine has only changed slightly ie was British isles 69 Scandinavia 30 North Africa 1 and now British isles 61 Scandinavia 37 North Africa 1.

[crossover]

wow my mom's didn't change at all

[Odis]

The problem is, can we believe any of these results..a couple of years ago before My Origins I was classed 8% +/- 2% M/E like others here at FTDNA but now 0%... I didn't believe them before so I have my doubts now with any of these results...but the results now are more believable, so maybe things are getting better ?..

[dna]

The problem is, can we believe any of these results..a couple of years ago before My Origins I was classed 8% +/- 2% M/E like others here at FTDNA but now 0%... I didn't believe them before so I have my doubts now with any of these results...but the results now are more believable, so maybe things are getting better ?..

The estimates (results) can be believed . They come straightforward from (advanced) calculations.

Now and then, the discussion starts with interpretation of the results (myOrigins estimates).

W. (Mr.)

[NYMark]

For me, at least, My Origins pretty poorly reflects my recent ancestry.

As I've mentioned on a number of threads, my Ashkenazi percentage, which recently inched up by another point to 57% is almost undoubtedly a significant overestimate. There is no DNA evidence of Ashkenazi ancestry on my paternal side, based on two close relatives' tests at other services and on paternal Gedmatch matches on the half of my genome that has been phased.

There are other problems. I'm given 3% North African, something that hasn't shown up anywhere else. Ancestry, which I no longer use, had me with a trace, less than 1%. 23 and Me shows none at all.

Within Europe, my paternal ancestry is entirely North German (Lower Saxony and Prussia) and Swiss (Berne and Aargau). There are a couple of brick walls at the 2nd-3rd great-grandparent level, but most lines are well-documented back to the 16th century and some even farther.

My Origins has the European component as 22% West and Central, 14.3% Broadly Northern European, 10% British Isles, and 7% Eastern.

By contrast, 23andMe (in speculative mode) has it at 27.6% French and German, 2.9% Isles, 1% Eastern, .6% Southern, and 2.6% Broadly European.

The Ashkenazi component is 50.9% in speculative mode and 49% in Standard.

In Standard for European, the numbers are 12.9% French and German, 18.5% Broadly Northern European, .8% Eastern European, and 18.8% Broadly European.

These are pretty big disparities. 23andMe in Standard mode is very accurate; it's somewhat less so in Speculative but still illuminating. If I took My Origins at face value, I'd be badly misled.

[Armando]

NYMark, I concur that 23andme does a better job of identifying ethnicities and I have expressed that in numerous threads also. I think that myOrigins has an especially hard time with admixed people which is where 23andme really shines.

[NCroots]

NYMark, I concur that 23andme does a better job of identifying ethnicities and I have expressed that in numerous threads also. I think that myOrigins has an especially hard time with admixed people which is where 23andme really shines.

I agree, Armando. I had a really big genetic breakthrough this weekend which somewhat bridges my 23andMe & myOrigins results. I'm descended from a family well-documented as being mix-raced in colonial Virginia. Several male cousins in this line, from different branches, have all tested with the SNP E-Z36905, which so far has only been found in populations from The Gambia. This certainly explains the Subsaharan African in my 23andMe & GEDmatch results, and goes a long way in explaining the North African in myOrigins results (groups like the Fulani found in Senegambia have high amounts of North African in their atDNA results). BTW, my results on myOrigins have not changed: still 92% European and 7% Middle Eastern.

[A.Lock]

My old results
36% Scandinavian
26% Southern Europe
26% British Isles
10% Eastern European
1% Central Asian

New Results
55% Western and Central European
15% Eastern European
13% British Isles
8% Scandinavian
7% Southern Europe
2% Finland and Northern Siberia


Gedmatch says

Admix Results (sorted):


# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 36.74
2 Atlantic 24.45
3 West_Med 12.23
4 Eastern_Euro 8.68
5 Baltic 8.27
6 West_Asian 5.87
7 South_Asian 2.17

[crossover]

what changes did ftdna make to their database that caused some people to have different results

[Armando]

The changes might be due to a recent database server software upgrade.

http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=38157