This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: ksaxe Surnames: Donald, McConnell Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.mcconnell/2469.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Update on Ancestry.com's entry into the genetic genealogy field It's been some time since I made the prior post about ancestry.com entering the genetic genealogy business and Relative Genetics ceasing to exist. Since then ancestry.com has launched their genetic genealogy business, and it's called DNA Ancestry. I have hesitated to update readers of this board and list about the transition because it's been a bit controversial, and I've been waiting for some of the controversy to die down before commenting. Genetic genealogists have had a couple of concerns about DNA Ancestry's entry into the business, and of course there is also support for this alternative to the relatively small number of organizations that offer DNA testing for genealogy purposes. First, the warts... 1)DNA Ancestry is offering two Y-DNA tests. One is marketed as a 33 marker test and the other is marketed as a 46 marker test. By looking at sample reports on the DNA Ancestry website, it is possible to learn what markers are used for the tests. It turns out that the 46 marker test is essentially the same as the old 43 marker test used by Relative Genetics, using the same 43 markers and also reporting results for an additional 3 markers, DYS 464e, DYS 464f, and DYS 19b. It turns out that these 3 markers don't even exist in most men. Where they do exist, they are extra copies of other markers and other companies have detected the extra copies of these markers and reported them to their customers. Whether every company has consistently detected and reported these extra markers, I do not know, but clearly the marker count of 46 is misleadingly high for the average genetic genealogy customer who doesn't know that the count of 46 is essentially the same as the count of 43 used by! one of their competitors, DNA Heritage. 2)It turns out that the mutation rates of markers used by DNA testing companies are just as important as the number of markers used anyway. This is a complicated subject and I am not familiar with the mathematics of it, but it turns out that the 37 marker tests are generally considered more informative than 43/46 marker tests. On the other hand, the fastest markers in the 37 marker test generally increase the resolution of the test, but can cause confusion due to their tendency toward parallel and back mutations in different family lines. I believe that for most family groups, the 37 marker tests will be more helpful, but that does not mean that some families would not be better off using the 43/46 marker tests. Without test results from both types of test, it is impossible to tell for sure which markers are most informative for a particular family. One company, DNA Heritage, allows surname projects to chose their own markers, and this is an interesting option for surname pr! ojects that have some idea of what markers are most informative for some of their lines. 3)It appears that the selection of markers for the 33 marker test does not work well for researchers wishing to compare results from other companies. 4)The shutdown of Relative Genetics meant that their database would no longer exist. Of course it would have been unfair to Relative Genetics customers and a disservice to past and future customers of DNA Ancestry and other organizations to abandon the information in the Relative Genetics database. Data was transferred using an opt-out system. Prior Relative Genetics customers and other individuals who had entered data entered into the Relative Genetics database needed to opt out to prevent the transfer of their information. Some individuals who had entered their data into the database did not recall having done so and were very suspicious when they received e-mails notifying them that their data had been or might be transferred. 5)More seriously, individuals with test results from other organizations were invited to enter their information into the new database, and for a brief period, the website at ancestry.com seemed to suggest a connection between FTDNA and DNA Ancestry. This implied connection seemed to have been designed to encourage FTDNA customers who might otherwise not have done so to add their information to the DNA Ancestry database. It's understandable that DNA Ancestry and other companies would like to be able to make connections between their customers and people tested at other companies, but the use of deceptive practices raises concerns. Individuals who want to compare their DNA test results with those of people tested at other companies have options other than entering their data into the databases of every company in the business. Many genealogists really don't want the information that they want to share to become a selling point for particular companies. Databases such as Ysear! ch, which does not require individuals to enter their own data to do searches, are more open and will appeal to genealogists with this concern. And the strengths... 1)DNA Ancestry uses Sorenson Genomics to perform their tests. Sorenson Genomics has been proud of its policy of running all tests twice, at least on their samples tested for a fee through private companies. I'm not clear whether this policy also applies to the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation testing. Other companies follow somewhat different policies. For instance, FTDNA runs tests once, but has them inspected by at least two people before posting final results. If the test results seem ambiguous, the samples are to be retested. So error rates should be low, but the error rate for DNA Ancestry should be lower. Anecdotes posted on the DNA Genealogy list here at Rootsweb suggest that errors are not unheard of at any company, but error rates are generally low for Y-chromosome STR testing. Sometimes errors are detected, especially in surname studies when people with matching results have a suspicious mismatch on a particular marker or markers and rechecks are requested. 2)Marketing by ancestry.com will probably encourage numerous genealogists to have DNA tested for themselves and/or their relatives. This should help genealogists with DNA test results from all testing organizations find and disprove genetic connections. And the unchanged and yet to be resolved, DNA Ancestry was not set up for new surname projects when I last checked. Existing projects were using the old Relative Genetics site. The regular pricing for the 46 marker test is the same, or about the same, as the Relative Genetics pricing for the equivalent 43 marker test. It may be that the addition of surname project options with lower pricing will provide more competitive pricing within the industry. This post may seem a little offtopic for this list, since the Clan Donald DNA project of interest to McConnells has already been established at FTDNA. However, it is possible that members of this list have considered or will consider testing with other companies. Those that do can join the project by contacting the administrators. It is possible that relevant surname projects will be established at other companies in the future to allow participants to take advantage of group rates, and I hope that this post is helpful to some of you considering testing for your McConnell or other family lines. The International Society of Genetic Genealogy has maintained a webpage with information on companies performing Y-DNA STR testing. This page has not been updated recently, but may be somewhat useful now and more useful following updating. You can find it at http://www.isogg.org/ydnachart.htm. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.