RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: ellvera on Monday 28 August 17 08:47 BST (UK)
-
Just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience to mine.
I bought a Living DNA test kit at the beginning of this year and returned my sample on the 2nd March (after a great deal of hassle with NZ Post, who refused to recognise the prepaid envelope supplied, ending with my paying postage myself)
This kit went AWOL so I contacted the help desk in April, who were extremely helpful and also indignant regarding the postage problems. They sent me another kit, and offered me a free book as compensation.
I returned this kit in May, once again having to pay $50 NZ for tracked courier. (A formal complaint to NZ Post has now been made by Living DNA).
I was notified that my kit was received and that testing had started on the 31st May. Expected to be completed by 12th August.
A week or so later, I received another email telling me that testing started on the 23rd June. Expected to be completed 12th September.
I filed the second email, presuming they had just recalculated their dates.
My results came through earlier than expected, on the 25th July and I was very happy with them as they confirmed nearly all of my paper research giving me a few areas I had been wondering about, to explore.
Scotland and Ireland were contrary to expectations, but reading other reviews online, they are constantly updating their database, so will hope for more definition in the future.
On the 18th August, I got another email advising my test results were available, clicked on the link, and was astonished to discover that the first sample ,which was lost in the post, was in fact ,the kit they were referring to in the 23rd June email !
Upon checking, I found that this set of results was slightly different to the results in the second test, and the regional breakdown of areas in the UK not as detailed.
For example, on the second test (first sample), Great Britain and Ireland are grouped together whereas in the first test (second sample), they are separate sub –regions.
I do realise that results from other companies will often provide different results, but I would have expected that two samples from the same person, taken under the same conditions within two months of each other, using the same lab, to be identical.
Am I wrong?
This has undermined my confidence in the accuracy of the first results.
Of course I will contact Living DNA to enquire, but before I do would be very interested to know if this is common. I will attach images.
Thanks
Barbara
-
Sorry,Images didn't come through
-
Just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience to mine.
This is very interesting.
You may not find that many people have ended up with two tests, though.
-
It was interesting to see the variances between the two tests and it would be interesting to see what Living DNA say to explain it. Personally I don't think such variances from the same company are acceptable as they are too large. My first impression is Living DNA need to smarten up their in house procedures and controls so things like this don't happen, although they will probably have some explanation as to why it is a one off ::)
-
I can't explain why two tests from the same person got significantly different results, but I have seen several cases where siblings results have been dramatically different.
Frankly, I’d take most DNA ethnicity analysis with a pinch of salt. Mostly harmless entertainment, and about as accurate as a horoscope. It seems to assume that people never moved which is just nonsense. There has been so much internal migration around the British Isles in the past 4000 years as to make a DNA breakdown between Irish, Welsh, Scots, English etc pretty meaningless. Most of the population all share a common Brythonic origin ie they are descended from people who migrated north through France as the last ice age retreated. When they got to Britain they swarmed around everywhere, and then continued moving for military, economic and cultural reasons. As they still do.
-
Thanks for your input.
Yes,David,I will indeed be interested to see how they explain this away.They will ,I am sure.
They claim that about 1% of their samples are corrupt and have to be repeated.
I agree with you to some extent Elwyn and can understand the difference between siblings, but this is only me...............and me !
I only took the test out of curiosity, to see if it agreed with my findings in the UK.............and it pretty much does.
By the way,I got the Free book today and was very glad I hadn't paid for it.No more info than on the site and the maps very small and indistinct.
Barbara
-
I have seen several cases where siblings results have been dramatically different.
While I agree that ethnicity is little more than a gimmick, here is a good explanation of why the results for siblings can vary:
https://lisalouisecooke.com/2016/02/dna-ethnicity-percentages-may-vary/
-
Wow, I think I'd be more worried about the handling/shipping/fees than the results :(
I have both mine and my brother's dna samples checked on ancestry.com and there is a slight variance between our samples and that is to be expected. Because of the X and Y chromosomes there are some traits that will be passed down on JUST the male side of the family.
I was hoping that there was more difference between the countries but I also understand why there is so much "fudge room" on these: My great grandfather was SUPPOSEDLY born in Germany and immigrated to New York. HOWEVER, the town he was BORN in was under Welsh rule and by the time he immigrated (about 18 years later) it was under German rule. So when people say he was from Germany - it makes me wonder.
My DNA would/does confirm he was Welsh and NOT German. Until I find actual paperwork etc, I am taking it with a grain of salt but do tend to lean to the Welsh side.
-
Wow, I think I'd be more worried about the handling/shipping/fees than the results :(
Yes,I know,but by the time I'd been to countless post shops trying to find one to accept the return envelope,I wasn't taking it home again.
One of the problems was that the test tubes were just over the 10mm limit to send at letter rate,so I had a tiny parcel in an A4 size padded envelope.
I was hoping to convince one of my male second cousins to test as well because we have nothing but girls in our family on my Mothers side for 6 generations (apart from the obligatory male that is ;))
But I'm not paying that again.
May I ask where your Great Grandfather was born?
-
Maybe you're mutating? :o
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Why didn't I think of that!
-
Rumor has it that my g grandfather was born or from Altona, Germany. Even with searches on ancestry and family search shows boy Muhl and doesn't even list his first name (his mother died giving birth to him or shortly after that). :(
-
Hello again
I completely forgot to get back to you with the outcome of my query with LivingDNA,which is,as expected,putting the blame vaguely on the quality of my samples:
......Thank you for contacting Living DNA.
You are correct, you most certainly are one of our unique customers having two lots of results.
The reason why your results are slightly different can be because of the quality of the samples tha you provided us, it is possible that the samples were not completely identical with regards to quality. The first sample may be a better quality than the second or the second could be a better quality than the first. Our Lab and algorithm will have no idea that the two samples belonged to the same person and so depending on the quality of the sample you will find that the results can be different.
It is important to note that all family ancestry results are estimates, based on the comparing your DNA to our range of reference samples. 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 it/we have a low sample size for a region, or if there is further population structure within that population/region, then we are likely to assign some ancestry to the populations that contributed to that region.
Your Living DNA membership includes free ongoing upgrades in the ancestry platform. In the future, if, we are able to provide finer detail within our existing regions, or we can offer additional features in the ancestry platform, your online results will be updated automatically (not applicable to printed results). So you may find that in the future both results will one day be identical or even more similar than they are now.
I hope this helps and if you have further questions please contact me.
A lot of possibles,mays and coulds :-\
I'll let you know if "one day" happens.
Barbara
-
I was hoping that there was more difference between the countries but I also understand why there is so much "fudge room" on these: My great grandfather was SUPPOSEDLY born in Germany and immigrated to New York. HOWEVER, the town he was BORN in was under Welsh rule and by the time he immigrated (about 18 years later) it was under German rule. So when people say he was from Germany - it makes me wonder.
My DNA would/does confirm he was Welsh and NOT German. Until I find actual paperwork etc, I am taking it with a grain of salt but do tend to lean to the Welsh side.
Rumor has it that my g grandfather was born or from Altona, Germany. Even with searches on ancestry and family search shows boy Muhl and doesn't even list his first name (his mother died giving birth to him or shortly after that). :(
Altona was never under Welsh rule (was anywhere?) but under Danish rule.
Rebel
-
Hi Rebel
That's why I was puzzled and why I asked ???
Barbara
-
Danish vice Welsh was a typo. The other side of my family is Welsh. There too lies an issue - how to tell the difference in DNA from Wales vice England.