Why is Living DNA not listed as a DNA testing provider? - Answered my own question!

+1 vote
192 views
I found them listed here, under "Ordering a Test":

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:DNA_Tests

Just not very prominently listed. Leaving my post as I have been very happy with my results from them. I would list them on par with the other testing providers under "Types of Tests".

****

For $99 (on sale for $79 for several months) men get Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA results and women get mtDNA and autosomal DNA results. The European geographic origin results I got were much more granular than I got with FTDNA, 23andMe or Ancestry. My primary record research confirms several of these more precise locations.

Living DNA's default level of Y haplogroup testing (R-L21/R-DF13) was several levels more precise than FTDNA's default (R-M269). You have to pay FTDNA extra to get this level of testing.

Living DNA is just getting started with their autosomal DNA comparison database, but I believe they are currently the most popular testing provider in the UK (maybe Europe?) so if you have European ancestors, probably a better chance of getting a match to someone living in Europe, eventually.

https://dnatestingchoice.com/en-us/ancestry/provider/living-dna/3322

https://www.pcmag.com/roundup/356975/the-best-dna-testing-kits
in The Tree House by Kevin Daniel G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited by Kevin Daniel

1 Answer

+1 vote

Living DNA's default level of Y haplogroup testing (R-L21/R-DF13) was several levels more precise than FTDNA's default (R-M269). You have to pay FTDNA extra to get this level of testing.”

Testing haplogroups at that level are not very helpful for genealogy.  Taking something like a Y-DNA37 test at Family Tree DNA is MUCH more helpful for learning more about a male’s direct paternal line in a genealogical timeframe.

by Peter Roberts G2G6 Pilot (546k points)

"Testing haplogroups at that level are not very helpful for genealogy.  Taking something like a Y-DNA37 test at Family Tree DNA is MUCH more helpful for learning more about a male’s direct paternal line in a genealogical timeframe."

This is not true. I've been managing a Y DNA surname project at FTDNA since 2001 and, even the level to which FTDNA tests by default, is very valuable. It can eliminate lines to which the tester is not related, which is especially useful with fairly common surnames. Our project has over 600 members and several dozen different haplogroups. In the early days, top level haplogroup results quickly resolved many mysteries and mistakes.

The additional level of testing which Living DNA provides is even more useful and can eliminate more non-related lines and also identify lines where deeper testing may be beneficial. Identifying surname matches at the level which Living DNA does by default can also enable testers to compare results to surname matches at FTDNA who have taken deeper levels of SNP testing and save them money by testing for those terminal SNPs at YSEQ. I have done this.

Hello Kevin,

The time to the most recent common ancestor for R-L21 is about 4,200 years ago according to https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L21/  How is that helpful in a genealogical timeframe?  Two Daniels could both be R-L21 and not related in a genealogical timeframe.  Sufficient matching on a Y-DNA37 test reveals if they are related in a genealogical timeframe.
Hi Robert,

As I explained above it is both part of a process of elimination of matches with similar surnames who do and do not match at R-L21, in this case, coupled with a comparison of results with surname matches at FTDNA who also match at R-L21 and have done deeper SNP testing or BIg Y testing and have a terminal SNP further down their tree which represents a mutation that is more recent than R-L21. Those results are published in most surname DNA projects at FTDNA. There are several ways to easily determine if R-L21, in this case, is upstream of a marker further down the tree. I use the free tools at GeneticHomeland.com. If a tester's terminal SNP matches another tester's terminal SNP far enough down the SNP tree, they have a Y DNA match at some level, potentially in a genealogically meaningful time frame, based on when the mutation which created their known terminal SNP occurred. The 37 marker test at FTDNA costs $169 and an SNP test at YSEQ costs $23 the first time, since you have to submit a DNA sample, and $18 thereafter. YSEQ will also create a new SNP test for free. Would I recommend that someone using this method also take a Y DNA test? It depends on what kind of primary record evidence exists to link the two shared surname lines, the level of SNP testing which was done at FTDNA, their financial situation, how anxious they are for answers, etc. I might recommend that the tester just observe and wait for new terminal SNP results for their match at FTDNA to be published and then do another YSEQ test to see if they still have a match. I'm not saying STRs and SNPs are the same thing but that they can be used in the same way.

I have paid for a several other folks' Y DNA tests at Family Tree DNA in order to prove out my line. Now, when I find a new potential surname cousin, instead of paying $169 for a 37 marker test, which is the lowest  marker test that I would recommend (I do have some 25 marker surname matches which fall away at 37 markers), or try to get them to pay for it, I suggest that they take a $23 test at YSEQ and see if they match my terminal SNP. If they do match, share my surname and share some basic data in common, I may call that good, or I may recommend a Y DNA test. It depends on the specific situation. If they don't match then our shared surname is a coincidence.

I also don't usually recommend that more than one member of a surname cousin group, which is already proved by Y DNA testing, take a Big Y test, SNP packs or deeper SNP testing, unless it is to verify that they continue to share a terminal SNP.  That may vary, depending on specific circumstances. FTDNA does not always have individual tests available for specific terminal SNPs, so it is usually cheaper to just do the testing for that single SNP at YSEQ. The downside of that is that it doesn't get published on FTDNA's results pages automatically.

My surname cousin group is a good example of how this works. Four members have done 111 markers, 15 67 markers,  5 have done only 37 markers, one Big Y, one SNP packs and three have done terminal SNP testing at YSEQ. We share an MRCA who was born about 400 years ago. My group does originate from Virginia and some burned records counties make if uncertain exactly how we all connect, so we may need more data at some point. We share a terminal SNP, which, so far, is only represented by my surname family group. That may change in the future, but so will our terminal SNP as more mutations are discovered.

Does this make sense?

Related questions

+7 votes
2 answers
+11 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
3 answers
+18 votes
3 answers
+9 votes
3 answers
+2 votes
2 answers
110 views asked Apr 19, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Donald Sylvain G2G Crew (620 points)
+2 votes
2 answers
105 views asked Jun 12, 2013 in Genealogy Help by John Smith G2G Crew (940 points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...