23andMe 23andme Traits Results

Regio X said:
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Possibly our reports are different. I'll try to explain better then. 23andMe (mine is v4) presents the genetic likelihood of eyes color this way:
LIGHTER EYES %, divided into Blue %, Greenish blue %, Green % and Light hazel %;
DARKER EYES %, divided into Dark hazel %, Light brown % and Dark brown %.
If they say you likely have dark-colored eyes and the eyes are light (green, for example), or the opposite, then the report is not correct.
At least they get right my father's eyes color, but Gedmatch missed the three. When it shows brown, it's green. When it shows green, it's brown.
That's it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it looks like the new report lists more variants of eye colours than the old one. That makes it difficult to compare the accuracy between Eupedia members. We should specific if we have the old or the new report.
 
Angela said:
Yes, I did, years ago. Some of those results are pretty old, though. They should be in your archive then.
Click to expand...

The old reports are in the archive, it's the new ones that are missing.


I agree with Maciamo that it's unfair for the old customers like us who had spent so much money back then.
 
Maciamo said:
In rare cases, it happens that SNPs reported aren't correct because the genome hasn't been re-read enough times.
Click to expand...
Some rough statistics, just out of curiosity: As soon as my results came out, I did a program that compares 23andMe and FTDNA genotypes (I tested in both). Excluding no calls*, there are 20 differences between the SNPs (the pairs; I haven't compared the alleles in isolation) genotyped by both companies, just about 0,0154% of them. As for the no calls, it seems 23andMe guarantees a call rate of at least 98%. Between the 585560 SNPs read, 7081 of mine were uncalled, 6068 of my father and 5728 of my mother. Less than 2%.
*Considering no calls and SNP results that are in both 23andMe and FTDNA files: 943 uncalled SNPs in 23andMe were genotyped by FTDNA, and 456 uncalled in FTDNA were genotyped by 23andMe. Sometime, just for fun, I'm gonna do a program to fill part of the 23andMe uncalled SNPs with the FTDNA data, and vice-versa, but I bet it wouldn't make a relevant difference in Gedmatch calculators. :)
 
Maciamo said:
In rare cases, it happens that SNPs reported aren't correct because the genome hasn't been re-read enough times.
Click to expand...
Some rough statistics, just out of curiosity: As soon as my results came out, I did a program that compares 23andMe and FTDNA genotypes (I tested in both). Excluding no calls* and the X chromosome, there are just 20 differences between the SNPs (the pairs; I haven't compared the alleles in isolation) genotyped by both companies, just 0,0154% of them. As for the no calls, it seems 23andMe guarantees a call rate of at least 98%. Indeed, between the 585560 SNPs read, 7081 of mine were uncalled, 6068 of my father and 5728 of my mother. Less than 2%.
*Considering no calls and SNP results that are in both 23andMe and FTDNA files: 943 uncalled SNPs in 23andMe were genotyped by FTDNA, and 456 uncalled in FTDNA were genotyped by 23andMe. Sometime, just for fun, I'm gonna do a program to fill part of the 23andMe uncalled SNPs with the FTDNA data, and vice-versa, but I bet it wouldn't make a relevant difference in Gedmatch calculators. :)
 
Last edited:
Everything except the fact that my Index toe is longer than my big toe and not the other way around.
 
O77doUw.png


I just upgraded to the wellness+traits feature today. I would say mine are accurate.

There were some other features they had I saw before buying it; like disease carrier status. However, they were not included, most likely due to state regulations.

Here's the wellness trait results

NjsqeEE.png
 
The caffeine consumption makes no sense, why are you likely to consume less when you metabolize it so quickly?
 
davef said:
The caffeine consumption makes no sense, why are you likely to consume less when you metabolize it so quickly?
Click to expand...

I'm actually a slow metabolizer according to the update from the insitome test. Initially it said my caffeine metabolism was faster. Nevertheless, I do drink a lot of coffee regardless.
 
Jovialis said:
O77doUw.png


I just upgraded to the wellness+traits feature today. I would say mine are accurate.

There were some other features they had I saw before buying it; like disease carrier status. However, they were not included, most likely due to state regulations.

Here's the wellness trait results

NjsqeEE.png
Click to expand...

Except for one or two I would say we're twins!

When you metabolize caffeine slowly it's in your bloodstream longer so you generally don't feel the need to top up, and in fact too much can make you jittery and keep you up at night. It's right for me, but it may not be right for you.

It tells me I don't get alcohol flush, like you, but I do. It's worse when I drink American wines so it may be a reaction to sulfides. Also, since I'm very pale and alcohol makes the blood circulate more, it may be more noticeable in me.
 
Angela said:
Except for one or two I would say we're twins!

When you metabolize caffeine slowly it's in your bloodstream longer so you generally don't feel the need to top up, and in fact too much can make you jittery and keep you up at night. It's right for me, but it may not be right for you.

It tells me I don't get alcohol flush, like you, but I do. It's worse when I drink American wines so it may be a reaction to sulfides. Also, since I'm very pale and alcohol makes the blood circulate more, it may be more noticeable in me.
Click to expand...

I do actually get flush as well. I was showing my results to my sister, and she said she noticed I do when I drink.
 
Do they still have results for one of the breast cancer genes? You used to have to sign a special consent to get a look at it.
 
Angela said:
Do they still have results for one of the breast cancer genes? You used to have to sign a special consent to get a look at it.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice, these were all the tested variants I received. But I'll dig deeper when I get home.
 
This article will discuss some conditions that are not included in 23andMe reports. If you are interested in learning about which conditions are included in the 23andMe Health + Ancestry Service, you can view a full list here.

23andMe does not offer diagnostic testing. For testing related to a personal or family history of a particular genetic disease, please consult a healthcare provider in order to ensure that you are pursuing the most appropriate test for your personal situation. Although we recognize there is interest in reports on the following topics, reports are not available on any of the following topics. The list below is not comprehensive, and conditions not listed here are not necessarily included in our current 23andMe reports.

  • Hereditary risks for some adult onset diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease
  • Hereditary cancer syndromes such as Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC) (BRCA genes) or the hereditary colon cancer syndromes - Lynch syndrome (HNPCC) or familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)
  • Drug response (for example: CYP2D6 and certain HLA alleles)
  • Copy number variations (CNVs), balanced rearrangements and mosaicism
  • MTHFR analysis, such as a targeted mutation analysis, methylation analysis or detox profile

https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/236409067-Conditions-NOT-included-in-23andMe
Click to expand...

Looks like they've omitted it, unfortunately.

Here's a list of the current reports:

https://www.23andme.com/dna-health-ancestry/#all-reports-list
 
Why would the government want that omitted???
 
23andme was prohibited from continuing to sell what was considered diagnostic health information to the general public. The concern seems to have been that people could freak out learning that they have the so called "breast cancer" gene, for example.

The company had to do some tricky negotiations to be allowed to provide some "health related" information.

It's stupid, in my opinion. Once you have your raw data you can check for the snps yourself if you choose, for one thing. For another, I think I have the right to know if I carry it. Why make me go through the hassle of combing through the data myself?

It could also save someone's life. The government's position was that if there's breast cancer in your family you should go to your doctor and ask to have the test done.

My best friend carried this gene. During her second pregnancy they found a large mass. It killed her after an agonizing seven years. All of her close family had died in the Holocaust except for her parents, so she had no idea it ran in her family. Had she known, perhaps she would have gotten mammograms from a very young age. Perhaps she could have had a preventive double mastectomy, like Angelina Jolie. It's just not right to not let you have at least some of that information.
 
Thanks, and wouldn't a more obvious solution be to include this sort of information as an option with a disclaimer?
 
It was offered as an option with a disclaimer, along with results for some other terrible diseases. It wasn't enough for the government agencies.
 
You mean the nannies?

Seriously, Im sure the number of freak outs would be far less than the number of deaths that it would've prevented.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 19839 times.

Back
Top