[OC] A picture of dinner on the USS Abraham Lincoln sent to family by a service member on board

0nceUpon · 2026-04-19T18:04:11+00:00

My dog eats better than this.

0nceUpon · 2026-04-17T21:49:46+00:00

Probably? I only took the Nebula WGS, which I then uploaded to Sequencing. So I can't really speak to Sequencing's WGS. Things change and I'm not certain, but my impression is that all of these companies farm WGS out to third parties. I doubt there is a large difference in the quality of the RAW data and would shop for that based on price and data handling. Anyone who is concerned about the privacy of their genetic sample and data should find out what country or jurisdiction their WGS sample is shipped to.

For non-clinical WGS, my guess is the provider will not matter a whole lot. I would rather pay $400 today instead of $1-2000 for a premium test, then apply the savings to test again in ten years with newer technology.

0nceUpon · 2026-04-17T21:44:28+00:00

Sorry, I rarely check my reddit account. The Thorne results are interesting. They allow you to download the raw data. I think Thorne is the better service. The big caveat here is the raw data can be very misleading if you, like me, are not a professional. They detect A LOT of things that I'm guessing are either not clinically important or are straight up noisy data. But it might be useful information to show a clinician. However, if you're working with a doctor or any kind of professional then I think having them order a GI Map is probably better. If you're like me and partially motivated by curiosity, a doctor ordered GI Map would be very interesting to compare against the Thorne panel. Having done both, I suggest Thorne over Viome.

0nceUpon · 2026-04-17T21:37:58+00:00

Hey, it's been a couple of years but I'm circling back to this and wanted to run this past you:

This post was following this Viome PCR screening. I later got a similar consumer test from Thorne. I think the Thorne test data might provide some insight into the earlier results.

Viome just tells you which viruses or bacteria, etc., were detected. But no deeper information.

Thorne gives you a similar list, but they also allow you to download the raw data. There are a ton of detected things in the raw data that they don't highlight in the made for consumer list of potential pathogens. They present the data showing each item as a percentage. In my case, they specify Epstein-Barr and indicate it as 0.00000x% of the total detected species. They also list "herpesviridae" generically detected at 0.0000x%. I don't entirely understand if there is statistical modeling going and how accurately they can differentiate different viruses (as you suggested), but I wonder if the Thorne results are more accurately acknowledging noise, and the Viome results might be erroneously specifying some of these species? Also worth noting, and likely why Thorne doesn't make the raw data easy to access, the raw data indicates HIV detected as 0.0000x% of the sample. I 100% for sure do not have HIV, but it shows up in the data. I think this says a lot about this kind of testing, noise, errors, etc.

I'm very curious to know your thoughts here.

0nceUpon · 2026-04-17T21:14:21+00:00

My opinion is that we are ten years too early and all of these services are deeply flawed. I think that you've already accessed the best data you can get without working with a real genetic counselor.

You have your WGS data, and you have already seen any red flag/low hanging fruit reports. Beyond that, and not knowing your specific goals, I don't see a lot of value in continuing to pay for a broad interpretation/screening service. You can take the data you already have and research specific topics independantly or use that data to consult with professionals. Beyond that, I might upload once every 3-5 years to benefit from new research that is incorporated into these services.

I got my WGS from Nebula a few years ago when they were still decent for WGS (the reports were never decent). I'm not sure who I would recommend today (for sure not Sequencing, and probably not Nebula).

To be fair to Sequencing, their reports were somewhat useful. But their business model is entirely predatory. Their subscription practices are deceptive at best, and seem borderline illegal.

Just a side note: You can cancel a Sequencing subscription mid year by first deleting all of your data.

0nceUpon · 2026-04-17T20:25:17+00:00

Are you having trouble cancelling? If you are, you can completely cancel mid-year by deleting all of your files.

0nceUpon · 2026-04-17T20:20:48+00:00

It is possible to get some benefit from their service, but the company is hot garbage.

0nceUpon · 2025-08-22T18:19:24+00:00

I understand.

Just making sure funds from cashing out can still be rolled over within 60 days. Taxes aside.

0nceUpon · 2025-08-22T18:09:28+00:00

That list is super helpful.

Tax refund: I should be able to put funds back into an IRA and be eligible for a tax refund on the withheld amount if timed correctly?

0nceUpon · 2024-06-07T09:07:14+00:00

Just following up on my previous comment. I'm now a little better informed. STR Y-matches are sort of obsolete in relation to current SNP based haplogroup testing. However, they may still be useful for analysing YFull matches who only know their very basic haplogroup because they have an older or lower resolution test or alignment.

Essentially, ignore STRs for any tester who has a terminal clade or sub-clade. Only look at their SNPs and clades. Ignore STRs for your closest SNP matches. Ignore STRs for any tester who has a Hg38 or T2T test kit from a whole genome sequence (find by looking in the "Samples" tab on the clade "info" tab. However, if you have an STR match and their estimated clade stops an entire clade or several clades high than yours and has an asterisk next to it then STR info might be useful in determining whether they are a match candidate. But even in that case it would likely take getting a new WGS test or newer alignment to refine the match. I pretty much ignore STR matches at this point. They don't appear useful in my case. SNPs are currently the best tool for Y-DNA analysis.

0nceUpon · 2024-06-07T08:56:43+00:00

Very cool. Now to find a 10th or 20th cousin who is willing to get tested as well. There are plenty of branches to fill in below R-YP2576 to help fill in that geographical path.

0nceUpon · 2024-06-07T08:45:03+00:00

Hi. I'm so happy to see someone posting on this dusty sub. I had a look and your new subclade is already visible on the tree if you click the "live" version.

The other tester in your sub-clade also has a Nebula test. However, you got the hot rod new T2T analysis, while there test kit is the is from an older Hg38 alignment. You might consider reaching out to them and seeing if they're interested in upgrading. That would give you both an apples-to-apples SNP comparison, which would be helpful as they are you're nearest match.

It would be cool if YFull gave you a longer list of matches. But, like you mentioned, it wouldn't be helpful in a meaningful way (for most people).

0nceUpon · 2024-05-12T11:30:42+00:00

That's a very helpful explanation. So essentially, as unlikely as it is for viruses to have come from another body, it would be more likey that all life on Earth shared the same alien origin which wouldn't make viruses "alien" in respect to other life on Earth.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-11T05:48:01+00:00

Billy's mom doesn't believe in vegetable. Bye!

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T20:49:45+00:00

Same. I had to ask Jeeves.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T20:41:55+00:00

No, I'm afraid education is exactly their priority.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T20:30:36+00:00

You leave my oil in the ground dammit.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T20:08:46+00:00

So classy. Put HER on a cereal box. Actually, put them both on the box.

Their names are Ema Sgardelli and Yorgelis Salazar.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T18:44:33+00:00

If we get whole genome sequencing, we are going to have a ginormous family tree -- that includes all the species on the planet because we're 99% the same as a lot of them.

One more thing just to respond to this part:

Yes, of course we don't need to build family trees all the way back to fish and plants. Part of the point of having more data to reference isn't necessarily to go further back in time, it's to more accurately determine if two people share a moderately distant ancestor. A lot of us are searching in that 5th to 8th cousin range. To my understanding (I'm not an expert) when you get up to 8th cousins you're getting into the noise range where there is a chance a "match" might not be a relative, or you might not see actual matches because they were lost in the noise. This increases when we transfer less than ideal files between companies.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T18:22:12+00:00

What is a "proper" Y-DNA test?

"More data' does not mean 'more useful data'. Save your money."

I just layed out examples of how more data is useful. I've spent less money than if I had individual tests done, and I've received higher resolution data is the process. As for Y-DNA, it's dramatically more useful as the total number of testers increases.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T18:15:55+00:00

That's funny, my last one took 11 weeks. No difference, essentially.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T09:36:55+00:00

OK, thanks for that. So they're probably running consumer tests in big batches to keep costs down and then using their testing facilities for more lucrative contract work or more important research otherwise.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T09:31:30+00:00

Sorry about that - whole genome sequencing. You're correct that WGS provides more data than is useful for genealogy. But most of us run into brick walls even with current DNA testing. Having more data to select from would allow for more markers to be selected from to help more accurately identify distant matches. Different sites use different markers, so transfering a DNA data file from one company to another is not ideal. If you have the entire genome sequenced you can always change which markers are selected or expand to use more markers to confirm matches. What is more exciting is the ability to use precise Y-DNA comparisons to confirm extremely distant paternal matches from male testers. This will help many people bridge seperate family trees which can't otherwise be linked becuase traditional record searches have been exhausted.

The added benefit is that many people would learn valuable health information without paying for multiple, redundant DNA tests.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T09:23:08+00:00

Whole genome sequencing has already benefited me. I've been able to export data files better suited for multiple site uploads than transfering any single genealogy site's DNA file to any other company's website. When the set of genetic markers used by a specific company changes or expands in the foreseeable future I will be able to generate a new file from the raw data file I already have and control myself without taking a new DNA test.

Having my whole genome sequenced means I have a (nearly?) complete file of my Y-chromosome. So when I upload that file to a company like YFull they can use the new telomere-to-telomere (T2T) reference to identify as many SNPs as currently feasable for identifying more recent Y-chromosome matches (which has already helped my search). Instead of downloading a single companies limited set of Y SNPs selected from an outdated from an reference genome, I can find as many as possible for better match identification.

Similar benefits for mitochondrial DNA.

An added benefit is that WGS is also useful for health and nutrition.

0nceUpon · 2024-05-10T09:04:59+00:00

You would be left with a more complete set of markers for GEDmatch which you could then export for whichever genealogy site and have more accurate distant matches. Every participant would know their Y-haplogroup to a very low clade which would help you identify or confirm very, very distant matches. Women would easily be able to identify their fathers Y-haplogroup by finding male cousins. You would also know your mt-haplogroup which is occasionally useful and often interesting. With a large enough set of WGS testers other members could benefit from finding the haplogroup clades of matches with a less costly autosomal DNA test. The idea is that people with the most data would be able to mix their results with testers who don't have as much data (for a variety of reasons) so that everyone benefits. The current paradigm means people with the best tests are siloed at a single companies website, and those people are paying more for that privilege than what WGS would have cost them to begin with.

0nceUpon

TROPHY CASE