Forum Replies Created
Thanks! I’ll wait for future screenings (V2)! Best, Erika
Thanks both Jessica and Kathleen. (This is all very interesting!)
For this statement:
We also use a different type of machine learning algorithm than Embark, which may introduce some differences. Our method is very similar to the approach that the human genetics test 23andMe uses. In the long term, I’d like to do some comparisons between ancestry calling methods and see what works better on mixed breed dogs.
Is the implication, accuracy? Assessing more markers? Both? I am not a scientist and as such, my thought is: “it’s either half Golden or it’s not.’
As I said in a previous comment – if something is super analyzed, then do you ‘find’ that say, two generations back a breeder bought a dog that was really only 95% Golden… (or similar), and so then that dog’s offpring were not 100% Golden and so on.
This is all out of curiosity – I could care less about the pedigree other than the fact that my southern kill shelter dog potentially came from two full-blooded dogs! (The same is partially true w/ my other dog I had tested. DA was confused by her, and Embark tells me she’s full Lab on one side – and related to dozens of purebreds on the site…) Let me know if you want to see her results.
Any thoughts on my post above regarding my dog, Bee? IE generally speaking…why would Embark show Golden back to great grandparents, and DA show so much unknown? Just curious what could cause this. (Is Embark just generalizing? But why? They also come back w/ unknowns, and also have mapped more dog breeds…)
Nope, Embark great grand parents are perfectly Golden on one side and BH on the other – no signs of ‘mixes.’
Thanks, Brittney. Not wondering about that regarding my dog (Bloodhound and Golden). Hoping someone can comment on the possible differences in those results, as per my note above:)
Kate – thanks. Got it re the terrier thing. Jennifer, what a cute dog! Your analysis makes sense to me (ie the potential mix of herding breeds).
I think my dog Bee’s analysis is an interesting one. I wonder what could account for these differences? Bloodhound and Golden are of course clearly mapped by both programs. And Embark shows a ton of relatives who are full BHs and Goldens (and some mixes).
Let’s assume the Bloodhound is right (although still interesting the # slightly lower than 50%). But is she really not half Golden – or some of the Goldens in the breeder’s line were not actually full blooded (when subjected to so many markers, like DA does? Or there are too many data points and it’s mixing things up?). All very interesting!
2.8 % Others
18 % Unknown
32.3 % Golden Retriever
46.9 % Bloodhound
50% Golden Retriever
I thought they hadn’t mapped AST and so anything with an ‘American Bully breed’ would come back unknown. But you have 7.2% AST w/ DA. ?
So… for Kate Battista… agreed DA seems more accurate… interesting that half is unknown for DA and that ‘same’ half (?) is loosely grouped/guessed at by WP. What does that indicate? For DA, does it mean it’s breed(s) not mapped by them yet? By why also would WP be having trouble – too many mixes going too far back?
I am also curious about my comparative results and can post those later…
Thanks, and now of course I see you note you don’t have it in another post on the site – thanks again…just sending mine in this coming week…
So if my dog has APBT in her, it won’t come up in her Darwin panel? Just curious – she’s a lab mix, just ordered my kit today…