This may be easy to explain in case their system doesn't account for the possibility that whatever DNA they get is not from a dog. Then whatever they answered is just the dog race with DNA closest to human, according to their metrics.
They very likely have a set of possible target DNA references, and look at how close whatever they get is to each of these.
And there are different metrics with which one can measure DNA similarity. Hence it also is to be expected that a different company would return different results. Albeit not super different.
They also don't report the confidence of their results. DNA tests, even the kind used for forensics in criminal investigations, don't give perfect results, there's always some uncertainty. I think there are probably a lot of instances where they have a very low confidence in the results but send them out anyway.
As of today, it is impossible to report an accurate confidence value for these kinds of analyses. The required theoretical work has not been done yet, and of course may turn out impossible. However, there are tons of ways to estimate confidence.
One of the other companies cited in the article seems to be a bit better about this. They seem to filter out non-dog DNA, and if there is not enough dog DNA left after this, then they report that the sample was bad.
Dogs have 38 pairs of chromosomes, humans only 23. It should not be possible for this to happen.
In the article they claim they got results from one of the human cheek swabs and not the other. It is possible that they just don't keep their equipment clean enough and some actual dog DNA got into the mix.
Either way, the other companies receiving similar samples just said there was no dog DNA there. This company has repeatedly provided dog results for human DNA samples. Whatever happened they're doing something very wrong.
Well 23&me business is not actually DNA testing, it's collecting and selling people's DNA data. The market for this on pets does not exist
Also, the way they handled their data breach (or the fact they had any) definitely stains their reputation
Finally, because they were doing the DNA testing at a loss and selling the DNA data has proven to be harder than expected, they are actually on the bring of bankruptcy
According to the results from the Toronto-based company, WBZ News reporter Christina Hager is 40% Alaskan malamute, 35% shar-pei and 25% labrador.
The Melbourne, Australia- and Florida-based company Orivet reported that the sample “failed to provide the data necessary to perform the breed ID analysis”.
Meanwhile, Washington-based company Wisdom Panel said that the sample “didn’t provide … enough DNA to produce a reliable result”.
WBZ News’ latest report comes after its investigations team sent in a sample from New Hampshire pet owner Michelle Leininger’s own cheek to DNA My Dog last year.
The industry’s main players include DNA My Dog, Orivet and Wisdom Panel, among others.
In response to WBZ News’ latest reporting, people aired their doubts on social media.
The original article contains 456 words, the summary contains 120 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!