Test sample failed quality check

[Pauline]

I sent off a DNA sample to LivingDNA recently, and have just had an email from them saying my sample wasn't good enough to use, and in accordance with their T&Cs they would be sending me a new kit.

Having carefully followed the instructions to the letter last time, I am a bit anxious that the same will happen again - in which case, as they don't give 3rd chances, I will have forked all that money out for nothing.

Has anyone else had this happen? And if so, was the 2nd attempt OK?

 

[Rhian]

I started testing with ftdna last November and still do not have all the results. They did manage autosomal tests after 3 months, they also managed a month later to post results, with no matches, for a Y DNA test which is amazing as I am female. The full sequence mt test keeps getting delayed by two weeks with no explanation and no answer to questions about why, until today. I just got am email telling me my samples had failed QC checks and a new kit had been sent at the beginning of May, they sent a tracking number which shows it is sitting in Chicago and they still advise me that testing should be complete in 6 days time.

I was going o cancel the test for a refund but they advised me that as well as the standard cancellation fee I will have to pay for the failed test, only the retest is being done free, so basically if I cancel I might get a couple of dollars back, so I will use the new test but not recommend ftdna to anyone.

At least LivingDNA did advise you of the failure, even though other things have gone wrong since. My general opinion is coming to be there is not a lot of point in DNA testing for most people.

 

[Bryman]

It is beginning to look as if some of these companies are getting more samples to be tested than they are capable of processing competently.

Was there any suggestion as to what checks failed and why the samples might have failed those QC checks?

 

[peter]

It is beginning to look as if some of these companies are getting more samples to be tested than they are capable of processing competently.

I think you're deducing far too much from a handful of events. Considering how many millions of tests have been proceed in the past 12 months the number of problems reported is very small indeed. Where samples are unusable this is likely to be because of some problem during the collection process - the stage over which the testing have no control whatsoever.

I suspect the delay in Rhian's mtDNA test is because they get so FEW orders for these tests that it takes time to get a batch together. This is because they are by far the least useful tests for family historians (only order an mtDNA test after talking it through with me first).

 

[Bryman]

I think you're deducing far too much from a handful of events.

Perhaps, but it is rather worrying. It is more than just 'unfortunate' that the initial response was a stock answer without appropriate consideration.

Where samples are unusable this is likely to be because of some problem during the collection process

That is one of the worries. Pauline says that she was very careful to follow the instructions so there could be a similar failure with a second specimen. Testing companies cannot be expected to offer unlimited retests but that is why there should probably be more complete instructions/explanation given.

My comments were not so much to criticize (I don't know enough) as to let everyone learn more about potential difficulties. Without such feedback, it would be very easy to assume that this process is 100% successful and accurate.

 

[peter]

My comments were not so much to criticize (I don't know enough) as to let everyone learn more about potential difficulties. Without such feedback, it would be very easy to assume that this process is 100% successful and accurate.

But it IS 100% successful, and accurate (within the limitations of the technology). I've never heard of anyone who has paid for a DNA test with a respected company and not got the results they paid for, yet there were around 4 million tests carried out by those companies last year.

The danger of scaremongering is that researchers may be discouraged from testing.

The only people who should be discouraged from testing are the ones who have unrealistic expectations - for example, some seem to think that because a DNA test costs 5 or 10 times as much a LostCousins subscription it must be an easier way to find cousins. Dream on!

 

[Bryman]

But it IS 100% successful, and accurate (within the limitations of the technology). I've never heard of anyone who has paid for a DNA test with a respected company and not got the results they paid for, yet there were around 4 million tests carried out by those companies last year.

But that is just the point, it is NOT 100% successful and accurate and you know that, despite your claim to the contrary. That is the reason for this discussion to be started when conflicting results were sent to a Forum member. Most people only test with a single company and the subject inconsistency only became apparent when a second test was performed by another company. I do not know how many Forum members have had DNA tests conducted but the reported hiccups would seem to be a significant proportion. I don't know if this sample size is indicative for the overall number of tests performed but quoting the large total number of tests carried out without a mention of all associated difficulties would seem to be giving a false picture of the situation.

The danger of scaremongering is that researchers may be discouraged from testing.

I am NOT scaremongering, just trying to get a clearer picture for myself, and any others who might take an interest. I have not tested yet, mainly because I am unsure if I would get any significant benefit. I am trying to learn from others' experiences. There are a couple of places in my tree where I think that DNA analysis might help except they are rather far back in time to be of much use, ie 7+ generations ago, even if I could identify another appropriate relative to provide a comparative sample. None have come to light so far in the LC community and any 'outsiders' would be harder to contact. Known cousins of mine share common ancestors since that time in early 18th century.

 

[peter]

There are a couple of places in my tree where I think that DNA analysis might help except they are rather far back in time to be of much use, ie 7+ generations ago

See my DNA Special newsletter - all the statistics are there. I recently compared my DNA with that of a 4th cousin once removed - we didn't share sufficient DNA for it to have been regarded as a match, but because our relationship is supported by the paperwork the small segment of DNA that we do share (5.9cM) is likely to be genuine.

 

[peter]

But that is just the point, it is NOT 100% successful and accurate and you know that, despite your claim to the contrary.

Nobody on this forum or on any of the DNA blogs that I follow has failed to get results eventually; 0% failure rate means 100% success rate. Of course the testing companies won't guarantee to provide an unlimited number of tests - if they did their customers would be far less careful when taking DNA samples - but I don't know of anyone who didn't get the results of the test they paid for.

I didn't say that the results are 100% accurate - they will be accurate within the limitations of the technology. If you look at your raw data you'll see that some of the 690,000 or so readings are missing, and it's possible that these could in some cases lead to glaringly wrong ethnicity estimates since it's a highly statistical process.

However since ethnicity estimates have always been rubbish, at least until Living DNA came along, it doesn't really matter. Family historians should be taking DNA tests to find cousins and knock down 'brick walls'; anything else that comes out of it is a bonus.

 

[peter]

I have not tested yet, mainly because I am unsure if I would get any significant benefit.

Of course you will benefit from DNA testing - every single family historian can - but first you have to understand what it can and can't do.

Taking a straw poll of people on this forum isn't going to give you the understanding you need. It's not just about whether to test - of course you should - it's which test to take, which company it would be best to test with, which cousins to ask to test on your behalf etc, and so on.

Read my articles, follow the links to DNA blogs, buy the book I reviewed if you need to know more. Research the topic!

 

[Pauline]

Nobody on this forum or on any of the DNA blogs that I follow has failed to get results eventually; 0% failure rate means 100% success rate.

LivingDNA indicated to me that sometimes second tests do fail QC but that it is rare. So I guess it can't be quite a 100% success rate, despite what blogs and forums seem to indicate.

And while I am perhaps unusual in having read the T&Cs before purchase, if my second test isn't successful, I will be one unhappy bunny. And knowing that the overall success rate is close to 100% won't make me feel any better! For anyone who has had 2 tests fail the success rate will be 0%.

 

[jorghes]

LivingDNA indicated to me that sometimes second tests do fail QC but that it is rare. So I guess it can't be quite a 100% success rate, despite what blogs and forums seem to indicate.

And while I am perhaps unusual in having read the T&Cs before purchase, if my second test isn't successful, I will be one unhappy bunny. And knowing that the overall success rate is close to 100% won't make me feel any better! For anyone who has had 2 tests fail the success rate will be 0%.

I'm waiting for my second test, so I think you'll know before me if it's successful the second time around!

 

[peter]

LivingDNA indicated to me that sometimes second tests do fail QC but that it is rare. So I guess it can't be quite a 100% success rate, despite what blogs and forums seem to indicate.

You're assuming that in those very rare cases they don't give the customers another chance. Why would anyone jeopardise their entire operation for the sake of a few pounds?

I have a reminder of this in my desk drawer - I look at it now and again. In 2006, when LostCousins was still young (and I had only a hint of grey), a LostCousins member in Canada sent me a postal order in sterling, but issued by Canada Post. I paid it into the bank, but it was returned with a note saying that it would cost more than 10 pounds to collect the money.

Did I tell the member they couldn't have the subscription for which they had paid - they had, after all, gone against the instructions on the website? Of course not. Had I done so LostCousins could have sunk without trace.

So, I suspect this is why I've never heard of anyone not getting the DNA results they paid for.

 

[Rhian]

I was hoping to write an article about DNA for genealogy earlier this year, but the test processes are so drawn out that I do not have all the data to produce the full article. I did post an interim blog post today, just giving my point of view from the testing I have tried so far, your results may be different and hopefully better.

 

[peter]

I was hoping to write an article about DNA for genealogy earlier this year, but the test processes are so drawn out that I do not have all the data to produce the full article. I did post an interim blog post today, just giving my point of view from the testing I have tried so far, your results may be different and hopefully better.

I suggest you re-read my DNA Special newsletter - some of the criticisms in your blog article are explained there.

I didn't study DNA at university like you, but I did study statistics - and when it comes to autosomal DNA matches it's all about statistics.

 

[Katie Bee]

I have been very impressed with LivingDNA up to now.
They have just emailed to say that they have started on my sample.
I am hoping that I do not have to do a second sample.

I have also tested with FTDNA, as did my aunt and they certainly got the relationship correct.
I am hoping that LivingDNA will give me a better breakdown of my British roots.

 

[Pauline]

I've now had an email from LivingDNA saying that my second DNA sample has arrived at the lab and testing is starting, which I think means it has passed the initial quality check, unlike last time.

I still have no idea what might have gone wrong the first time, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that all goes smoothly this time.

 

[Tim]

LivingDNA indicated to me that sometimes second tests do fail QC but that it is rare.

Pauline, have you received your second test yet?

 

[Pauline]

Pauline, have you received your second test yet?

Yes, and I did write a follow-up post, but I think it got overlooked in the midst of posts about ethnicity, and has just been moved along with all of those, when it really belongs here. Can that one post be moved back? (It's #19 in the Ethnicity Testing discussion.)

 

[Tim]

Done. So no further updates then?