I think you are correct by saying we are probably ahead of the game; additionally, indeed, there would be additional lag between when our M222 BigY results begin filtering in and when FTDNA would make a move if they make any regarding the SNPs. Our own Iain Kennedy may be interested in the initial BigY raw results performing the function for M222's BigY that Mark Jost is for the L21 FGC results. Iain has already volunteered to do same with Chromo2. I noticed DW has joined Mark with his FGC results, but I think there are only 3 FGC results...is that correct?...and those circumstances are somewhat different than what we will have with both Chromo2 and BigY. Your keeping the sub-divisions in the project pages, Linda, is very helpful. I'm certain that all the others in addition to me appreciate that very much. I do like the idea of a centralized data base. Mike Walsh suggested he's also interested in keeping a M222 data base over at L21; and he's been keeping many/most haplotypes for a long time, so it may be worthwhile to share information. I really like the idea of a M222 kept data base no matter what else the project and the admins decide to do as far at the rest of it goes. Susan On 11/22/2013 11:59 AM, Linda McKee wrote: > Susan, > > Most of the blogs following the conference gave out the words they > heard from FTDNA folks on Big Y. > > FTDNA turn-a-round time is running into February based on every comment > I have heard on that.....most say no way by End of Dec for Big Y results. > > Given those thoughts by folks that are usually also in the know and > thinking of results already in the pipeline coming this way for Full Y > it would seem to me that MJost is way ahead of that curve in this case. > > Who can say how long it would take FTDNA to come out with the new > singletons for the individual SNP testing? > > It is good to have options and the more options the better it becomes > for us..........out here in the customer base. > > Linda > > From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] MJost on Full Y DNA analysis > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:52:21 -0500 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Susan your comment: > Our own Iain Kennedy may be interested in the initial BigY raw results > performing the function for M222's BigY that Mark Jost is for the L21 > FGC results. Iain has already volunteered to do same with Chromo2. I > noticed DW has joined Mark with his FGC results, but I think there are > only 3 FGC results...is that correct?...and those circumstances are > somewhat different than what we will have with both Chromo2 and BigY. We know for certain that Our Own Iain is interested in the Full Y results, has he not given us a great deal of proof while working with the tree he is maintaining for all of us, been discussed several times, I don't think Iain has said he'll be developing any SNPs for singleton tests. We don't need to be divisive in these matters. Linda

Susan, Most of the blogs following the conference gave out the words they heard from FTDNA folks on Big Y. FTDNA turn-a-round time is running into February based on every comment I have heard on that.....most say no way by End of Dec for Big Y results. Given those thoughts by folks that are usually also in the know and thinking of results already in the pipeline coming this way for Full Y it would seem to me that MJost is way ahead of that curve in this case. Who can say how long it would take FTDNA to come out with the new singletons for the individual SNP testing? It is good to have options and the more options the better it becomes for us..........out here in the customer base. Linda From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [R-M222] MJost on Full Y DNA analysis Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:52:21 -0500

Dear Brad, We now get into the paradoxes. On the one hand a modal assumes what we believe a founders haplotype would be today if that founder lived and tested today; however in best case, this assumption is really theoretical. In actuality, we do not know what the founder's haplotype was 2000+ years ago, and with mutations being random, what the modal represents is the average of all allele mutations for all the haplotypes in the tested results. Our today's haplotypes exist because our Y ancestors survived...others, however did not. Had all survived to produce a continuous flow of men, the modal could be different. All M222 lead back to the founder--that is the first bearer of the M222 single nucleotide polymorphism--the SNP mutation which caused this bearer and his descendants to depart from his relatives in the sub-clade ancestral to R-M222. In reality, there is no R-M222 descendant bearer which could be considered "older" than the next. That said, there are some caveats to this. The first is the reality that diversity of haplotype generally indicates age which in reality is survival. In simplistic terms it takes time for mutations to occur hence the more SNP mutations present in linear succession from the M222 mutation the longer the lineage has survived (since R-M222 mutated). Additionally the haplotypes may often indicate this in their diversity and sometimes be a signal for the various episodes of calving which have occurred between the M222 mutation and any given lineage with surviving men today who have tested. Here is where this paradox enters the picture...the sub-clade from which a calving occurs is ancestral; however the calf in survival will generally indicate age. The calving, if you will, is where there are splits. Within a lineage the haplotypes often indicate the splits within the lineage itself; within the clade, the splits are indicated by the down stream SNPs. View this as you would view a tree. Below ground is a complex root system that begins with initially 1 root which then sprouts off the balance of roots as the tree grows. I usually equate the root system with the SNPs previous to the clade in question. Above ground is the trunk (the first bearer of the clade) from which there are further branches splitting away (the down stream SNPs); those branches continue to split into limbs (extended lineages), twigs (family lineages), and leaves as the tree grows. We are the leaves. The tree itself is X numbers of years old, and at various points in its growing both the above and below ground systems split and expand, and over time sections of both systems die off, yet the tree generally will survive--not indefinitely, but it will have produced seeds which is another subject. In genealogy we may call the die off everything from dying young before procreating to girling out-- that is a progenitor issues only girls; if he (the progenitor) has male cousins and/or brothers who also issue only daughters, then with their deaths that particular Y lineage is lost--does not survive. HOWEVER if the overall extended lineage is old enough, the loss of that particular lineage does not affect the viability of the others who will be under the same constraints faced by all. We all are survivors. Hope this helps, Susan On 11/22/2013 9:47 AM, Brad and Sheila Knowles wrote: > Susan, > > "The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the > individual will have." That is very interesting. > > If I understand this correctly, it solves a puzzle I have been wrestling > with. I currently have 113 matches at 67 markers on my FTDNA report. > In correspondence with some of these people I have found that they have > only 10 or 12 matches at 67 markers. Does this mean that my line is > probably ancestral to theirs? Likewise, my line would be under one of > my matches that had, say, 200 matches at 67 markers. Taking this to > its logical (or illogical) conclusion, if I knew how many matches each > of my 113 matches had, I could place them in order and construct my > family tree! > > I realize that this is not a rigorous approach but it does seem to > indicate that the number of matches we all have to the M222 modal is a > useful parameter and one that should be made public. > > Your thoughts? > > Brad Knowles > >

Dear Iain, we do not know that yet. There is df85 negative Daugherty. Susan On 11/22/2013 9:15 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: >> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:32:56 -0600 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [R-M222] Orders and Results >> >> 196477.....Morrison........DF85- >> > Well that result is interesting! Not with the Dohertys at all based on data so far. > > Iain > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

It is tough to know how much of this work for BigY results that FTDNA will do. For SNP confirmations, if the BigY shows trends w/ the M222, they well may develop single SNP tests for those SNPs and add to the single SNP testing program. If they do that, there may be no need to pursue Mark's option. That said, however, I know that FTDNA would likely vet whatever SNPs they develop a single SNP test for, and any trends would need to be assessed to make certain that they address the many rather than simply a few. It is a good approach slated by Mark and re-posted here, Linda, particularly for the FGC results...we might want to ask FTDNA if they have a game plan for the BigY assessment results or if they are depending on us to do the assessing. Susan On 11/22/2013 8:37 AM, Linda McKee wrote: > Folks with Full Y DNA results coming in may also want to consider the > following option from Mark Jost: > > > > MJost on Full Y DNA analysis > Posted at R1b-L21 Project at yahoo.com > > So, we, the Full Y DNA Testers have or are about to received our long > awaited results, and will soon discover that the journey is not finished > yet. More work will be needed. To further this process the individual > HaplogroupCompare&quot; and other reports will be required for > cross-reference and other tasks. These reports will identify your novel > SNP(s) along with a number of "private" SNPs. Novel SNP(s) that are > derived, and also found in other datasets, either other FGC- L21er's > and/or are found in other major Y-DNA datasets. > > We all want our newly discovered SNP(s) placed on the Y-DNA Tree for all > to see. ISOGG now has the 'Final&#39; word on the placement aspect. The > first step in this process is that ISOGG requests one derived sample to > be sequenced (=confirmed) with Sanger. This is one of several criteria > required for Tree placement. This is required to make sure that it's not > an artifact of the analysis method used. When this is confirmed, there > will be the need for more confirmations (other methods are considered > such as NGS results) from other kits within- and outside your Haplogroup > group to satisfy the other criteria. > > To assist in confirming validity for any new novel SNPs found in your > FGC reports by further conducting the Sanger testing, I am working with > a well known yet un-named "Expert" with this process who can produce the > primers and run the initial SNP testing required by ISOGG. This is a US > based company. > > I would like to coordinate the above process for my self and other FGC > Full Y testers. > > MJost > > In answer to my query for the M222+ folks with Full Y results: > > I am looking for the completed FGC result files that are sent to each > individual, for now. The file names contained are: > > VariantCompare > haplogroupCompare > gtype > > These files are contained along with others in a Zipped format. They can be > forwarded directly to me for review. > > I will then forward to the yet un-name company for their experts to verify > and create a primer and submit payment to validate the new novel SNP found > as the first step in the process of getting it on the ISOGG tree. From > these files I will be able to evaluate which other FGC returned kits > contain either an ancestral or derived states. Additional testing of others > maybe required. Example would be if you are currently DF13* and it reports > that four DF13 subclades indeed have the referenced ancestral allele, then > only the remaining ISOGG subclades will need to be tested. > > Remember these steps are needed to prove that the new novel SNP is valid > and further correctly placed on the Tree. > > MJost > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Susan, "The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the individual will have." That is very interesting. If I understand this correctly, it solves a puzzle I have been wrestling with. I currently have 113 matches at 67 markers on my FTDNA report. In correspondence with some of these people I have found that they have only 10 or 12 matches at 67 markers. Does this mean that my line is probably ancestral to theirs? Likewise, my line would be under one of my matches that had, say, 200 matches at 67 markers. Taking this to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, if I knew how many matches each of my 113 matches had, I could place them in order and construct my family tree! I realize that this is not a rigorous approach but it does seem to indicate that the number of matches we all have to the M222 modal is a useful parameter and one that should be made public. Your thoughts? Brad Knowles On 11/21/2013 11:53 AM, Susan Hedeen wrote: > Hey, Colin, > Yes it is interesting....just a few comments: > The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the > individual will have. > > Understandably the Clade modal is a constructed haplotype consisting of > the modal values for each allele (STR). In some cases the modal value > is a majority by just a few while in others it is the majority without > exception. > > The modal was set years ago long before we knew here were any down > stream SNPs. > > Thus far the modal for df85+ is nearly the same as the M222 modal, so > the matching across SNP lines is perfectly understandable as well. > > The modal Value for the Clade M222 will likely remain the same; however > the modals for the down streams may very well differ. Once we have > enough results from each down stream SNP ID'd to form their individual > modals we may then go about the task of attempting to learn an > approximate age for them which undoubtedly will change with more and > more results due to testing. > > Presently df85+ is looking rather diverse and the TMRCA of those tested > positive is nearly as old as current estimates of the age of M222 as > well; however this is all preliminary. Susan Hedeen > > On 11/21/2013 12:27 PM, Colin Ferguson wrote: >> Its nice that FTDNA has started doing this. My name for example now >> appears as 12701 Ferguson M222+ DF85- DF97- in the M222 project >> tables. >> >> When I view matches using "myFTNDA" page I have 63 yDNA67 matches, of >> these nobody else tested DF85 and 4 tested yDNA111. I am off the M222 >> 67 marker modal at 7 markers. I have zero yDNA111 matches. >> >> A more interesting case is that of kit 202608 which is in both the >> Fergus(s)on and M222 project. The label is Ferguson M222+, DF85-, >> DF97-, L555- and this kit has 582 matches at the 67 marker level. It >> is off the M222 67 marker modal at 4 markers. The matches to persons >> who tested DF85 are: >> >> GD, Name + Label >> 4 Costigan DF85- DF97- >> 4 Wilson DF85- DF97- >> 5 Coyne M222+ DF85- >> 7 DePew Geno2 DF85- >> 7 Milligan DF85- DF97- >> 7 Slavens M222+ DF85+ DF97 pending >> 7 Harrison M222+ DF85+ DF97+ >> 7 Leonard M222+ DF85- Jr. >> >> Note that 2 of them are DF85+ DF97+ >> >> Of those 582 matches at 67 markers, 116 have tested yDNA111 and of >> those 5 appear in the myFTDNA match list for kit 202608 at 111 >> markers. Finally, of those 5 only 1 tested DF85 and he is Costigan >> DF85- DF97- >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Ed, For yourself I would definitely recommend the Chromo2 Y Raw product from BritainsDNA as this will test all your SNPs including all the new ones under M222 and would cover all other branches if your guess is wrong. For your relative not so sure if you are saying it has to be an FTDNA test. They will have more SNP tests coming like a revived 'Deep Clade test' which they announced at their recent conference. There is a very active I hg rootsweb list so if you aren't on it, it might be worth a visit. Ken Nordvedt hangs out there and he is the top expert on the subject. Iain

Dear Ed, You did ask the question a while back. There is a Cannon in your section of your surname project who indeed has SNP tested positive for M222, and your haplotype is consistent w/those in your group and the group looks well placed. Everything considered w/desired most info and cost effectiveness as well as wanting to afford another test for someone else, you may consider Chromo2. You would want the BritainsDNA 129 pound sterling raw data option which with currency conversion would amount to about $200.00. For the other fellow I2b1, these I fellows seem very interested in the FTDNA BigY, and if you are going to do that for him, I'd order previous to Nov 30 because right now the cost is $495.00 which will go up if you miss the sale. Everything being equal with the considerations you post below, those options may be the most useful for you. Susan Hedeen On 11/22/2013 3:15 AM, Ed Cannon wrote: > I beg your pardon, but I'm asking this now (again?) because of a message I > received Thursday. (I've been trying to read and understand the messages > from this list for at least a couple of months, maybe three.) I'm seeking > suggestions about which test, if any, would be the most useful to me and > beneficial to the (haplo)group while keeping an eye on cost efficiency. A > couple of months ago I was advised to wait a while and now am wondering if > I've waited long enough. > > Based on my 67-marker test (kit 246162), FTDNA tells me I'm R-M269 (R1b1a2). > But I have been assured that I'm actually R-M222 (R1b1a2a1a1b4b), so much > so that I was encouraged to join this group. I'm in Group 1 in the Cannon > Surname Project. To the best of my knowledge, my most distant ancestor, > John Cannon, was born in Dover, Kent, England in 1712 and came to South > Carolina on the ship Minerva in 1730 as an indentured servant. His younger > brother Daniel came over here some years later. > > 1. FTDNA suggests 67-to-111 upgrade ($109). > > 2. FTDNA offers me these (and many other) advanced SNPs below M269: L23, > L150, L51, P310, P312, L21, M222 ($?? Could I do *just* the M222? They > don't seem to offer me any below M222, or else I don't know where to look > for them.) > > 3. Chromo2 (Which test? I've already done mtDNA and Family Finder.) > > 4. Geno 2.0 ($160. About to be replaced?) > > 5. FTDNA Big Y ($495 through Nov 30. Stretches my budget quite a bit.) > > 6. Full Genome ($1250) is beyond my budget. > > Separate question, please. I wonder what test, if any, might be of more > benefit to science if I order it for my relative who has been tested to 37 > markers and has no matches at any level -- zip, zero, zilch, nada. (He is > I2b1, M-223, kit 293061.) I don't know how uncommon it is for a man not > to have any yDNA matches. (I also wonder if I ought to order the Family > Finder for him.) His great-grandfather was orphaned by the Chicago Fire > of 1871. The surname is Brown. (This would be FTDNA, since they already > have his sample.) > > Thank you very much for your consideration. > > Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

List, Overnight I received the analysis of my Y chromosome from Greg Magoon who is the data analyst for Full Genomes. I will be studying it in detail and will report back a summary of what I find - there are 8 different data files plus a Reading Guide to digest. Iain

Folks with Full Y DNA results coming in may also want to consider the following option from Mark Jost: MJost on Full Y DNA analysis Posted at R1b-L21 Project at yahoo.com So, we, the Full Y DNA Testers have or are about to received our long awaited results, and will soon discover that the journey is not finished yet. More work will be needed. To further this process the individual HaplogroupCompare&quot; and other reports will be required for cross-reference and other tasks. These reports will identify your novel SNP(s) along with a number of "private" SNPs. Novel SNP(s) that are derived, and also found in other datasets, either other FGC- L21er's and/or are found in other major Y-DNA datasets. We all want our newly discovered SNP(s) placed on the Y-DNA Tree for all to see. ISOGG now has the 'Final&#39; word on the placement aspect. The first step in this process is that ISOGG requests one derived sample to be sequenced (=confirmed) with Sanger. This is one of several criteria required for Tree placement. This is required to make sure that it's not an artifact of the analysis method used. When this is confirmed, there will be the need for more confirmations (other methods are considered such as NGS results) from other kits within- and outside your Haplogroup group to satisfy the other criteria. To assist in confirming validity for any new novel SNPs found in your FGC reports by further conducting the Sanger testing, I am working with a well known yet un-named "Expert" with this process who can produce the primers and run the initial SNP testing required by ISOGG. This is a US based company. I would like to coordinate the above process for my self and other FGC Full Y testers. MJost In answer to my query for the M222+ folks with Full Y results: I am looking for the completed FGC result files that are sent to each individual, for now. The file names contained are: VariantCompare haplogroupCompare gtype These files are contained along with others in a Zipped format. They can be forwarded directly to me for review. I will then forward to the yet un-name company for their experts to verify and create a primer and submit payment to validate the new novel SNP found as the first step in the process of getting it on the ISOGG tree. From these files I will be able to evaluate which other FGC returned kits contain either an ancestral or derived states. Additional testing of others maybe required. Example would be if you are currently DF13* and it reports that four DF13 subclades indeed have the referenced ancestral allele, then only the remaining ISOGG subclades will need to be tested. Remember these steps are needed to prove that the new novel SNP is valid and further correctly placed on the Tree. MJost

Ordered Test: Big Y 202608.....Graeme Ferguson M222+, DF85-, DF97-, L555- New results posted at FTDNA this morning: 115365.....Ronald Gwinn.....DF85- DF97- 196477.....Morrison........DF85-

I beg your pardon, but I'm asking this now (again?) because of a message I received Thursday.  (I've been trying to read and understand the messages from this list for at least a couple of months, maybe three.)  I'm seeking suggestions about which test, if any, would be the most useful to me and beneficial to the (haplo)group while keeping an eye on cost efficiency.  A couple of months ago I was advised to wait a while and now am wondering if I've waited long enough. Based on my 67-marker test (kit 246162), FTDNA tells me I'm R-M269 (R1b1a2).   But I have been assured that I'm actually R-M222 (R1b1a2a1a1b4b), so much so that I was encouraged to join this group.  I'm in Group 1 in the Cannon Surname Project.  To the best of my knowledge, my most distant ancestor, John Cannon, was born in Dover, Kent, England in 1712 and came to South Carolina on the ship Minerva in 1730 as an indentured servant.  His younger brother Daniel came over here some years later. 1. FTDNA suggests 67-to-111 upgrade ($109). 2. FTDNA offers me these (and many other) advanced SNPs below M269:  L23, L150, L51, P310, P312, L21, M222 ($??  Could I do *just* the M222?  They don't seem to offer me any below M222, or else I don't know where to look for them.) 3. Chromo2 (Which test?  I've already done mtDNA and Family Finder.) 4. Geno 2.0 ($160. About to be replaced?) 5. FTDNA Big Y ($495 through Nov 30.  Stretches my budget quite a bit.) 6. Full Genome ($1250) is beyond my budget. Separate question, please.  I wonder what test, if any, might be of more benefit to science if I order it for my relative who has been tested to 37 markers and has no matches at any level -- zip, zero, zilch, nada.  (He is I2b1, M-223, kit 293061.)  I don't know how uncommon it is for a man not to have any yDNA matches.  (I also wonder if I ought to order the Family Finder for him.)  His great-grandfather was orphaned by the Chicago Fire of 1871.  The surname is Brown.  (This would be FTDNA, since they already have his sample.) Thank you very much for your consideration. Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA

Two members with results: 118647 Headen DF85- 258368 Heiland DF85-

Had a comment from a member just now who indicated he was waiting for a sale to upgrade to 111 markers. And so wanted to share Debbie Kennett's excellent blog: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cruwys news <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM Subject: Cruwys news To: [email protected] Cruwys news Family Tree DNA sale Posted: 17 Nov 2013 02:49 PM PST The Family Tree DNA sale is now on. It is not very easy to find a list of prices on the website so I've copied down all the prices here. The sale ends on 31st December and all tests must be paid for in full by this date. The prices below are shown in US dollars. You can convert the prices into your local currency using one of the many online currency converters. I normally use the XE Currency Converter. Note that the dollar/sterling exchange rate is particularly favourable at present for those of us in the UK! Basic tests for new customers Y-DNA 37 markers $119 (usual price $169) Y-DNA 67 markers $189 (usual price $268) Y-DNA 111 markers $289 (usual price $359) mtFull (full mitochondrial sequence) $169 (usual price $199) Family Finder $99 (US customers also receive a free $100 Restaurant.com gift certificate) Autosomal DNA Transfer $49 (usual price $69) - this allows people who have tested at 23andMe or AncestryDNA to transfer their autosomal results to FTDNA's Family Finder database Combination Tests Family Finder + Y-37 for $218 (usual price $268) Family Finder + Y-67 for $288 (usual price $367) Family Finder + mtFull for $268 (usual price $298) Y-37 + mtFull for $288 (usual price $366) Y-67 + mtFull for $358 (usual price $457) Comprehensive Genome (Family Finder, Y-67 and mtFull) for $457 (usual price $566) Upgrades Y-Refine 12 to 37 for $69 (usual price $109) Y-Refine 12 to 67 for $148 (usual price $319) Y-Refine 25 to 37 for $35 (usual price $59) Y-Refine 25 to 67 for $114 (usual price $59) Y-Refine 37 to 67 for $79 (usual price $109) Y-Refine 37 to 111 for $188 (usual price $220) Y-Refine 67 to 111 for $109 (usual price $129) mtHVR1 to Mega (full mitochondrial sequence) for $149 (usual price $169) Big Y This is a new Y-chromosome sequence test for advanced users who are interested in SNP discovery and contributing to our scientific knowledge about the phylogeny of the Y-chromosome. There is an introductory offer on this new test, and It is currently on sale for $495. This test is only available to existing customers. The price will go up to $695 after 1st December. If you have previously taken the Walk Through the Y test you will be eligible for a $50 discount. There should be a voucher that you can use on your personal page. For further information about the Big Y see my earlier blog post on the new Big Y test from Family Tree DNA. For information on the different types of DNA tests see the beginners' guides in the ISOGG Wiki. The Y-chromosome sequence interpretation service from YFull.com Posted: 17 Nov 2013 01:39 PM PST This article is for advanced genetic genealogists who have had their Y-chromosome sequenced or who are interested in doing so. With the forthcoming SNP tsunami, the analysis and interpretation of the Y-chromosome results provided by the various companies will be one of the key determining factors in the success of their products. Fortunately within the genetic genealogy community we have a number of intrepid pioneers who have volunteered to serve as guinea pigs by testing at all the companies so that we will eventually be able to do comparisons between all the products. David Hollister, who runs the Hollister one-name study and is the co-administrator of the Hollister DNA Project, is one of our brave guinea pigs. He has already had his Y-chromosome sequenced with Full Genomes Corporation. He has previously tested with the Genographic Project, and has had STR testing at Family Tree DNA. David is now waiting for his results from the Chromo 2 test from BritainsDNA and the BIG Y test from Family Tree DNA. Another genetic genealogist Itaï Perez has already provided a comprehensive look at the Full Genomes Y-sequencing results in a guest post on CeCe Moore's blog so I see no point in covering the same ground. However, David has recently submitted his Full Genomes data to another service by the name of YFull.com for an alternative interpretation. David was really excited by his results and was so "blown away" by the reports he received from YFull that I asked him if he might be able to share some screenshots so that other genetic genealogists might get a feel for what to expect from this service. David has very kindly agreed and has also obtained the consent of the YFull team for me to publish these screenshots. You will need to click on each image to see larger versions of the screenshots. This is David's home page on his YFull account. Note that according to YFull there are 41,828 known Y-SNPs and 478 short tandem repeats (Y-STRs). This report shows David's position on the Y-haplotree and his results for all the SNPs tested on his branch of tree. Separate reports are available for "controversial" SNPs and no calls. This report provides a list of private and unknown SNPs. 247 private and unknown SNPs were found in David's sequence: 66 were deemed to be of best quality, 10 were of acceptable quality, and 13 were of low quality. For 111 SNPs only one reading could be obtained. A temporary internal ID system is used to identify the private SNPs and they all bear the prefix YFS, an abbreviation for YFull Singleton. This report shows results for the Indels. Indel is the term used to describe insertions and deletions - positions in the sequence where extra As, Cs, Ts and Gs have been inserted or where they are absent. There is a handy SNP index that allows you to query your results by SNP name. Here is the report showing results for the 478 STRs tested. This pie chart shows the percentage of "good" and "uncertain" alleles. 90.2% of the alleles were classified as "good". Note that next generation sequencing with a read length of 100 bps does not pick up some of the longer STRs in the sequence. YFull have recently introduced a group feature. There are currently groups available for haplogroups R1a and G2a. YFull are based in Moscow in Russia. They are currently providing a free service for a limited period, but I understand that they will at some point start charging a small fee. They are able to use data for any Y-chromosome which has been sequenced at a minimum 25X coverage and with a read length of at least 100 base pairs. Data needs to be provided in the form of a BAM file. If you have tested with Full Genomes they will provide you with your BAM file on request. Results are not yet available from Family Tree DNA's BIG Y test but I understand that they will also make the BAM files available. It remains to be seen what level of analysis and interpretation FTDNA will provide. We can expect the interpretation of Y-chromosome sequencing results to change over time as our knowledge improves, and as more comparative results become available. In the meantime YFull certainly provides an interesting complement to the service provided by Full Genomes. No doubt we can expect other similar services to appear on the scene in the coming months as more sequences become available. See also - ISOGG Y-DNA SNP testing chart - The new Big Y test from Family Tree DNA - A confusion of SNPs - A simplified Y-tree and a common standard for Y-DNA haplogroup and SNP nomenclature © 2013 Debbie Kennett You are subscribed to email updates from Cruwys news To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Lets hope! Yep, I've seen that. Of the SNPs furnished by Wilson to CeCe Moore, all those labeled CTS--that acronym I believe stands for Chris Tyler-Smith...who is not James Wilson nor Scotland's DNA. There are CTS SNPs also on Geno2 and in FGC products. If I understand Wilson's report, these CTS SNPs were chosen for Chromo2 along with some later entries and those he's culled since the list was made because they aren't particularly trust worthy. I did not see any S series SNPs there Except for the S series SNPs I noted previously. Has anyone viewed the list that CeCe Moore published other than me? If anyone knows any differently, please correct me. What we do not have, however is the entire list by what ever name and the genomic positions for the proprietary S SNPs, so that if there are equivalents to any of the S series, we wouldn't know. He was very careful in the wording of both the report and his statement about the Geno2 SNPs when he stated that the Chromo2 chip did not include any of the Geno2 SNPs with exception of df85 (S673). The Chromo2 chip is proprietary to BISDNA (Britain, Ireland, Scotland DNA), but all the SNPs on it may not be. Whether or not the CTS snps listed have an equivalent is really beside the point. If the CTS SNPs are not proprietary to BISDNA, anyone can use them for their products as well. If any of them are relabeled with S Series ID's, it confuses the issue. The S Series SNPs are a proprietary label for James Wilson and BISDNA. If it is a Wilson ID'd SNP, it is one thing; if it is not but relabeled proprietary, it is another. I do understand why a discovery lab would want to keep proprietary information for competitive reasons; if there were standards both within the scientific and DTC industry governing them all, however, it would be better for all including we the public who purchase.Susan Hedeen On 11/21/2013 1:04 PM, B. Davitt wrote: > According to another forum see: > http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1620-List-of-Alternate-Names-for-the-Y-SNPs-from-BritainsDNA-s-Chromo2-Test#post20331 > > of the 8,894 S-series SNPs only 865 have alternate names which leaves 8,029 > SNPs that are being tested only at Britains/Irelands/ScotlandsDNA. > According to IrelandsDNA who I questioned prior to ordering Chromo2, the > M222 downstream SNPs they test for are only tested by them. With the > exception of DF85/S673 this appears to be true. Hopefully these new SNPs > will be labeled permanently soon. > Brenden > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Dear Colin, It is true that one of the admins is doing this-----;-)--- and it is me. Like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree so-to-speak. As our FTDNA SNP M222+ Project has always been leading edge in the SNP hunt and for a long time runs a bit different than surname and geographic groups/projects, so our needs are at times a bit unique to the FTDNA Project. We appreciate the leeway that FTDNA at times gives us our miracles to perform and allows us to innovate and spread our wings to better serve our project members. Came about as an attempt to resolve my being able to keep up with the excel for the M222+ Project. Seemed to work very well for our needs at this time. I had seen someone had done this on one or so member results on another project and so it came to my mind later (now) to fill the needs of our ever expanding SNP testing base. There are those members who have their Contact Info edit option set to prevent this or that change to their contact info and anyone wishing to remove their "tag" has only to use the edit option on the Contact Information on their personal FTDNA page. In the reverse if you want to see this information posted for your results, you can go to your personal page and change your Contact Info options to allow the addition of your testing adventures. Linda > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:27:57 -0800 > From: Colin Ferguson <[email protected]> > Subject: [R-M222] New Labels Append SNP To Name > To: DNA-R1b1c7 <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]om> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Its nice that FTDNA has started doing this. My name for example now > appears as 12701 Ferguson M222+ DF85- DF97- in the M222 project > tables.

Hey, Colin, Yes it is interesting....just a few comments: The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the individual will have. Understandably the Clade modal is a constructed haplotype consisting of the modal values for each allele (STR). In some cases the modal value is a majority by just a few while in others it is the majority without exception. The modal was set years ago long before we knew here were any down stream SNPs. Thus far the modal for df85+ is nearly the same as the M222 modal, so the matching across SNP lines is perfectly understandable as well. The modal Value for the Clade M222 will likely remain the same; however the modals for the down streams may very well differ. Once we have enough results from each down stream SNP ID'd to form their individual modals we may then go about the task of attempting to learn an approximate age for them which undoubtedly will change with more and more results due to testing. Presently df85+ is looking rather diverse and the TMRCA of those tested positive is nearly as old as current estimates of the age of M222 as well; however this is all preliminary. Susan Hedeen On 11/21/2013 12:27 PM, Colin Ferguson wrote: > Its nice that FTDNA has started doing this. My name for example now > appears as 12701 Ferguson M222+ DF85- DF97- in the M222 project > tables. > > When I view matches using "myFTNDA" page I have 63 yDNA67 matches, of > these nobody else tested DF85 and 4 tested yDNA111. I am off the M222 > 67 marker modal at 7 markers. I have zero yDNA111 matches. > > A more interesting case is that of kit 202608 which is in both the > Fergus(s)on and M222 project. The label is Ferguson M222+, DF85-, > DF97-, L555- and this kit has 582 matches at the 67 marker level. It > is off the M222 67 marker modal at 4 markers. The matches to persons > who tested DF85 are: > > GD, Name + Label > 4 Costigan DF85- DF97- > 4 Wilson DF85- DF97- > 5 Coyne M222+ DF85- > 7 DePew Geno2 DF85- > 7 Milligan DF85- DF97- > 7 Slavens M222+ DF85+ DF97 pending > 7 Harrison M222+ DF85+ DF97+ > 7 Leonard M222+ DF85- Jr. > > Note that 2 of them are DF85+ DF97+ > > Of those 582 matches at 67 markers, 116 have tested yDNA111 and of > those 5 appear in the myFTDNA match list for kit 202608 at 111 > markers. Finally, of those 5 only 1 tested DF85 and he is Costigan > DF85- DF97- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I don't think it's FTDNA, pretty sure one of the M222 group admins said they were doing it. Quoting Colin Ferguson <[email protected]>: > Its nice that FTDNA has started doing this. My name for example now > appears as 12701 Ferguson M222+ DF85- DF97- in the M222 project > tables. > > When I view matches using "myFTNDA" page I have 63 yDNA67 matches, of > these nobody else tested DF85 and 4 tested yDNA111. I am off the M222 > 67 marker modal at 7 markers. I have zero yDNA111 matches. > > A more interesting case is that of kit 202608 which is in both the > Fergus(s)on and M222 project. The label is Ferguson M222+, DF85-, > DF97-, L555- and this kit has 582 matches at the 67 marker level. It > is off the M222 67 marker modal at 4 markers. The matches to persons > who tested DF85 are: > > GD, Name + Label > 4 Costigan DF85- DF97- > 4 Wilson DF85- DF97- > 5 Coyne M222+ DF85- > 7 DePew Geno2 DF85- > 7 Milligan DF85- DF97- > 7 Slavens M222+ DF85+ DF97 pending > 7 Harrison M222+ DF85+ DF97+ > 7 Leonard M222+ DF85- Jr. > > Note that 2 of them are DF85+ DF97+ > > Of those 582 matches at 67 markers, 116 have tested yDNA111 and of > those 5 appear in the myFTDNA match list for kit 202608 at 111 > markers. Finally, of those 5 only 1 tested DF85 and he is Costigan > DF85- DF97- > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

According to another forum see: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1620-List-of-Alternate-Names-for-the-Y-SNPs-from-BritainsDNA-s-Chromo2-Test#post20331 of the 8,894 S-series SNPs only 865 have alternate names which leaves 8,029 SNPs that are being tested only at Britains/Irelands/ScotlandsDNA. According to IrelandsDNA who I questioned prior to ordering Chromo2, the M222 downstream SNPs they test for are only tested by them. With the exception of DF85/S673 this appears to be true. Hopefully these new SNPs will be labeled permanently soon. Brenden