Ancestry DNA testing - has anyone done it?

[James18]

I've heard mixed reports about this. Has anyone paid to have the test done, and if so, did anything come of it? What sort of results do you get presented with? I realize that you're only going to find relatives if they've also had DNA tests done, but I'm just curious as to people's experiences with this.

It's something I've been pondering for a while, but I'm not really sure what to expect. I do have a particular reason for wanting to try it.

[Olde Crone]

My personal feeling is that it is an utter waste of money. Most people who have done it have only found tenth cousins (I exaggerate) and neither side is any the wiser as to how they are related.

DNA testing is only worth doing in my opinion if you want to test your relatedness to another specific person, in other words, are Joe Bloggs and I related in any meaningful way.

Of all the DNA tests, Ancestry do not come out well. There are other companies who present results in a more meaningful way. Also consider what the testing company are going to do with your data - do you own it or do they? (Ancestry certainly USED to own your DNA, that may have changed and you might not care anyway.)

OC

[garstonite]

I had mine done on FamilytreeDNA in USA ....OC is very polite - I totally agree with her but would like to add it is a complete waste of money to put it bluntly....

[BlueSavannah]

I was also considering doing a test also but after seeing OC & Allan's responses, I think I will pass now.

[Anstey Nomad]

I was on the verge of shelling out for this. I have two issues I need to solve. One is a question of ethnicity and the other is whether I am actually related to someone I am corresponding with in the US (who I am trying to persuade to do this) as the US family trees start with one individual who apparently came out of nowhere, and I appear to have the same individual in my tree, with no UK descendants.

Is this not what it does?

[James18]

Is this not what it does?
I *think* that if both you and your potential relative take the test, then yes, it should tell you whether you're related to one another, but to what degree of accuracy I don't know.

My understanding of the Ancestry DNA test is that it gives you a basic run-down of your genetic roots (e.g. 83% British Isles, 7% Iberian, 10% Native American) and will help you connect with other Ancestry members who have also taken the test. I don't recall the specifics, but a friend of mine in the US has taken the test and was given his genetic roots (or whatever the correct phrase is - sorry if that's way off mark) with various percentages, and he was informed of potential distant cousins on Ancestry, who he was then able to message.

Now, how useful you feel that to be for £99 (default price) I don't know, and personally I doubt I'd find that to be value for money, but I suppose it's down to the individual and what you consider to be a worthwhile outcome.

But I suppose if the desired result is: 'pay money, take test, locate missing half-sister in New Zealand, message her, have big reunion' then you're likely going to be very disappointed.

So far I've managed to find relatives simply by contacting family tree owners who have matching data to me, and we've managed to work out how we're related and exchange information the other didn't have -- and that didn't cost me anything.

I'm half-tempted, but tend to fall on the side of it really not being worth it... but it's that niggling feeling, isn't it? How do you know if you don't try? It's always possible it will lead to some sort of breakthrough.

[Olde Crone]

There are basically two sorts of tests.

Y-dna tests will identify (but not by name) the male line.
Mt-dna will identify (but not by name) the female line.
Autosomal tests will show relatedness between the sexes/generations but again, won't identify anyone by name.

Autosomal tests are really accurate for parents/children/siblings. Quite accurate for first cousins, moderately accurate for second cousins...and at that point it all goes out of the window unless you are very lucky and the test identifies an unusual gene.

Geographical dna testing is not worth the paper it is written on. The major testing companies have yet to agree which genes come from which location. WHICH magazine describes these sort of tests as being as accurate as a daily paper horoscope. Even if it were accurate, what use is it in determining your ancestry to know that 10,000 years ago ONE of your ancestors was making his way across the Urals or whatever. Remember you can only test the genes which have survived, not all the ones lost along the way.

OC

[James18]

Very interesting, OC. Thanks.

I also echo the point regarding ownership of the DNA after it is sent to Ancestry. I can't say I feel overly comfortable about a random lab in the US having a copy of my DNA.

[marquette]

In my OHs extended family, there is a project going to test various members' DNA. OH and his aunt have sent theirs off and had a match score of over 1800, which makes a lot of sense (aunt is his mothers sister). But all the other cousins are 3rd or less and have less than 100. There are also dozens of random people who match also with less than 100 but more than the cousins, seemingly for all over the world.

They have already been able use the DNA tests to sort out a couple of family mysteries, but even that has not convinced some members who believe a faulty tree drawn up in the early 1900s.

And then there are those cousins who we know have tested - with whom he and his aunt have no common DNA !

His ethnicity is purely European, mostly British Isles, but small percentages of Scandanavian, Southern, Central/Western and Eastern European are there also.

But how useful is that really, when I can trace most of his families back to the beginning of parish records ?

I can figure the Scandanavian to those ancestors who lived in the Danelaw, and the Southern to maybe some long-ago Roman who made it to Britain, the others to those who settled in Sussex.

Where do I go from there ? and why, I guess ?

I have not contacted any of the seemingly random matches, as I cannot see where there is any commonality - for those who have logged their surnames of interest, there are no matches, no places in common either. Another lady is analysing the family project, so I am leaving that all up to her.


Di

[Kit]

And then there are those cousins who we know have tested - with whom he and his aunt have no common DNA!!

oops.

That means there was an adoption somewhere or the father wasn't who everyone thought it was.

[Kit]

I am sort of interested but can not afford it at this point in my life.

I am concerned about what happens to my DNA. I mean who knows I may become an axe wielding, bank robbing murderer in my old age and I don't want to get caught because I had an interest in FH. :rolleyes::eek::D

[marquette]

oops.

That means there was an adoption somewhere or the father wasn't who everyone thought it was.

No, adoption is not the problem - it is the name changes and close personal relationships (one man had children with 2 sisters, or maybe 3!).

I think the non-matches in MT-DNA are because OHs maternal 3xg grandfather had two wives, and a multitude of children.

I can only figure that OH and aunt will only match with other descendants of the second wife, not those of the first wife.

The first wife was alleged to be illegitimate of Norwegian descent, but more likely to be just from Yorkshire ! Which is what the project is now looking at, now they have sorted out who exactly changed his name and how many children are really his !

[Olde Crone]

Kit

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. It just means the two people tested have no DNA in common. They have a chance of having an AVERAGE of 25% in common...but that's just an average and the fact that they have none may just be an accident of birth. Even full blood siblings won't necessarily have 50% DNA in common, but should have enough to prove their relationship.

My maternal line traces back on paper to a small fishing village in the North East of Scotland. A mt-dna project was done there some years ago on women in the village who can trace back to at least their great grandmother living in the same village. th results identified a rare mt-dna for 90% of the women tested and the only other place in the world it has been found (so far!) is a small fishing village in Iceland. Great excitement because it makes perfect sense that fishing boats went between the two villages.

However - what conclusions do you draw from this find? That the Scottish women are originally from Iceland, or vice versa? Or neither originates in either place, it just happens to be where a surviving female landed up. Furthermore, I most likely have this same dna but no one has tested mine....maybe there are billions of us who don't actually live in either village. More of us out than in, as it were.

OC

[kiterunner]

I would love it if some of the female-line descendants of my brickwall 2xg-grandmother would have the mt-DNA test done as it might give some clues as to her origins, and confirm some relationships and identities. But I'm not in regular contact with any of them and as far as I know, they aren't considering it.

[Kit]

(one man had children with 2 sisters, or maybe 3!).

He was just asking for trouble.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. It just means the two people tested have no DNA in common.

I thought people who were related by blood would match on a DNA test, at least down the male line. I know female dna tests are different.

I live and learn. :)

I would love it if some of the female-line descendants of my brickwall 2xg-grandmother would have the mt-DNA test done as it might give some clues as to her origins, and confirm some relationships and identities.

Have you had the test done Kite?

If a DNA test would prove who my 4g grandfather was related to in England I'd do it yesterday but all I will be able to prove is I'm related to half of Sydney.

[marquette]

[QUOTE=Kit;317847]He was just asking for trouble.


A lot of it !

He must have been pretty charismatic - or maybe the only man around.

[Olde Crone]

Kit

Autosomal DNA (that is, the non-sex specific DNA we all have) is inherited from our parents by a completely random process, so I may inherit 55% of my mother's autosomal DNA and 45% of my father's autosomal DNA. My sister (if I had one!) might inherit 33% of our mother's autosomal DNA but 67% of our father's autosomal DNA. You can see that down the succeeding generations the common autosomal DNA might be lost.

Sex-related DNA testing (Y-DNA and mt-DNA) holds true IN GENERAL down the generations but for only one of your relatives. There are important exceptions where this is not accurate and of course it completely misses any other kind of relatedness. For example - if my brother and our male cousin had a Y-dna test it would not show that they are related because they have different fathers. An autosomal DNA test however, ought to show a degree of relatdness that you would not expect in the general population - again, that depends on the local population!

OC

[kiterunner]

Have you had the test done Kite?


I haven't, Toni - it wouldn't help with that brickwall because I'm not one of her female-line descendants, since she's my grandfather's grandmother.

[kiterunner]

Autosomal DNA (that is, the non-sex specific DNA we all have) is inherited from our parents by a completely random process, so I may inherit 55% of my mother's autosomal DNA and 45% of my father's autosomal DNA. My sister (if I had one!) might inherit 33% of our mother's autosomal DNA but 67% of our father's autosomal DNA. You can see that down the succeeding generations the common autosomal DNA might be lost.


That can't be correct at the parent-child level, OC - everyone inherits 50% of each parent's DNA, except in cases where they get an extra chromosome or something. But that doesn't mean they get exactly 25% of each grandparent's DNA and so on through the generations, because of the way that DNA is passed on.

[Olde Crone]

Sorry, yes, we inherit 50% from each of our parents but it isn't the same 50% for each sibling.

OC