Ancestry DNA Test

hjr

Hi there,

Just an FYI for anyone thinking of sending off a sample and wondering about the timeframe involved.

I posted of a test on the 20th June, and results arrived today...which is a pretty decent turnaround time in fairness....not the research really begins!!

Jellybaby1

Mine was a bit slower, maybe 3 weeks, pretty good really. Found a lot of matches and already hooked up with some of them. Glad I did it.

spurious

Mine was 5 weeks with Family Tree DNA, bit it was after a bit advertising campaign, so I expected a bit of a delay. It was still quicker than the time frame we had been told (six weeks).

Don't forget gedmatch.com if you want to match with other companies.

VirginiaB

I did Ancestry's last fall and just did FamilyTree.  So far, Ancestry's has been a lot more helpful. I am in the US if that makes any difference in the recognized connections or number of close connections--none on FamilyTree.
A tip for Ancestry. Even if there is no tree attached, click on the person's name to get to their page and many times there is a tree--they just didn't attach it to the DNA results.
Also, if there is no tree but you click on 'Shared Matches' you can often figure out which line of your family the match is in--if you have already done a lot of research via records.

hjr

I completely agree with VirginiaB in her tips. I have some relatives from all corners of my tree who did the DNA test, and it really helps in narrowing down the family line....two of my first cousins on one line have done the test so I've "anchored" many of the matches off them, and am going to work down one family line at a time! Also, Ancestry allows you to put a little note on each match too, so you can remember who you've investigated, contacted, matched, etc....

pinkypinky

Well, FTDNA lets you see shared matches and make notes too. I also like their feature where you can confirm the connection. Ancestry doesn't have that and it keeps offering me shaky leaf reminders on my 1C1R who I know personally and arranged the DNA test for.

The main thing that Ancestry is lacking is the chromosome browser. I wanted to see if 2 people who both matched me had a greater match and on which chromosomes. I had to persuade the Ancestry user to upload to Gedmatch (they did).

hjr

Hi Pinkypinky, now that I have my Ancestry DNA test done, are you saying I can upload those results to gedmatch? Or do I upload my tree? Sorry if I'm being a bit thick!

pinkypinky

You can upload to Gedmatch. Just register with them and follow their instructions.

Earnest

VirginiaB wrote: »

I did Ancestry's last fall and just did FamilyTree.  So far, Ancestry's has been a lot more helpful. I am in the US if that makes any difference in the recognized connections or number of close connections--none on FamilyTree.
A tip for Ancestry. Even if there is no tree attached, click on the person's name to get to their page and many times there is a tree--they just didn't attach it to the DNA results.
Also, if there is no tree but you click on 'Shared Matches' you can often figure out which line of your family the match is in--if you have already done a lot of research via records.

What do you mean by "click on the person's name"? That only brings you to the screen that says X "has not yet linked a family tree to their AncestryDNA results."

pinkypinky

There's tabs on that screen though - one is shared matches.

VirginiaB

Earnest, On Ancestry, click on the person's name which should bring you to their page with their name again and a bit of info.  Then scroll down slightly and you might see one or more family trees listed.  You don't necessarily see it if you don't scroll down.

Hermy

Earnest wrote: »

What do you mean by "click on the person's name"? That only brings you to the screen that says X "has not yet linked a family tree to their AncestryDNA results."

When you get to that screen click on the persons name to go to their profile page where they may have a tree you can access.

Earnest

Hermy wrote: »

When you get to that screen click on the persons name to go to their profile page where they may have a tree you can access.

Thanks, Hermy and Virginia. Yes, it works all right, but from ten tries it produced only a couple of microscopic trees. But undoubtedly another thing to check.

hjr

I think a lot of people seem to be using the DNA as the starting point to research their ancestry, hence why they don't appear to have any trees on ancestry, or only have a handful of people listed. I find it frustrating that someone would buy the DNA kit and then not do anything else...I've seen some matches that haven't logged in in over a year....and I've contacted many of them without reply....why go to the trouble of doing the DNA and then not exploring further!! Sorry, thats my little rant over

VirginiaB

Patience, patience, Earnest. That's what genealogy is all about. Just last night I found someone this way with a tree of almost 200 people. Nothing helpful but the extra step is like buying a lottery ticket with a lot better odds. I have gotten lucky at other times.
I agree with hjr that a lot of people use DNA as a hoped-for short-cut to answers they can only get with records.  To me, the records give pictures of real people with names and unique stories, full of drama and pathos.

Hermy

I'd imagine also that a lot of these DNA kits are bought as presents and the recipients are not so inclined as some of us from this parish to see about compiling family trees.

VirginiaB

Very good point, Hermy--and I like your term, 'this parish'.

dubhthach

I think Hermy hit the nail on the head, personally I did a DNA test not because I was interested in genealogy but because I was interested more in what the test could tell me about deeper history (and pre-history) when it came to stuff like population history/migration etc. Of course this is one of reason why I concentrated on Y-DNA testing, it's kinda cool to think that your specific Y lineage can probably be traced back to one man in South-East Asia around 30-40,000 years ago and that sub-branches of it only spread into western Eurasia during the transition from Neolithic to Bronze age (using ancient DNA to baseline that). Let alone that further back that every man (3.7billion) on the planet shares common ancestry around 190,000 years ago when it comes to their Y-lineage. (There were other men alive at time, however they haven't left any modern direct line descendants)

Now I have both Ancestry and 23andme tests, but again the main interest in those are from what the data can tell about broader history though I do have the skeleton of a tree up on Ancestry as well

VirginiaB

Today Ancestry updated its DNA results with some big changes for a lot of people.  Their database is evidently much larger than whenever they did this previously.  Mine is now closer to my records research altho there is one very missing great-grandfather's DNA which was there before.  Has anyone who did Ancestry's test checked their results today?  Any surprises--or business as usual in the ancestor department?

srmf5

There wasn't much of a change for me.

My results changed from 96% Ireland/Scotland/Wales, 2% Great Britain, 1% Finland/Northwest Russia and <1% Scandinavia to 98% Ireland and Scotland and 2% England, Wales and Northwestern Europe.

My mum's results changed from 98% Ireland/Scotland/Wales, 1% Finland/Northwest Russia and <1% Europe East to 100% Ireland and Scotland.

My aunt's results changed from 99% Ireland/Scotland/Wales and <1% Great Britain to 100% Ireland and Scotland.

My great aunt's results changed from 95% Ireland/Scotland/Wales, 2% Europe South, 1% Great Britain, <1% Europe West and <1% European Jewish to 98% Ireland and Scotland and 2% England, Wales and Northwestern Europe.

hjr

I lost my 2% Spanish history overnight...! Just a regular old Irishman now!

KildareFan

I lost my exotic middle eastern ancestry... but now I can't even access the Ancestry DNA results. I'm getting the 'File not found' screen.

dubhthach

I've gone to 100% "Ireland/Scotland", likewise my father is also 100% "Ireland/Scotland" and my mother is "98% Ireland/Scotland ⁊ 2% England, Wales and Northwest European"

What's interesting is the genetic community feature is somewhat accurate for my parents. Namely:

Dad: (father from Belfast, maternal grandfather form East Galway, maternal grandmother from Cork)

• Ulster (likely) -- "East Ulster"
• Munster (possibly) -- no distinct genetic sub-community
  
  
  Mum: (whose from North Clare with ancestry in South Galway as well)
  • Munster (very likely) -> Southern Ireland (which basically is generic north munster/south leinster cluster)
  • Connacht (possible) -> Galway and North Connacht
  
  I basically got "Munster (very likely) -- Southern Ireland". To put in perspective 5 of my 8 great grandparents were from Munster, 1 was from East Galway, 1 was from Belfast and final was "Liverpool Irish" (of probable Ulster background)

Ipso

Compared to 23andme, how does Ancestry estimations look?

pinkypinky

Here's my estimates - new and old on Ancestry and FamilyTree DNA on the right.

cosanostra

My main area of research is my fathers side of the family, would i be better getting him to do the dna test or do it myself and have my mothers side as a bonus, bear in mind the results im most interested in is my fathers side so would it be more accurate to just get him to do it or does it not matter

spurious

cosanostra wrote: »

My main area of research is my fathers side of the family, would i be better getting him to do the dna test or do it myself and have my mothers side as a bonus, bear in mind the results im most interested in is my fathers side so would it be more accurate to just get him to do it or does it not matter

It would be better if he took it.

dubhthach

You could technically test both yourself and your father. That way any matches you don't share come via your mother's line. Of course what's also worth pointing out is you might have matches through your mother where you don't share any DNA with them but your mother does (eg. when you got the 50% of DNA from your mother it didn't include DNA found in some matches she would have)

Defaulter1831

In 2016 i was:

85% Irish
5% Scottish
5% Northwest Europe (Normandy mostly)
5% Scandinavian/Viking

Now September 2018 i'm
98% Irish/Scottish
2% British/North Western Europe

Some posters here seem really erudite on the subject, i'm wondering what you think of, what seem to me to be, major changes. Where has my Scandinavian heritage gone.. is it in the Scottish and British/Western European dna?

Thanks very much.

pinkypinky

It's just as they add more and more people to the database, they refine the markers tested and what they mean.

Defaulter1831

pinkypinky wrote: »

It's just as they add more and more people to the database, they refine the markers tested and what they mean.

More accurate i hope

Jellybaby1

It seems I'm no longer Polynesian!!

dubhthach

Defaulter1831 wrote: »

In 2016 i was:

85% Irish
5% Scottish
5% Northwest Europe (Normandy mostly)
5% Scandinavian/Viking

Now September 2018 i'm
98% Irish/Scottish
2% British/North Western Europe

Some posters here seem really erudite on the subject, i'm wondering what you think of, what seem to me to be, major changes. Where has my Scandinavian heritage gone.. is it in the Scottish and British/Western European dna?

Thanks very much.

Well you have to remember that the estimates are basically 'software calculators' that use 'reference samples' to infer percentages. In such a case the model is only as good as the data that is fed into it.

so to take an extreme case, if their calculator only had three sample populations:
1. Congolese
2. Japanese
3. Swedish

Then in such a scenario an Irish person data fed into it would probably show up as 100% 'Swedish'.

So obviously the first step is to try and build a sampleset from every and any possible population group.

Of course if you have small samplesets you run into another "issue", in that neighbouring populations tend to be more closely related to each other then distant ones. So for example your average Irish person and average Swede will have shared more recent common ancestors with each other then either would with someone with origins in say Mongolia. Likewise someone from Mongolia will have more recent shared ancestry with say someone from Northern China or Korea then they do with either Swede or Irish person.

In such a case you need to have relatively large samplesets for each population. This allows you to
(a) generate a better picture of what average person in a population looks like when it comes to genetic variation
(b) push certain components backwards in time to more ancient admixture

b. above is possibly what happened with Scandinavian bit in your case. You have to remember that tests such as Ancestry been autosomal are really looking for matches in last 200 years.

Now there's some research that points that modern Irish people appear to have a certain level of 'Norse' admixture in them. RCSI proposed this in their paper on the 'Irish DNA Atlas'. I'm not so sure on their methodolgy for number of reasons:
1. They use only modern sample populations from both Ireland and Europe
2. They don't have any ancient DNA from pre-viking Early christian period -- as a result no baseline for level of admixture flow
3. They have no ancient DNA from Scandinavia to provide a baseline for 'Viking period' population structure. (eg. Nordic Iron age/Early Viking period timeline)



Anyways to go back linguistic point of view it's worth pointing out that both speakers of Germanic languages (eg. English, Dutch, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish etc.) and Celtic language (Irish, Scottish Gáidhlig, Welsh, Breton etc.) would have shared a common language on order of 4-5k years ago in Proto-Indo-european.

4-5k years isn't a huge period for genetic differenation to build up. In comparison the spilt say between Western Europeans and East Asians is more on order of 30-45k years ago. (leaving aside that there have been levels of admixture back and forth since on smaller scale)

Defaulter1831

dubhthach wrote: »

Well you have to remember that the estimates are basically 'software calculators' that use 'reference samples' to infer percentages. In such a case the model is only as good as the data that is fed into it.

so to take an extreme case, if their calculator only had three sample populations:
1. Congolese
2. Japanese
3. Swedish

Then in such a scenario an Irish person data fed into it would probably show up as 100% 'Swedish'.

So obviously the first step is to try and build a sampleset from every and any possible population group.

Of course if you have small samplesets you run into another "issue", in that neighbouring populations tend to be more closely related to each other then distant ones. So for example your average Irish person and average Swede will have shared more recent common ancestors with each other then either would with someone with origins in say Mongolia. Likewise someone from Mongolia will have more recent shared ancestry with say someone from Northern China or Korea then they do with either Swede or Irish person.

In such a case you need to have relatively large samplesets for each population. This allows you to
(a) generate a better picture of what average person in a population looks like when it comes to genetic variation
(b) push certain components backwards in time to more ancient admixture

b. above is possibly what happened with Scandinavian bit in your case. You have to remember that tests such as Ancestry been autosomal are really looking for matches in last 200 years.

Now there's some research that points that modern Irish people appear to have a certain level of 'Norse' admixture in them. RCSI proposed this in their paper on the 'Irish DNA Atlas'. I'm not so sure on their methodolgy for number of reasons:
1. They use only modern sample populations from both Ireland and Europe
2. They don't have any ancient DNA from pre-viking Early christian period -- as a result no baseline for level of admixture flow
3. They have no ancient DNA from Scandinavia to provide a baseline for 'Viking period' population structure. (eg. Nordic Iron age/Early Viking period timeline)



Anyways to go back linguistic point of view it's worth pointing out that both speakers of Germanic languages (eg. English, Dutch, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish etc.) and Celtic language (Irish, Scottish Gáidhlig, Welsh, Breton etc.) would have shared a common language on order of 4-5k years ago in Proto-Indo-european.

4-5k years isn't a huge period for genetic differenation to build up. In comparison the spilt say between Western Europeans and East Asians is more on order of 30-45k years ago. (leaving aside that there have been levels of admixture back and forth since on smaller scale)

Thanks very much for this excellent post.

tabbey

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

It seems I'm no longer Polynesian!!

Don't be too disappointed, you can still take a holiday in Polynesia if you wish (and resources permit)

pedroeibar1

tabbey wrote: »

Don't be too disappointed, you can still take a holiday in Polynesia if you wish (and resources permit)

Perhaps it was not a good idea to wear a Bikini when spitting into the tube?

dubhthach

Here's a blog post from Ancestry talking about their reference populations and the size of them:
https://www.ancestry.com/cs/dna-help/ethnicity/reference-panel

Key bits for us:

Region Number of Samples
Northern Africa 41
Africa South-Central Hunter-Gatherers 34
Benin & Togo 224
Cameroon, Congo, & Southern Bantu Peoples 579
Ivory Coast & Ghana 124
Eastern Africa 82
Mali 169
Nigeria 111
Senegal 31
Native American—North, Central, South 146
Native American—Andean 63
Central & Northern Asia 186
Southern Asia 600
Balochistan 53
Burusho 23
China 620
Southeast Asia–Dai (Thai) 80
Western & Central India 65
Japan 592
Korea & Northern China 261
Philippines 538
Southeast Asia–Vietnam 159
England, Wales & Northwestern Europe 1,519
Baltic States 194
Basque 22
Ireland & Scotland 500
European Jewish 200
France 1,407
Germanic Europe 2,072
Greece & the Balkans 242
Italy 1,000
Norway 367
Portugal 404
Sardinia 30
Eastern Europe & Russia 1,959
Spain 270
Sweden 372
Finland 361
Middle East 271
Iran / Persia 459
Turkey & the Caucasus 101
Melanesia 49
Polynesia 58
Total 16,638

I bolded some there, but you can see if you follow an arc from Portugal northwards to Norway you see decent size samplesets for the following: Portugal, Spain, France, Ireland ⁊ Scotland, England ⁊ Wales ⁊ NW Europe, Germany, Sweden, Norway

From a grandscheme of things these are our surrounding populations so if you have any non 'Ireland ⁊ Scotland' ancestry you would expect perhaps one of these (particulary the 'England, Wales ⁊ NW Euro' one).

Eventually they will probably spilt Ireland and Scotland perhaps when they have at least 500+ samples in reference panel from each country.