Slashdot Mirror


Identical Twins Test 5 DNA Ancestry Kits, Get Different Results On Each (www.cbc.ca)

Freshly Exhumed writes: Uh-oh, something is not right with the results of most popular DNA ancestry kits, as a pair of identical twins have found. Charlsie Agro and her twin sister, Carly, bought home kits from AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA and Living DNA, and mailed samples of their DNA to each company for analysis. Despite having virtually identical DNA, the twins did not receive matching results from any of the companies. "The fact that they present different results for you and your sister, I find very mystifying," said Dr. Mark Gerstein, a computational biologist at Yale University. Gerstein's team analyzed the results, and he asserts that any results the Agro twins received from the same DNA testing company should have been identical. The raw data collected from both sisters' DNA is nearly exactly the same. "It's shockingly similar," he said.

34 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. But Are They Real Twins? by mentil · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly, one of them was switched at birth. With their triplet.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:But Are They Real Twins? by jrumney · · Score: 2

      Clearly not. The Yale biologist analysed them and found their DNA to be 99.6% the same. This places them somewhere on the scale between human-human (99.9% the same) and human-chimpanzee (98.8% the same). If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that one of the twins is a neanderthal.

    2. Re:But Are They Real Twins? by kinko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      99.8% between humans and chimpanzees refers to the entire genome (~3 billion base pairs).

      23 And Me and related companies only look at about 3 million positions - the positions that are often different between different human populations/races (these are known as Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms).

  2. What if the same person submitted DNA twice by aberglas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should be identical. Will not be due to normal error. Or may not be even close due to incompetence.

    1. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by mentil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just curious, is it possible that people are normally chimeras to some degree? It may not be 'error' so much as 'unexpected true result'.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, women are all chimeras, but each cell should be the same as every other except for which X chromosomes are switched off, which appears random and is where the chimera comes from. And why all three color cats are female. https://www.google.com/search?...

      It *is* true that blood tests of women who have been pregnant can pick up small amounts of the DNA of the fetus...but that's *SMALL* amounts. And that's blood tests, where the last time I read these tests used either spit or a biopsy from inside the cheek. (That was awhile ago, however, so check before you believe.)

      There's also a small amount of expected mutation during development, so identical twins aren't really exactly the same. Somewhat well over 99% however.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Measuring DNA results is always an exercise in statistical analysis. Mitosis does not produce exact copies. Every cell division has changes from its "parent" cell. When labs test your DNA, they rely on a large sample size, and calculate averages. Your results at a specific location might be 65% AA and 35% TT. They are going to show a result of AA in this case.

      DNA results ARE meaningful, but it is necessary to understand what the results, and the algorithms, actually mean before making conclusions from them.

      I've been tested by 3 labs; several hundred (of 700,000+) of my results differed between the three labs. When this happens, we geneticists throw out the mismatches as errors. I've never seen this change any results in a meaningful way.

    4. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 4, Informative

      The raw results are not in question. The story itself says that the raw data was nearly identical, as one would expect. It is only the extrapolation of that data to infer ethic lineage that didn't line up so well.

    5. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The raw results are not in question. The story itself says that the raw data was nearly identical, as one would expect. It is only the extrapolation of that data to infer ethic lineage that didn't line up so well.

      And that's the important point - the interpretation can differ. Yet if you look at all the ads, they imply an exact location. Spit in the tube and you'll find which neighbourhood your ancestors grew up in.

      Of course, your results are basically guesses by the site - if you ask it for your real location, the best it can give is your continent. If you want what you see in the ad, you get a guess.

    6. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are apparently human chimeras who merged with fraternal twins in the womb to form one infant. One of the more bizarre but verified cases was Lydia Fairchild, who was found not to be genetically related to her children. The DNA of her cervical smear differed from that measured in other parts of her body, which helped establish her parentage of her own children.

    7. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by complete+loony · · Score: 2

      The people of reddit have been posting all kinds of 23&me related stories from doing tests over Christmas. While some stories were from parents coming clean about the skeletons in their closets, others may have been spurious results like this. I've always been skeptical of their methods and the validity of the results they have obtained.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  3. Why bother with twins? by onkelonkel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is the point of the identical twins (other than adding click-bait value)? Why not submit two samples from the same person under different names?

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  4. Accuracy by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

    Somewhat begs the question of the accuracy of said tests doesn't it ?

  5. Re:"Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by Noumenal+World · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're IDENTICAL twins, right? Why would their DNA be "virtually" the same? Why would there be ANY level of shock with that? ELI5 please.

    Because, for each test, there are some SNPs that the lab is unable to determine ("no-calls"). But these are going to be different for each individual, and in fact for each test an individual takes.

    There also are likely to be a very small number of SNPs that are simply read incorrectly.

    Because of these two issues, the raw results for the two identical twins will almost certainly not be the same -- although the results would have been identical if they had been able to get (correct) results for every single SNP.

  6. So the real question is... by acroyear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...are the professional forensic kits that law enforcement use as bad as this?

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
    1. Re:So the real question is... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...are the professional forensic kits that law enforcement use as bad as this?

      Yes and no. There's been several labs both owned by police and private that have been caught using this same junk science shotgun approach in policing, leading to retesting 30 years back and people walking out the door. Back a few years ago when this was the hot shit, they only used 10 genetic markers, most have moved to 20-30 markers. Here's a case from NY State where multiple people were hit with fake tests, manufacturing DNA tests and so on. There was a huge push by justice dept's for DNA testing vs physical evidence because it was believed to be 100% perfect all the time.

      There's probably more people then you can think of out there these days who are innocent because they were hit with a "common match" because their family has lived in the same area for generations, or because the person doing the testing lied for whatever reason - and shit there are a lot of reasons people lie when they 'certify' a test.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:So the real question is... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 3, Informative

      These are not the same things.

      The story was discussing the labs' reporting of ethnic heritage, not matching two DNA samples against each other to find out if they are the same person's DNA.

      The story itself noted that the RAW DATA was nearly identical, as one would expect with identical twins. It was only the calculation of ethnic background that is (somewhat) in doubt.

  7. This is not full genome sequencing by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some people don't realize that none of these services sequence the full genome. They sequence a collection of different sites as best they can (from the spit that you send them in a tube). Some sites will be sequenced really well and some not at all; it is the random nature of the system. What happens if twin 1 is sequenced really well at site ABC123 and has some rare mutation there but twin 2 is not sequenced at that site at all? They will assume that twin does not have the mutation - they will sub in "wild type" sequence at that locus as they won't have any thing better to go on - and you'll end up identifying them as being different. Take this many times over thousands of gene loci that they sequence and pretty soon you see how two identical twins can end up looking very different.

    If you want to see how similar they really are at the DNA level, you need Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) or at least you need to know what the coverage was at each locus for each twin. The former still costs thousands in most cases, the latter should be in the raw data (though they would need to convince the companies to release said raw data to them).

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  8. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since you forgot to drop any citations:
    "western clawed frog, Xenopus tropicalis, has now been analysed by an international consortium of scientists from 24 institutions, and joins a list of sequenced model organisms including the mouse, zebrafish, nematode and fruit fly. What's most surprising, researchers say, is how closely the amphibian's genome resembles that of the mouse and the human, with large swathes of frog DNA on several chromosomes having genes arranged in the same order as in these mammals. The results of the analysis are published in Science this week1.

    "There are megabases of sequence where gene order has changed very little since the last common ancestor" of amphibians, birds and mammals about 360 million years ago, says bioinformaticist Uffe Hellsten at the US Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, California, a co-author on the study.

    That close genomic relationship doesn't hold true for all vertebrates, he notes. The zebrafish genome, for example, shows a much different gene order."
    Biologically we are all one big happy family : LIFE. Much of LIFE works very much the same way, be it cells, mitochondria, lung tissue or heart, muscle and bones, eating anf secretion, so no it really isnt that surprising to share DNA with other forms of LIFE as a whole.

  9. I don't really care by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    about my DNA information, except maybe if it is something medical. Have always looked on these DNA services as useless scams.
    I can't help but think of Bill Murry in the movie Stripes! Something about we are Americans, were Mutts. Our forefathers got kicked out of every decent country in Europe. Well something l;ike that it was many years ago.
    But that memory has always stayed with me.

    On a side note one of these services has a commercial on TV that I think is idiotic. It has this smug woman talking about how she travels all over the world. And people are always asking what her nationality is? And she says, I used to say I was Latino, Now after getting my DNA checked I realize I am everything!
    I sit back in my chair and shake my head. They asked her what her nationality is! Not what her ethnicity is! Seems to me a non idiot would say I'm American. But hey what do I know.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  10. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, that's not how genetic testing is performed by these companies. There are anywhere from 10k-250k single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are tested by these direct-to-consumer ancestry and health products. The exact number depends on how many the genetics company decides to test, and for our purposes, not relevant anyway, except to say that it is several thousands. Testing these SNPs is not done randomly, they are targeted to specific genomic locations. To test that many SNPs from a single customer, the tests are performed on chips called microarrays, and these are mass produced so that every customer is tested on the same set of SNPs. (Some info on the chips and SNPs reportedly used by some of these companies can be found here: https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Testing )

    So it may not be surprising that genetic tests between companies yield different results, but they should yield nearly identical results for identical twins when tested by the same company, directly because identical twins share >99% of the same DNA sequence.

  11. Insured? by dohzer · · Score: 2

    Did their insurance companies store all 10 results to deny both of them cover in the future?

    1. Re:Insured? by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Did their insurance companies store all 10 results to deny both of them cover in the future?

      While I won't attempt to minimize the possibility, has there been any evidence that such a thing has actually occurred?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  12. Re:Nothing to be surprised about by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    The story doesn't imply this at all.

    Note that the story stated that the two sets of raw data were "nearly identical." It wasn't the data that was the issue, but rather, the calculation of the ethnic background FROM that data.

  13. Maybe the real goal is spying by jbn-o · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spying is big business. For example, spying is Google's main theme for which services to keep and which to do away with. Perhaps spying is driving these ancestry services as well. We already know these ancestry services share client data with police (1, 2, 3). Perhaps this data sharing is listed in the terms of service, but either way the sharing helps authorities augment their database and helps them perform more surveillance on ordinary citizens (most citizens don't commit crimes and therefore should not face such treatment; I'm not convinced those who commit crimes deserve this treatment but the vast majority of the public absolutely don't).

  14. Nationality, ethnicity...She'll be a Mormon anyway by denzacar · · Score: 2

    After she dies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "FamilySearch is a genealogy organization operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the LDS Church). ...
    The resource is maintained to support the process of obtaining names and other genealogical information so that Latter-day Saints can perform temple ordinances for their kindred dead.[3] ...
    In February 2014, FamilySearch announced partnerships with Ancestry.com, findmypast and MyHeritage, which includes sharing massive amounts of their databases with those companies. They also have a standing relationship with BillionGraves, in which the photographed and indexed images of graves are both searchable on FamilySearch and are linked to individuals in the family tree.[6]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/......

    "The LDS Church teaches that deceased persons who have not accepted, or had the opportunity to accept, the gospel of Christ in this life will have such opportunity in the afterlife. The belief is that as all must follow Jesus Christ, they must also receive all the ordinances that a living person is expected to receive, including baptism. For this reason, members of the LDS Church are encouraged to research their genealogy. This research is then used as the basis for church performing temple ordinances for as many deceased persons as possible. As a part of these efforts, Mormons have performed temple ordinances on behalf of a number of high-profile people, including the Founding Fathers of the United States,[47][48][49] U.S. Presidents,[47] Pope John Paul II,[50] John Wesley,[47] Christopher Columbus,[47] Adolf Hitler,[51] Joan of Arc,[51] Genghis Khan,[51] Joseph Stalin,[51] and Gautama Buddha.[51] ...
    In February 2012, the issue re-emerged after it was found that the parents of Holocaust survivor and Jewish rights advocate Simon Wiesenthal were added to the genealogical database.[74] Shortly afterward, news stories announced that Anne Frank had been baptized by proxy for the ninth time, at the Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Temple.[75]"

    Mormons are playing the long game of baptizing everyone ever straight into their "free planets for everygod" heaven.
    If that means buying up banks of genetic data one by one... so be it.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  15. wat! And this just in, "two barometers in my house by eatvegetables · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey, just just bought two nearly identical barometers from crap-o-mart for $5 each. I put them next to each other in the same room. Imagine my horror when I noticed that their respective readings differ by as much as 10%.

    Oh, BTW, 23andme terms of service are clear, at least.

    "The laboratory may not be able to process your sample, and the laboratory process may result in errors ... Even for processing that meets our high standards, a small, unknown fraction of the data generated during the laboratory process may be un-interpretable or incorrect (referred to as "Errors" ..."

    Inexpensive direct to consumer DNA testing companies to not provide nor claim to provide results with statistically insignificant error rates. Don't we all already know this?

    The results are good enough to do fun things like find previously unknown relatives. To date, I've found three second cousins using 23andme. My ancestry information was likely not perfect but was accurate enough for intended purposes.

  16. Balkans/Eastern Europe. by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    The article makes much of one difference: one service shows Eastern European heritage, while the other Balkans.

    But there is not a clear definition of "Eastern Europe" and it may include the Balkans, so this may be not more than a difference in semantics.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Balkans/Eastern Europe. by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to worry. Will all be part of glorious Russian motherland soon.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  17. Re: wat! And this just in, "two barometers in my h by eatvegetables · · Score: 2

    Now, get off my lawn you damn kids ... at least the ones that I can prove are not mine!

  18. It avoids violating their terms of service by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    e.g. Here's the relevant part of 23andMe's terms of service (emphasis added)

    Furthermore you agree not to use the Services to: (1) [...]; (2) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, anyone affiliated with 23andMe, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;

    I suspect if a reporter did submit samples under different names, a court would side with the press against their terms of service. Eventually.

    But by using identical twins, you sidesteps the possibility of wasting time, effort, and money because your report has been tied up by a gag order while a court mulls over what to do.

    1. Re:It avoids violating their terms of service by DocJohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No judge is going to issue a gag order after something has already been published. There's no reason to alert the companies ahead of publication with the exact details of your investigation. In fact, there's no need to even tell the companies ahead of publication. The only reason this is done to some degree is to get the BS public-relations comment that tries to explain away the discrepancy.

      Who is the reader going to believe? The DNA experts from Yale or some other university, or the for-profit company trying to defend their reputation?

  19. The opposite by Lorens · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm reminded of the opposite story: someone forgets their password to the DNA site, and (instead of resetting the password) creates another account, sends in new DNA... and later calls their kid saying that it's incredible, wonderful, this DNA site has found that I have an identical twin somewhere!

  20. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course, you'd have to read TFA to realize that ...

    He read an identical copy of the article but it gave him different results.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20