Blame Reference Populations If Your DNA Ethnicity Results Are Wrong

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Now that you know about reference populations, learn about Ethnicity admixtures 👉🏼 kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3TMnJ1te65pj68

[@frankmann2899]

My mom’s grandparents immigrated from Sicily. A relative of my mom’s had genealogist research her family. My mom’s family had been in Sicily for more than 400 years. How come my mom’s test indicated she was only 10% Italian

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Because DNA doesn't care what your paper trail is... Because ethnicity results are only an estimate based on incomplete data...

[@hannibalbarca4372]

Sicily was a Greek colony for a long time,Sicilian gene pool is quite bite different from northern Italian... Sicily during here history was invaded by Romans,Carthagenians,Normands,Arabs,all of them let there genetic admixture on local population...

[@QuentinQuatermass]

Thanks again for another topic very nicely explained, Andy. You have a way of cutting through the minutiae and getting to the heart of the matter. I am one of the exceptions you mentioned, colonial American, but somehow remained almost entirely British and Irish. My ancestral lines go back to Ireland, Scotland, Wales and of course England so while I couldn't be added to a reference population I match up well with reference populations from the British Isles, especially Living DNA and 23andMe. Of course other people don't match up well with any RPs so it's luck of the draw how anyone matches up with the particular RPs of the DNA testing company they bought into.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I have a sister in law whose family has lived in the states for more than 150 years, yet she tests as 100% English.

[@QuentinQuatermass]

Wow, amazing 100% English with no Welsh, Irish, Scot! I guess that was at Living DNA?

[@kellysimpson6962]

I’ve taken several DNA tests and most ethnicity results are somewhere in the same ballpark. However, I had one that is extremely far off and my matches make no sense. Is there any way to explain this?

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

No. Each company uses different algorithms. None of them share what those algorithms are.

[@leehallam9365]

I live in England, and have traced back my family tree quite far back, in most branches to the area that their surnames originate. All those surnames are English and most branches lead back to small villages in the Midlands and North West of England, there is no hint of Irish Scottish or Welsh ancestry and the most recent immigrant I found was connecting to a recorded genealogy suggesting a couple of ancestors coming over in 1066. So when I sent off my DNA to Ancestry I expected to be pretty Anglo Saxon, and was hoping the links would not undermine my tree research. I'm glad to say they did not I found links with people from the families of all of my grandparents, (I am related to the people I was supposed to be related to), and the genetic community results matched my tree research exactly, even showing a hit in Norfolk, where though I had not found anyone, I knew one of the names originated. However the ethnicity results were surprising. I was a lot less Irish than is usual, which wasn't a surprise, but at 31%, I was less British than the average and I was a lot more Western European 57% than the typical 25%. Now if I actually thought what that meant was I had lots of modern French or German ancestors who travelled to England just before records were kept, settled in the most isolated parts of England, only marrying one another, and took English names that would make my ancestry much more exciting. But it's just not credible, I think it's down to the assumptions these companies make about the DNA groups they identify, they describe the group they describe as "British" as Anglo Saxon but if they are what happened to the people already there? I think it is those people's DNA that they are describing as British, and which makes up 40% of the typical English person's DNA, I think most of that Western European DNA is actually the Anglo Saxons, and other invaders of between 1600 and 950 years ago. I think my isolated ancestors were Anglo Saxons who lived in areas where they had less contact with the indigenous population, and avoiding cities and ports had less contact with incoming populations, so have more in common genetically with the people still living in those areas of Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands that their ancestors came from. That's my theory, but if it's true it raises a question about all those people who haven't researched a tree and are told they are unexpectedly French or German or whatever, the time frame of the origin is so vague that it's very misleading.

[@QuentinQuatermass]

Lee, I think you're right about much Continental Western Europe actually being British, in fact I bet mostly English, maybe East Anglia and around Kent. Comparing to you, my AncestryDNA ethnicity is 53% British, 28% Irish, 16% West Europe and 3% Scandinavian. AncestryDNA plays around with what Irish actually is so I'll just say 81% British&Irish. From my genealogy I believe my West Europe (Dutch&German) and Scandinavia (Hamburg&Denmark) is only 5% so 14% of the 19% reported WE/Scand should be British. For me, 23andMe does a better job reporting 86.4% British%Irish which seems to be strongly Wales, Ireland, Scotland and North and West England. Again a good chunk of Continental Europe, about 9% should be pulled over to SE England. Living DNA nailed it for me reporting 98.7% British&Irish and 1.3% Scandinavian. If I move 3.7% across the English Channel to the Netherlands and Germany I'm in sync with my paper research. You might want to look at Living DNA next time they have a sale since you're British and they have the best reference populations for the Isles being based on the People of the British Isles DNA project. They didn't do too bad for me at the country level in the Isles. They nailed my 29% Scot with 21% of that NW Scotland! But my Welsh at 12% should be 20%, my Irish at 6% should be 15% and English was very high at 51%, should be around 32%. Still that was amazing and of course DNA doesn't always line up with your paper trail.

[@leehallam9365]

QuentinQuatermass. Thanks for your reply, Ancestry do extend their "Western Europe" to cover the SE of England, unfortunately the genealogy research traces very little of my family to that part of England, all the evidence points to clusters in Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, with a couple of lines from the south. I do wonder with Ancestry about the motivation behind their interpretations, their marketing campaign ihere is very much based on the idea we are all more linked to Europe than we think, that the typical English person is only 35 to 40 % English. In my case it's interesting that the genetic communities sit outside the area where my principle DNA comes from (I know that would probably be the case for those whose family have emigrated, but mine havent) and that all the people they give as being linked are from England, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. None from continental Europe. I have tried to upload my DNA from Ancestry to My Heritage and one of the others, but both said it was in a form they could not process, so I will have to consider if I pay again. In the mean time, I'm taking it that I am 31% Ancient Briton, 5% Irish/Scottish, 6% Viking (Scandinavia & Finland combined) and 57% Anglo Saxon ( with a touch of Norman).

[@thomasspicer4130]

great comment Lee I agree 100% have you tried livingdna yet?

[@leehallam9365]

thomas spicer. Thanks Thomas, I'm considering giving them a go.

[@leehallam9365]

thomas spicer. I uploaded to My Heritage, and after initially saying they were invalid, they've just reported back: 83% English, 10% Scandinavian 7% Finnish. Make of that what you will,

[@serkankinden5150]

What do you think about turkic ancestry as they were mostly nomads and settled to any region from east asia to even balkans? Is it possible to gather a nomadic nation's genetic distribution? Also, for example if there is a group including 100 samples including almost different mtdna haplogroups in any region and someone has all these different mtdna haplogroups from all grandparents does myheritage say "you are from this region"? How does myheritage decide whether someone is from specific region? What is the main focus for classification, mtdna, ydna or something else?

[@ROPSaeddienPK]

Question. So my parents, grandparents and all of my great-grandparents are from Colombia. So could I be included in a reference database for Colombia or is Colombia considered an immigrant country?

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Colombia would be a migrant country (all of the Americas are) but if your family were from a native South American group, then you would qualify.

[@ROPSaeddienPK]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Oh alright thank you.

[@melaninqueen2413]

I'm so confused and just upset right now!! On Myheritage DNA, I'm 78.7% African (West & East). But on Ancestry DNA, I'm 86% African, no East African, but West, Central and South. Also I was 15.4% European and 4.9% Mesoamerican and Andean. But on Ancestry DNA, I'm 12% European (English, Irish, Norwegian, Scottish and Greek & Albanian). On Myheritage, I'm only Irish, Scottish & Welsh! And on Ancestry, I'm only 2% Indigenous American (Indigenous Mexico and North America)!! So this has me really confused on how African I am. Which one do you think could be more accurate for African Americans?

[@LiLi-yq5fw]

Hello! I think you have to upload your raw data on Gedmatch, your results will be more accurate ! For example, I did my test with MyHeritage I was like 99% African (West African (which was kinda weird to me), Kenyan and Central African) and 1% Finnish (pretty weird haha) Then, on Gedmatch my results were more accurate: around 45% Central African (my dad is Kongo so it is accurate), around 40% Kenyan and Ethiopian (pretty accurate, my mom has parents from these regions) and around 10% East-Central Asian (pretty accurate, I do have Asian features and great great parents). I still don't know how MyHeritage missed my Ethiopian and Asian part hahah ! To conclude: MyHeritage database is "weak", Gedmatch is better in reading raw data.

[@eljefe4300]

@@LiLi-yq5fw you think i can just get myheritage cuz its cheaper and upload it to somewhere else?

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

It all depends on reference populations that the companies use. They're not the same and they don't configure the groups the same. My wife's DNA is just as varied as yours. The websites can't agree just how German she is. Some say she's more Swedish than she is as well. If I may, I would recommend not worrying about the ethnicity percentages and work with your DNA matches to determine your heritage. Not everyone knows their family tree but with time and patience, you can begin to figure out who is related to whom and where they originated.

[@melaninqueen2413]

@@LiLi-yq5fw I've uploaded my results to Gedmatch before and my African ranges from 78-87%. But the average is around 80-83% African.

[@Porkchopapii]

I've gotting African American(1000genomes) African Caribbean(1000genomes) Dominican_byrc Kongo.The Distance is 3,is it basically Afro Dominican. And i have Brazilian+Luhya+Yoruba+Yoruba. and the distance is 3.So that's Afro Brazilian.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks for sharing

[@Floyd12345]

Could someone explain to me why my wifes dna results match her mothers dna test? Example: Both her and her mothers results show 27% Germany and all the other places same also. Why would they be the same when they're different people?

[@invadertifxiii]

I have a pair of third great grandparents that were born in moderia Portugal but no dna results show it on either Ancestry or 23andme and there last name was pierce/piers. Now I don't have confidence in that the tree is accurate but is there a reason people of British Irish Ancestry would of been in that region in 1830

[@mpaige7081]

I am pretty knowledgeable regarding ancestry and genealogy. However, my mom, my daughter, and i share .a small 02% segment on our 12th chromo that is Bengali/Northeast Indian in an otherwise mostly southern colonial family . My question is, does this small trace become more “relevant” and less noise since we all 3 share it? I do understand there were many groups of people who came thru that area of the world from northern Europe . Thx!

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Not necessarily. But it is interesting. You'd like to see parents or aunts/uncles of your mom to see what's happening.

[@tinkgirl]

@FamilyHistoryFanatics I wondered if you could help me at all. I’m from Britain and have just had my My Heritage results back… I’m 55.5% Scandinavian, 38.1% British and 6.4% Eastern European. All of my Genetic Groups are as I would expect through in Britain but nothing anywhere else is showing - just British Genetics. I really don’t know where the Scandinavian is coming from especially as it’s at such a high percentage too! I must say, I’m very pleased with my results - although definitely confused! Could you help shed any light on this at all? Thank you.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

My wife's DNA percentages from MyHeritage are problematic. She has a high percentage of Scandinavian and a very low percentage of German, but on other platforms have a higher German percentage and a lower Scandinavian percentage. Her paper trail and DNA match family tree aligns more with the higher percentage of Germanic heritage and a small Scandinavian heritage. For that reason, I would recommend you ignore the ethnicity percentages and use the DNA matching tools on MyHeritage to build your family tree. kzbin.info/aero/PLcVx-GSCjcdmsw25mbI-wJin_9_9QQUzI

[@thomasspicer4130]

great video very interesting and helpful 👌

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thank you. It's the one that answers so many questions about why ethnicity results aren't what people expected.

[@Emy53]

I agree with everything you said here.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks. Glad you thought it valuable.

[@aarontobias6486]

I don't know if this is a dumb question but hypothetically if they took reference D.N.A. from Americans (American as in United States citizen) of colonial English descent would it be distinct compared to the reference D.N.A. for English D.N.A.?

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Nope. There is too much intermingling of US citizens. Colonial English would be connected to England. However, Native American DNA could be helpful, but unfortunately many US tribes do not wish to test. However, MyHeritage does have some Genetic Groups that use DNA tests and family trees to place people in Colonial America. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hn3SgIGCipVkesU

[@gaylecheung3087]

I am 100% Chinese made in Canada ♥️🇨🇦🌏🎄

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Sweet. I served a Chinese speaking mission in Vancouver, BC.

[@GMarieBehindTheMask]

Does being 1% percent count?

[@GMarieBehindTheMask]

If so, How?

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Not really and maybe. It depends on what the 1% region is and whether your parents and grandparents have higher percentages of that same ethnicity.

[@VerdosoVersusElites]

I see you deleted my entry. North America , Canada and Australia are not the only the countries with immigrants lmao! You forgot almost all of Latin America to include Cuba and Puerto Rico .

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Didn't mean to delete your entry. We posted two versions of the same video. We deleted the duplicate copy. As for immigrant countries, I believe I said, "such as" which would not suggest that there are no other immigrant-based countries.

[@VerdosoVersusElites]

Family History Fanatics Cool good to go. I edited my last comment to thank you.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks. Really didn't want to upset you. We're a small op and sometimes we do crazy things like post two videos. Wish there was a way to migrate comments from the duplicate topic so you didn't feel slighted. Thanks for understanding.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

One thing with Latin American countries that is different from US and Canada, is that they have retained a significant native population and in many cases those native populations have not intermixed to the extent that the US indian tribes have (i.e. the Quecha).

[@VerdosoVersusElites]

Before I get all emotional how about you cite your sourses then I will take you claim seriously then. I'm Puerto Rican so according to ://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ricans... The culture held in common by most Puerto Ricans is referred to as mainstream Puerto Rican culture, a Western culture largely derived from the traditions of Spain, and more specifically Andalusia and the Canary Islands. Over 90% of Puerto Ricans descend from migrants from these two southern regions of Spain. Puerto Rico has also been influenced by African culture, Afro-Puerto Ricans being a significant minority. Puerto Rico has also received immigration from other parts of Spain such as Catalonia as well as from other European countries such as France, Ireland, Italy and Germany. Recent studies in population genetics have concluded that Puerto Rican gene pool is on average predominantly European, with a significant Sub-Saharan African, Guanche and Indigenous American substrate, the latter two originating in the aboriginal people of the Canary Islands and Puerto Rico's pre-Hispanic Taíno inhabitants, respectively. Ps please cite your sources or else it gets the hose again. And one last thing my DNA results from 23andme reflect what the source states as a matter of fact I will post my results tomorrow just to give you more proof.

[@waynebrown1609]

gabalyguok

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Jurlgkin wrklo?

[@nativegrl77dances67]

clearly this guy hasn't done the research i don't follow this guy, so we don't know what his credentials are... AND has he actually spoken to the companies

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

How is it clear that I haven't done my research? MatPat from Film Theory, Game Theory, and Food Theory has this comment thrown at his channels often and he has created videos refuting the assertion. Are you implying I need to do one of those? But since you asked, I interact with ALL of the genetic genealogy companies. I research the research they use to make the recommendations they have. Many of the companies put out white papers that discuss their reference populations. I'm also an engineer by trade. Reading research reports, evaluating statistics and projections are part and parcel of everything I do. It also makes be very skeptical of marketing materials and also seek out the analysis behind everything. What other credentials does someone need to critically think about the information put for by an organization and form an opinion?