DNA Testing - Why Not

[polly88]

Thanks David.  I have looked at those sites, and arrived at the same conclusion as you.  Maybe it's best to hang on for a bit until it becomes more popular, and more Brits get tested.  It is such a lot of money, if there is a risk of not finding a match.

[Lookin2]

Davidf

I tried Oxford Ancestors years ago (10 markers) and nothing came up then but thank you for your reply.  Lookin2

[Redroger]

Thanks David.  I have looked at those sites, and arrived at the same conclusion as you.  Maybe it's best to hang on for a bit until it becomes more popular, and more Brits get tested.  It is such a lot of money, if there is a risk of not finding a match.

And if you all hang on it will never become widespread. Remember a result of a test taken now will still be available in the future.

[polly88]

True!  But I am just being cautious because of the cost...

[supermoussi]

I tried Oxford Ancestors years ago (10 markers) and nothing came up then but thank you for your reply.  Lookin2

But did you go looking for potential matches though? If you want to discover new things in the near future you need to find potential matches using the papertrail and then confirm them using DNA.

To get results in genealogical research, whether by the traditional papertrail or by DNA, you need to invest a bit of effort. Just sitting there waiting like a lump is not going to get you very far.

[Lookin2]

Supermouse

Tests done for my family:
Oxford Ancestors 10 markers - 1 family member
Tribes of Britain                      -     "           "

Roots for Real:                          2 family members
Y-DNA   10 markers                                 
MtDNA                                            "           "

FamilytreeDNA

Family Finder for 3 family members
YDNA 37 markers   1 family member

National Geographic 1 family member

One female family line pretty much done 1700's to date with the help of two researchers and lots of help from Roots Chatters.

About a dozen certs. obtained.

I can understand that people are hesitant about taking these tests as they are expensive even when on sale and others that are nervous about supplying their DNA.  Hopefully, on reading of others that have jumped in and what fun it is in getting results  their curiosity will get them to participate.

My original question was "does anyone know of a company that has many Europeans taking tests (hopefully over the 12 marker range)as Family Tree DNA has with Americans participating. I know Roots for Real has just started giving autosomonal tests but doubt if they have the numbers (europeans) as Family Tree.

Regards from the "lump" Lookin2

[nickgc]

The main reason I started this poll and thread was to try to keep the fact of DNA testing, and the decreasing costs, in the mind of a very active and knowledgeable group of family researchers (that is you, RC denizens).

Research shows that on a per capita basis, Europeans and British genealogists are much less likely to have this testing done.  I wanted to know why.

It really shouldn't matter whether you have testing done by a company in England, or Scotland, or the US, but ONLY if the data are comparable from one company to an another.  In fact it may be at cross-purposes with the goal of developing as broad a database as possible from people all over the world.  Is it better to test with a company that has 100,000 members who only have tested 3000 from England, or test with a company in the UK who has tested only Europeans, but only has 2000 members total?

Scotland'sDNA is a fairly new company started by a well-known and competent geneticist and an equally admirable historian.  But they offer only Y DNA and mitochondrial testing, and at a very hefty price (170 lbs each).  It may be all you need, but I urge people to find out if any of these smaller companies give you your data in a format you can use to compare it to much larger data sets.

Nick  

[Ruskie]

A question (which may already have been answered, sorry) from someone who finds this all quite confusing and complicated:

If someone were to take a 'top of the range' DNA test, would the results tell them that there is, for example, a person living in Switzerland, three in Yorkshire, 50 people living in various states of America, and 10 in NSW Australia, who all have close matches? Would they tell you how close the matches are, and would you be able to make contact with these potential matches? (This is just an exaggerated example and I realise it might be beyond reasonable expectations)

Research shows that on a per capita basis, Europeans and British genealogists are much less likely to have this testing done.  I wanted to know why.
Nick  

Apart from the Americans having more money for DNA testing, I think there may be a cultural difference for them being more interested in taking the tests than other nationalities. I think a lot of them are looking for some kind of identity or heritage, looking for their Irish and Scottish roots, and even hoping for links to royalty  . Maybe they see this as a way to trace their origins. The European American culture/heritage is relatively recent compared to the European and British - maybe they are hoping to find where they fit in?  I also think they may be more trusting of these tests than the Brits.

[nickgc]

Ruskie,

Hi - I'm attaching a non-graphical JPG representation of what you get in your list of DNA related cousins from 23andMe, and I suspect FTDNA's is comparable (I think DevonCruwys has some other screenshots on her site, linked above in this thread).

People set up a profile where they can put in details of their family surnames, dates, and geographic areas.  If you find an individual that seems to have a high degree of relatedness you can do a preliminary look for matching surnames and geo-locations before making contact.   As a wild (but real) example, if you find someone who has 23% of the same DNA as you, and look at the profile and it says, "I was adopted at birth and have absolutely no idea of my family tree", you know you have just found a half-sibling, or a sibling of one of your biological parents.

A more reasonable expectation is to find someone who shares under 1% of your DNA, but that is still relevant in a genealogical framework.  Most people put emphasis on those who share 0.34% or greater as a start.

Let's look at some of my stronger matches.  The 0.73% match at top is quite possibly a descendant of one of my Dad's many, many second cousins (less likely on my mother's side because of relative number of 2nd cousins they each had.  We haven't made contact yet and he has little detail in his profile.

The 55 cM, 2 segments means there is a fairly long length of matching DNA at either 2 places on one chromosome, or one place on each of two chromosomes.  The DNA doesn't lie and we are definitely related.  The I1a1 is his paternal haplogroup that is very close to mine (I1), and the string starting "R1" is his maternal haplogroup (mine is H6a1).

I have just made contact with a person who shares 0.25% of my DNA with a significant 19 cM stretch on a single chromosome.  He is on a business trip, so we haven't been able to compare genealogies, but three of his names match my own, and they were in the same area of Pennsylvania in the same timeframe as one of my 3x great grandmother's family.   I have made a tentative conclusion that his relative might be a sibling or aunt/uncle, but will wait until we can compare details.  If I am right and he has a good genealogy, I might be able to determine which one of the 3 possible couples are the actual parents of my 3x ggma.

Hope this helps,

Nick