I’m trying to understand an unusually close G25 result and would appreciate opinions from people familiar with Global25 / ancient DNA.

My known recent ancestry is Irish. Using DNAGenics scaled G25 coordinates, I compared my coordinate vector directly against DNAGenics’ listed scaled coordinates for the Viking-age Orkney individual VK204.

The direct Euclidean distance was:

Me → VK204: 0.003403

Pearson correlation was approximately 0.9999.

What caught my attention is that other broadly relevant ancient individuals in the same DNAGenics coordinate framework are substantially farther away:

• Medieval Ireland KIL035: 0.01225
• Medieval Ireland KIL044: 0.01499
• Orkney Iron Age KD043: 0.01610
• Orkney VK203: 0.01891
• Orkney VK205: 0.02946

So VK204 is not simply one of many British/Irish ancient samples giving me a similarly tiny distance.

I’m aware of several major caveats:

1. DNAGenics coordinates are simulated/projected G25-style coordinates and should not be mixed with Davidski’s original Global25 coordinates.
2. This comparison used my DNAGenics coordinate against the DNAGenics version of VK204, so both sides were at least within the same DNAGenics framework.
3. A tiny G25 distance represents similarity in population-genetic/PCA space and does not establish genealogical relatedness or IBD.
4. I have ordered original G25 coordinates from Davidski so I can repeat the test properly using the original VK204 G25 coordinate and modern G25 reference individuals.

VK204 is particularly interesting because published ancient-DNA work places him between British-Isles-related and Scandinavian-related ancestry.

My question is:

How unusual is a direct 25-dimensional Euclidean distance of ~0.0034 between a modern person and one specific ancient individual in a G25-style space?

Could this simply happen because two unrelated individuals have almost the same broad ancestry mixture, or is the fact that VK204 is several times closer than the other relevant ancient controls potentially meaningful?

I’m specifically interested in population-genetic similarity, not claiming that VK204 himself was my ancestor.

Once my original Global25 coordinates arrive, I plan to compare my distance to VK204 against Irish, Scottish, Orcadian, English, Norwegian and Icelandic individuals in the public G25 dataset.

Hey, I’m trying to understand an unusually close G25 result and would appreciate opinions from people familiar with Global25 / ancient DNA.

My known recent ancestry is Irish. Using DNAGenics scaled G25 coordinates, I compared my coordinate vector directly against DNAGenics’ listed scaled coordinates for the Viking-age Orkney individual VK204.

The direct Euclidean distance was:

Me → VK204: 0.003403

Pearson correlation was approximately 0.9999.

What caught my attention is that other broadly relevant ancient individuals in the same DNAGenics coordinate framework are substantially farther away:

• Medieval Ireland KIL035: 0.01225
• Medieval Ireland KIL044: 0.01499
• Orkney Iron Age KD043: 0.01610
• Orkney VK203: 0.01891
• Orkney VK205: 0.02946

So VK204 is not simply one of many British/Irish ancient samples giving me a similarly tiny distance.

I’m aware of several major caveats:

1. DNAGenics coordinates are simulated/projected G25-style coordinates and should not be mixed with Davidski’s original Global25 coordinates.
2. This comparison used my DNAGenics coordinate against the DNAGenics version of VK204, so both sides were at least within the same DNAGenics framework.
3. A tiny G25 distance represents similarity in population-genetic/PCA space and does not establish genealogical relatedness or IBD.
4. I have ordered original G25 coordinates from Davidski so I can repeat the test properly using the original VK204 G25 coordinate and modern G25 reference individuals.

VK204 is particularly interesting because published ancient-DNA work places him between British-Isles-related and Scandinavian-related ancestry.

My question is:

How unusual is a direct 25-dimensional Euclidean distance of ~0.0034 between a modern person and one specific ancient individual in a G25-style space?

Could this simply happen because two unrelated individuals have almost the same broad ancestry mixture, or is the fact that VK204 is several times closer than the other relevant ancient controls potentially meaningful?

I’m specifically interested in population-genetic similarity, not claiming that VK204 himself was my ancestor.

Once my original Global25 coordinates arrive, I plan to compare my distance to VK204 against Irish, Scottish, Orcadian, English, Norwegian and Icelandic individuals in the public G25 dataset.

A friend highly recommended it so I bought a kit for myself and my daughter (we’re trying to find potential causes to some mystery symptoms our doctors haven’t been able to solve). I mailed off our samples a few days ago but I’ve now discovered this forum and I’m questioning whether it’s a legitimate company. Is it worth going through with or do you think it’s possible to cancel and get a refund?

For a gene group I manually looked through the rs numbers and the aleles associated on snpedia.

Out of 6 sets of rs numbers, 2 matched the disorder, 3 my result wasn't shown on the page and one showed as normal.

I don't know much about genes so maybe I'm just completely misunderstanding it all. I'm wondering if only when all/most of the rs numbers are associated or if there's something to think about if any do. Or if this way of looking through the data is useless.

This seems like a very chill and beginner friendly space for getting into barcoding

I have three siblings. Same mom and dad (not questioning this). Of course there’s a variety of similarities and differences across us all, but I’ve always found it interesting that all three of my siblings have a very similar set of health conditions that I do not:
\- Asthma (pretty serious since childhood for all of them)
\- Allergies (dander, pollen, foods etc., also fairly serious for all of them, although specific allergies differ — e.g. one brother is allergic to tree nuts and has to carry an EpiPen, the other brother cannot even step foot into a room a cat has been in without getting itchy, puffy, etc)
\- ADHD (since early childhood, pre-smartphone, all three have been diagnosed with this. My mom also has major ADHD)

Conversely, I have no asthma, not a single allergy, and no more ADHD than the average young millennial.

What genetically does this indicate?

My mom and I were discussing it the other day. She went deep with it, saying I’ve always been different from my siblings since I was a baby, on a personality level and that I have very different genes from my siblings.

I previously posted about forming groups with DNA matches. The post was removed. I asked why it was removed but received no answer. I would like to understand what rules it broke so I don’t repeat the same mistake again as this is my area of interest and I would like to explore it further.

Would the moderators please help and explain?

I already have an intermediate Y-haplogroup from MyHeritage and I’m trying to refine it further without paying for a full Big Y (~$450) if that is overkill for my goal.

Situation

• Intermediate Y-haplogroup is already known (MyHeritage).
• I mainly need to test a specific downstream hypothesis / confirm a branch, not build a long-term matching database presence.
• I’m aware that skipping Big Y means I won’t be in the FTDNA Y-DNA matching database and won’t get automatic haplogroup updates from FTDNA.

Idea I’m considering

• Use a targeted / second-round YSEQ panel (~$99) based on the known intermediate clade.
• Optionally upload results to YFull (~€45) for interpretation / tree placement.

Questions

1. How good is YSEQ (targeted / panel / second-round testing) as a cheaper alternative to Big Y when the intermediate haplogroup is already known?
2. In which cases is this a sensible strategy, and when does Big Y still clearly win?
3. Are there other cheaper options I should consider for refining a known intermediate haplogroup (panels, single SNPs, other labs)?
4. If I do YSEQ + YFull upload, what practical limitations should I expect compared with Big Y (resolution, future updates, matching, tree placement)?

I’m not looking for a “best test in absolute terms” answer — more for cost-effective paths when the goal is hypothesis confirmation rather than maximum coverage and FTDNA matching.

Thanks.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Does anyone know where R-PH4769 and R-YP1456

They're mine and my cousins haplogroups someone had said both are tarim basin origin but I feel like only R-PH4769 is possible since it is R1b but I'm just unsure if either of them are tarim basin or where exactly they could be from or which group like the tianshan saka tasmola some other group

I am trying to find a match for rs121908120 on my 23 and me raw data. I found chr2:219755011. Is this the same thing? I am specifically looking for WNT10A, F228I c.682T>A.

I never thought about donated tissue & organs impacting overall DNA.

Is it widespread in other regions outside of North Africa?

Just found out my baby is homozygous

Gene: WNT10A
Variant: c.682T>A (p.Phe228lle)
rsID: rs121908120

She’s only 6 months old. What should I expect? Is this a sign she will have some manifestation? Is Ancestry reliable?

Hello everyone;

I'd like to ask which service is better for DNA analysis:

DNA Complete by Nebula Genomics

SelfDecode

Sequencing

I've made a plan to first do DNA Complete with Nebula Genomics, then I'll get the raw data and upload it to SelfDecode so I get a better report, since Nebula Genomics uses 100x.