I always wanted to. But i dont know what company or what thing to get :( my family always told me that my Ukraine side are desendents of Genghis Khan, would be cool to actually find that out ;)
Has anyone who is Polish taken any of the genealogy DNA tests that are out there? What were your results?
yes i have. the mtdna with the high resolution and further testing on haplogroup which came out h*. surprising results-strong england ties which i am finding are true carol
We had our father (who is of polish descent on both sides) take a DNA test the year before last. We were suprised by the resluts. His (ours as well) DNA matched many others with the same DNA (they are considered genetic cousins)and they were from eerywhere; Cuban descent, lithuanian, ashkenazi and saphardic jew, puerto rican, french, south african, etc.
I am a new member so this is my first posting. I had DNA testing done in 2006. My Haplogroup is R1b. I participated in the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project. The cost was quite reasonable. I am not sure what the R1b means at this time - perhaps after the Nation Geographic study is done ( a five year project) I might find that one of my polish ancestors was Viking invader!
My paternal grandfather and grandmother (Stanuszek) came to the USA from around Brzesko in 1910. My mother is of Czech decent (Semik). My father would like to say - don't ever marry a Czech woman! I am learning to speak polish but I am not very good at it especially in dealing with gender.
You know, £ukasz, my father can trace his lineage back some 250-300 years. I know for fact that my great ++++++ grandfather was a szlachcic in the Masovia district...
Hi! I had my brother do the Paternal DNA test and I have done the Maternal DNA test. Still waiting on my results. The Paternal test (my father's family was from Poland) proved that....my father's family was from Eastern Europe, had traits of Eastern Europeans and what the DNA type is; Paternal Haplogroup I1b. I have paid $200 for both tests and I think I might have had a moment of stupidity when I paid. The results have told me nothing.... I could have given someone $200 on the streets to have them tell me my heritage that I already knew the basics of..... :(
The results have told me nothing.... I could have given someone $200 on the streets to have them tell me my heritage that I already knew the basics of..... :(
Some people discover that their ancestors are from an entirely different part of the world than what they believed so you're fortunate to be able to confirm your ancestry.
Did you use a company that matches you with others in their database? That's one benefit.
Wouldn't it be really interesting if you thought you were 100% Polish and found that you have genes from different countries? I can't believe some people would get upset about it.
I like the blue eye approach....what do I care about testing if I now know that all blue eyed people have the same ancestor? You can't find out more than that! We are all FAMILY!!!! *group hug*
Well...now let's find out who this Mr. or Mrs ur-Blue Eye was...and then its: "PAPPI!" (or "MAMI")
Yes, that is one reason why the Sorenson foundation has been doing DNA testing. For a long time, you could get it done free and after a period of time, you'd find your results posted on their website. Well, you'd figure it out due to searching for a surname, and looking for the MtDNA that matches all over the world. Or the Y-DNA.
Their goal is to demonstrate that we all can trace our lines back to one human and are related. So yes! *group hug*
Actually, you need only go back relatively few generations to find someone related to you. There were much less people generations ago. It is always funny when candidates are running for president and some genealogist tells us that say Obama is related to Cheney or some such thing. :-D
Not sure if I remember who it was he was related to...but probably someone remembers.
I also learned here at PF that blue eyes were a mutation and that before the first blue-eyed person, all had brown eyes. I have blue eyes...well grayish blue.
BUT, if you are interested in the history between the first blue-eyed parent or even before that, the first man or woman, it's neat to see where your ancestors roamed. We may say we are from here or there, but we all came from someplace else. Our genes tell a migratory story, and history of us.
I was pretty sure my results would show I was from Eastern Europe, and would have the most typical MtDNA for Poles since my mother's mother's line is Polish. (Lewandowski, Bubacz, Chmielewska, and Nowak).
Yet, I was verysurprised that when I traced every female back in my line with my MtDNA, it is one of the longest, (unbranched-out from another major European mother) lineages in Europe. Most scientists say that the only thing older in Europe would be Neanderthal!
So, I am from a blue-eyed indigenous European human stock. Closely related to the Saami reindeer-herding tribes. Unlike some who feel that they paid $200 to learn something they already knew, I learned something totally surprising to me. Of course, while not the most common Polish MtDNA, quite a few Poles have the same. U5.
I am thinking of asking my newly rediscovered 2nd cousin if she is curious as well, and take the test (as a gift from me). She carries my German grandmother's MtDNA which might give me some interesting history on that side of the family and maybe show some Kashubian or Dutch influence. Ultimately, it does make littlle difference in some ways though because culturally, I was brought up as an American with many traditions going back to Germans from along the Baltic and North Sea, and traditions of Poles from Gniezno, the heart of the Polish nation.
It is neat to know we are all one family! With lots of interesting cousins. :-)
Is the National Geographic still doing that test? If so, would they be interested in someone from Canada participating? How would I get in touch with them? How much did it cost?
One thing that has been touched but not fully explained in this thread is where the results come from.
There are two tests generally available, maternal and paternal.
The maternal tests your Mitochondria which are directly passed from mother to child. So the maternal test will look back at your mother's mother's mother's mother's (etc) line. Since this has remained unchanged they can identify its orgin... however they do that.
If you take the maternal test, you must be a male. Your brother or father could take it if you are female. It looks at the Y chromosome which again gets passed directly from father to son. So that is your father's father's father's...
So really only a small fraction of your DNA does get looked at. Regardless, when I have the money to blow I will do this! Maybe by the time I have the money the process will be really refined.
Yes I did at xmas mine was almost entirely southern and western slavic with some scots[celt]. I have no documented slavic ancestors but people say my british ancestors look slavic and my mother is part german so all the polish scores may be from her. I have loved slavic culture since I was very young and studied it at uni know I know why.
mtdna AND y are one ancestor 30,000 years ago german/dutch south african women have khoisan mtdna because of early liasons but the women are mostly dutch/german you cant go by halpogroups! go autosomal! it is more truthful so people dont like it.I used dnatribes.
my scores : Tribes Analysis Results - Native Match Strong/Strongest and Respective MLIs were: Serbia (96)789.1,Lodz Poland (92)491.46,Bucharest Romania(93) 378.98,Bosnia(92)324.59,Glasgow Scotland (87)321.23,Slovenia (91)315,Dundee Scotland(85) 291.82,Norway (0.9)275.45,Poladsie,Northeast Poland(87)270.8 the rest all in the 250's are (92)Budapest,Hungary,South East Poland,Belarus,Strathclyde Scotland.
DNATribes Test/Analysis Global Strong/Strongest Matches and Respective MLIs were: same as above.
Actual DNATribes Test/Analysis World Region Strong/Strongest Matches Results were: 192.72 Eastern European,136.6 Northwesterm European,85.69 Mediterranean,46.40 Finno-Ugrian
Forget the Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers, because they really don't say much. They're only one gene each and represent ONE ancestor each out of many. They're also heavily influenced by drift, founder effect, really ancient migrations, and even selection.
Modern genetic tests use many genome wide SNP markers to look at genome structure, which will tell you everything from your geographic origins to the likelihood of getting cancer.
There are two companies I would recommend for that...
1) 23andme, which tests 500,000 genome wise SNPs for $399
2) deCODEme, which looks at 1,000,000 SNPs for $985.
Btw, plz also forget the stuff propagated by Sykes and Wells via their books and documentaries.
I used dnatribes.
The markers used by dnaTribes were developed to identify individuals in forensic research. Genome wide SNPs are much more reliable for population genetics.
polakos long lost brother. when 23andme have more than a handful of sample pops I might try them.
"by comparing three existing genomic data sets, namely 783 STRs, 2834 SNPs and 210 insertion deletion polymorphisms (indels), they showed that there are significant differences between them, and hence not all may properly reflect human neutral diversity. Then, by generating a new set of 16 STR markers in the least biased way possible, they used these new STRs as a benchmark against which the three genomic data sets could be compared. Finally, their comparisons showed that the genomic data set least biased was the STR data that Ray et al. had used."
To conclude, Romero et al. have clearly demonstrated that significant problems exist with both indels and SNPs, and they have also shown that the STRs are probably the best loci available today
when 23andme have more than a handful of sample pops I might try them.
23andme use a modern method that can be directly cross checked against several databases out there, as well as against new academic studies. So even if their own database is a bit sparse at the moment its not really an issue, especially as they're adding new populations anyway.
Long live STRs
LOL
Man, you butchered that quote to suit your own evil means. :)
It should read...
"To conclude, Romero et al. have clearly demonstrated that significant problems exist with both indels and SNPs, and they have also shown that the STRs are probably the best loci available today (but see Nielsen et al. (2004) for possible corrections for SNPs). One should probably take with a pinch of salt their claim that their STRs were unbiased or that the biases identified by Ray et al. (2005) were not real. But clearly, Romero et al.'s study is a significant step towards proper population genetics inference."
This paper is all about making sure that scientists reduce the bias in their results by picking the proper markers. It doesn't say SNPs are crud and STRs so much better. It just says that SNPs sets can be cross checked by certain STRs to make sure they're the best ones to use.
Hundreds of thousands of SNPs are the benchmark today, and the next step is full genome sequencing. Making sure that the methodology used is correct is important, but that doesn't change the very clear trends in genetics we're seeing now.
P.S. However, I did have a look at the DNA Tribes website just now, and their latest newsletters about Europe and Asia. I have to say I am impressed how accurate their findings have been in comparison to the academic stuff out there, considering they are using technology initially developed for use by the FBI in forensic work.
Btw, an interesting PDF from DNA Tribes, with lots about Poland...
Jul 4, 09, 11:20 - Thread attached on merging: DNA?????
What's up with this DNA thing? How would this help me in my geneological search? I can't even find the boat my ancestors came over on and I'm supposed to figure out what gene pool I'm from? Where can I get my DNA analyzed at and are the result kept confidential?
