@ Iain OK, I now plan to take the Chromo2 test, which for the time being seems adequate. Bob Doherty himself welcomed me to the Doherty project, as by genetics I am quite closely related to the main Doherty clann, along with known historical links. Results to my DF85 test and 67 to 111 upgrade should be available in the next week or so. @Mike W My background is in mechanical engineering, and so I can appreciate how test results can vary. But there is no sense in taking two tests which effectively duplicate each other. Doug On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mike W <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that the FGC test is probably the most comprehensive as far as SNP > discovery. > > However there really aren't any guarantees. I've discovered that the > "full" Y types of tests don't really cover 100% of the Y chromosome. None > do, but with good reasons, including impenetrable and unstable segments of > the chromosome and costs. It appears the definition of pseudo-full will > change over time. The technology itself is part of the equation. Some SNPs > may be positioned such that the current technologies will not read them > consistently, accurately. > > I have both Chromo 2 and Big Y orders in for myself. We won't really know > what's what until we see a good number of results and can do the > comparisons. > > The relative pricing between the products is probably relative to their > value, at least generally so. Chromo 2 is built on the same technology as > Geno 2 but is essentially a "2.1" as they were able to add more identified > SNPs. Ultimately, I'm not sure if the pricing isn't about right with FGC at > $1250, Big Y at $695, Chromo 2 (raw) at $199, Geno 2 at $159. What has > thrown a wrench into the works is FTDNA's introductory price of $495. I was > not expecting that price. > > This reminds me of the high tech industry. There will always be vendors > leapfrogging each other, sometimes only in promises, sometimes only by > comparing their new version versus someone else's old. You'll probably not > buy just one product from any of these companies so I recommend considering > the company/institution itself, their long term viability, apparent > business model, executives and technical people and succession, product > line breadth, modularity and upgrade paths, geographic focus, support, > matching databases, etc. etc. I am positive there will be a new package > next year or the year that will be better than anything you have to day. > The question is who to do business with and when? Well, at least that is > my point of view. > > For genetic genealogists, I think Iain said it very well, "no SNP on the > chip is new in any meaningful sense of the word anyway... unless the > database also has data". In the end we don't care about many of these > SNPs, maybe even most of them. Many will be upstream, many recurrent and > many will be phylogenetically equivalent. That's not to say those won't be > useful for science in general. > > Regards, > Mike W > > > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Iain Kennedy <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Doug, the only thing we can say reasonably for sure right now is that > BigY > > isn't guaranteed to fully cover all the regions containing the Chromo2 > > SNPs. I think that particular binary choice coupled with the tight > deadline > > is a difficult one to call. Some people feel they are being bounced into > > buying BigY at the cheap intro price unsighted, whereas with the fully > > comprehensive FullGenomes test (which would be guaranteed to find all the > > Chromo2 SNPs) there was a pilot phase and later customers could talk to > the > > pilot testers and see their results whilst still getting the early bird > > price. > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:30:44 -0500 > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo > > forum > > > > > > As a consumer, let me say that I am annoyed at this lack of clarity. > At > > > this time I have the option of taking the ScotlandsDNA Chromo2 test > > and/or > > > the FTDNA Big Y test, but could they essentially duplicate each other? > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Iain Kennedy > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > This number of 'new' Geno M222 SNPs must set some kind of record for > > the > > > > number of times it's changed ;-) > > > > > > > > It still fails to make any sense since all the ones on the diagram > from > > > > their talk are already on the Geno 2.0 chip (I checked each one > > manually in > > > > my Geno file) and no SNP on the chip is new in any meaningful sense > of > > the > > > > word anyway... unless the database also has data that was obtained by > > some > > > > other method than the Geno 2.0 chip which I'm not aware of. In which > > case > > > > their list of SNP names was wrong. > > > > > > > > Not to mention the question of how they will get them through > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Doug, I agree. There is not much sense in taking two tests simultaneously that will have a lot of overlap. You have to realize I'm a combination Czech-Irish-Scots-German-Englishman. No offense to those people, but I may get out of hand from time to time. LOL. I'm amazed at how many people have and are taking all: Geno 2, Chromo 2, WTY, FGC and Big Y. I'm not quite to that elite level of whatever that means, but I try to keep them within sight. Regards, Mike W On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:12 PM, tuulen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > @Mike W > > My background is in mechanical engineering, and so I can appreciate how > test results can vary. But there is no sense in taking two tests which > effectively duplicate each other. > > Doug > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mike W <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree that the FGC test is probably the most comprehensive as far as > SNP > > discovery. > > > > However there really aren't any guarantees. I've discovered that the > > "full" Y types of tests don't really cover 100% of the Y chromosome. None > > do, but with good reasons, including impenetrable and unstable segments > of > > the chromosome and costs. It appears the definition of pseudo-full will > > change over time. The technology itself is part of the equation. Some > SNPs > > may be positioned such that the current technologies will not read them > > consistently, accurately. > > > > I have both Chromo 2 and Big Y orders in for myself. We won't really know > > what's what until we see a good number of results and can do the > > comparisons. > > > > The relative pricing between the products is probably relative to their > > value, at least generally so. Chromo 2 is built on the same technology as > > Geno 2 but is essentially a "2.1" as they were able to add more > identified > > SNPs. Ultimately, I'm not sure if the pricing isn't about right with FGC > at > > $1250, Big Y at $695, Chromo 2 (raw) at $199, Geno 2 at $159. What has > > thrown a wrench into the works is FTDNA's introductory price of $495. I > was > > not expecting that price. > > > > This reminds me of the high tech industry. There will always be vendors > > leapfrogging each other, sometimes only in promises, sometimes only by > > comparing their new version versus someone else's old. You'll probably > not > > buy just one product from any of these companies so I recommend > considering > > the company/institution itself, their long term viability, apparent > > business model, executives and technical people and succession, product > > line breadth, modularity and upgrade paths, geographic focus, support, > > matching databases, etc. etc. I am positive there will be a new package > > next year or the year that will be better than anything you have to day. > > The question is who to do business with and when? Well, at least that is > > my point of view. > > > > For genetic genealogists, I think Iain said it very well, "no SNP on the > > chip is new in any meaningful sense of the word anyway... unless the > > database also has data". In the end we don't care about many of these > > SNPs, maybe even most of them. Many will be upstream, many recurrent and > > many will be phylogenetically equivalent. That's not to say those won't > be > > useful for science in general. > > > > Regards, > > Mike W > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Iain Kennedy < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Doug, the only thing we can say reasonably for sure right now is that > > BigY > > > isn't guaranteed to fully cover all the regions containing the Chromo2 > > > SNPs. I think that particular binary choice coupled with the tight > > deadline > > > is a difficult one to call. Some people feel they are being bounced > into > > > buying BigY at the cheap intro price unsighted, whereas with the fully > > > comprehensive FullGenomes test (which would be guaranteed to find all > the > > > Chromo2 SNPs) there was a pilot phase and later customers could talk to > > the > > > pilot testers and see their results whilst still getting the early bird > > > price. > > > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:30:44 -0500 > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at > yahoo > > > forum > > > > > > > > As a consumer, let me say that I am annoyed at this lack of clarity. > > At > > > > this time I have the option of taking the ScotlandsDNA Chromo2 test > > > and/or > > > > the FTDNA Big Y test, but could they essentially duplicate each > other? > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Iain Kennedy > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > This number of 'new' Geno M222 SNPs must set some kind of record > for > > > the > > > > > number of times it's changed ;-) > > > > > > > > > > It still fails to make any sense since all the ones on the diagram > > from > > > > > their talk are already on the Geno 2.0 chip (I checked each one > > > manually in > > > > > my Geno file) and no SNP on the chip is new in any meaningful sense > > of > > > the > > > > > word anyway... unless the database also has data that was obtained > by > > > some > > > > > other method than the Geno 2.0 chip which I'm not aware of. In > which > > > case > > > > > their list of SNP names was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Not to mention the question of how they will get them through > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Dear Aidan, There are some guys in the project who were sequenced pre-pilot and others in the pilot of the Chromo2, Iain Kennedy being one of them; their recommendation is the raw data for 129 pounds sterling. As I recall there is a choice there, and the only thing you don't get w/the raw data is their spin of a write up...but you get the raw data (Iain Kennedy is accepting these results once they come in to check against the SNP report you also get). Hope this Helps Susan On 11/17/2013 7:21 PM, Aidan Byrne wrote: > What would anyone recommend ordering, the Chromo2 YDNA (£189) or the > Chromo2 Raw YDNA (£129)? And which test is the most popular? > > Is it worth paying that bit extra? And if you order the Chromo2 YDNA test > do you still get the raw data as well? > > - Aidan. > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

The purpose of what I'm doing is not to maintain an up to date tree of M222. That is a good thing and someone like yourself is helping us all by doing the comparisons and drawing the inferred phylogenetic tree. What I'm doing in the R1b-L21_Haplotypes spreadsheet is coming Y STRs and Y SNPs (from multiple sources) into one place to be more easily analyzed with more specific geographic origin information, etc. You could think of it as a combined super combo Y STR Classic + Y DNA SNP project report with SNPs from Chromo 2 (when I can figure this out) report that is sortable and selectable by surname, county, country, off-modal signature, etc. The proper haplogroup assignments are made according to whatever ISOGG + draft tree info I have available. I never look at the project screens anymore. I just copy the stuff into a spreadsheet where I can actually manage it tally totals, subtotals, averages, modals, genetic distances, etc. The purpose is just to help people get more value out of all this stuff and encourage more people to test. Some people use the data to draw networking diagrams. Some use it to try to split surname lineages. Some use it for SNP testing guidance. Perhaps we can proceed in this way - Can you combine all of the relevant SNPs (defining/terminal) plus negative downstream SNPs into one spreadsheet for M222 people (with both their Chromo2 and FTDNA kit(or Ysearch) ID's one row at a time? I can easily merge it into the larger L21 spreadsheet with all of the STRs and other stuff. Regards, Mike W On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Iain Kennedy <[email protected]>wrote: > Mike, > > Yes but I've already kindly offered to do that for everyone here anyway, > and add them to the correct location in my M222 diagram - only fair since I > was the main person who kept telling everyone to buy the Raw version of the > test. :-) > > Iain > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:41:29 -0600 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Chromo2 Raw Results s588 > > > > Iain, > > > > Do you have a copy of what the "signature" looks like? or whatever they > are > > calling the list of positive(derived) SNPs. Is it something you can > > copy/paste into an email like this? Essentially, that would be the > > equivalent of an FTDNA project Y DNA SNP report display. I have mechanism > > to read those strings and filter them to come up with the "defining" (or > > terminal) SNP and other relevant SNPs in a logical sequence. > > > > Regards, > > Mike W > > > > Mike W > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Iain Kennedy < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Walter, > > > > > > If you ordered the raw version you can download a .txt file whose > format I > > > described last month in this post: > > > > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/DNA-R1B1C7/2013-10/1381923024 > > > > > > and that is what we examine. You get it by logging in to your account > and > > > clicking the Download button. I can't say for sure that Steve has a > > > downloadable file (yet). If he doesn't he can email > > > [email protected] and they should be able to send it him. > > > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 00:02:57 -0500 > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Chromo2 Raw Results s588 > > > > > > > > Exactly what do your results look like? What is the format? What > data > > > > are you given? How do you access it? Are the designations like S588 > > > > meaningful such as ATCG (pick one), derived or ancestral), base pair > > > > indexed, or rs number indexed? > > > > > > > > Was the terminal SNP all that you were given back? > > > > > > > > I am very interested in running a extended Y-SNP test to compare > against > > > > Steve Lominac, whom I spoke to earlier this evening. But Steve has > seen > > > > no data from his test. Apparently it was run through Sandy > Patterson, > > > > but Steve has not received access to his data file nor his data. > > > > > > > > I match Steve 104/111 Y-DNA and we are both SNP tested for R-M222. > There > > > > is a complicated Gordian knot of Freemans, Lominacs, Gills, Sudduth, > and > > > > Nutters all of who are close Y-matches and all of whom have some > sort of > > > > connection to the area between present day Culpepper (formerly > > > > Fairfield) Culpepper Co, Virginia and Warrenton, Fauquier County > > > > Virginia. My family tradition is that we are of Irish descent, > though > > > > my earliest known ancestor is a Samuel Freeman b ~1760 +/- whose > parents > > > > and connection to Ireland are unknown at present. > > > > > > > > I am most interested in comparing SNPs with Steve who so far seems > to be > > > > ancestral for R-M222, and am considering the Big Y test at FTDNA, > which > > > > seems to be another "pig-in-a-poke" for the moment though it is a > > > > Y-sequence test and not a chip test, know one knows what data or what > > > > format a customer will get for his money. I suspect that that test > is > > > > in beta, though FTDNA has not used that language, but they have not > been > > > > forthcoming with any details either. And we know that they recently > > > > fired the guy, Thomas Krahn, who built their in-house laboratory and > > > > designed the Big Y test! > > > > > > > > I am most interested to see where this all leads and what we can > learn > > > > possibly about our Irish origins. > > > > > > > > So what does your data return from BritainsDNA Chromo2 consist of and > > > > what does it look like? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Walter Freeman > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/15/2013 2:42 PM, Robert McBride wrote: > > > > > Just received my Chromo2 results and my terminal snp is s588. > > > > > > > > > > Earliest known ancestor Arthur McBride, lived Rampark, Cooley > > > peninsula, died aged 92 in 1879 in Dundalk, County Louth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 Doug, Either would contribute to our common knowledge and your own research although the BigY would take some time to fully interpret whereas Chromo2 will not only get you a result quicker but give you instant information as the Chromo2 tree is already more or less fully defined. The one test I would avoid is the custom DF85 as there is a small chance you are negative then you had have to pay again for Chromo2 or BigY. One point I was going to suggest was that you might make contact (offlist or on) with the people you currently think you are closed related to so you can coordinate. I confess I am quite interested in your connection with the Dohertys that you talk about so why not get in touch with one or more of them and make sure you are doing the same tests they are? I have been tracking some orders but not 100% so I'm not sure which they are doing. Bob Doherty is on the list I believe. Iain > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:46:58 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo forum > > Hi Iain, > > OK, I am not so much concerned about the costs involved, but I am left to > wonder about whatever redundancy could be involved. Could one test > effectively duplicate another? At this time I am inclined to go with the > Chromo2 test. But more than whatever I personally could get out of it, I > am trying to provide fresh DNA evidence to the researchers here. > > This is the M222 project, and I am just trying to do my part. > > Doug > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Iain Kennedy <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Doug, the only thing we can say reasonably for sure right now is that BigY > > isn't guaranteed to fully cover all the regions containing the Chromo2 > > SNPs. I think that particular binary choice coupled with the tight deadline > > is a difficult one to call. Some people feel they are being bounced into > > buying BigY at the cheap intro price unsighted, whereas with the fully > > comprehensive FullGenomes test (which would be guaranteed to find all the > > Chromo2 SNPs) there was a pilot phase and later customers could talk to the > > pilot testers and see their results whilst still getting the early bird > > price. > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:30:44 -0500 > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo > > forum > > > > > > As a consumer, let me say that I am annoyed at this lack of clarity. At > > > this time I have the option of taking the ScotlandsDNA Chromo2 test > > and/or > > > the FTDNA Big Y test, but could they essentially duplicate each other? > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Iain Kennedy > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > This number of 'new' Geno M222 SNPs must set some kind of record for > > the > > > > number of times it's changed ;-) > > > > > > > > It still fails to make any sense since all the ones on the diagram from > > > > their talk are already on the Geno 2.0 chip (I checked each one > > manually in > > > > my Geno file) and no SNP on the chip is new in any meaningful sense of > > the > > > > word anyway... unless the database also has data that was obtained by > > some > > > > other method than the Geno 2.0 chip which I'm not aware of. In which > > case > > > > their list of SNP names was wrong. > > > > > > > > Not to mention the question of how they will get them through > > > > qualification for the ISOGG tree (see the criteria I posted the other > > day) > > > > without transferring them to FTDNA and manually checking STR > > diversity, for > > > > which each tester would have to have a set of STRs which at this stage > > they > > > > probably don't. > > > > > > > > I give up. Until they reveal all, tomorrow. > > > > > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:46:06 -0600 > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo > > forum > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Since the CROMO2 test does not publish the YChr positions to the > > > > > > public, many very meaningful YSNPs under R-L21 (and other English > > > > > > speaking origins) can only be tested at English DNA. With the flood > > > > > > of Full Genomes and Big Y tests, many of these YSNPs will be > > > > > > identified to become available for FTDNA testing. FTDNA also > > > > > > announced that several thousand new YSNPs were discovered by data > > > > > > mining the "entire" Nat Geo 2.0 database (not just those > > transferred > > > > > > to FTDNA). They stated another ten R-M222 YSNPs were found in this > > > > > > method - now up to around 24 YSNPs under R-M222. Of the 25,000 > > static > > > > > > YSNPs being tested, many more came from other academic sources (and > > > > > > probably some from early Full Genomes results). Many of these will > > > > > > add to the ISOGG haplotree as did the Nat Geo 2.0 tests have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 agree that the FGC test is probably the most comprehensive as far as SNP discovery. However there really aren't any guarantees. I've discovered that the "full" Y types of tests don't really cover 100% of the Y chromosome. None do, but with good reasons, including impenetrable and unstable segments of the chromosome and costs. It appears the definition of pseudo-full will change over time. The technology itself is part of the equation. Some SNPs may be positioned such that the current technologies will not read them consistently, accurately. I have both Chromo 2 and Big Y orders in for myself. We won't really know what's what until we see a good number of results and can do the comparisons. The relative pricing between the products is probably relative to their value, at least generally so. Chromo 2 is built on the same technology as Geno 2 but is essentially a "2.1" as they were able to add more identified SNPs. Ultimately, I'm not sure if the pricing isn't about right with FGC at $1250, Big Y at $695, Chromo 2 (raw) at $199, Geno 2 at $159. What has thrown a wrench into the works is FTDNA's introductory price of $495. I was not expecting that price. This reminds me of the high tech industry. There will always be vendors leapfrogging each other, sometimes only in promises, sometimes only by comparing their new version versus someone else's old. You'll probably not buy just one product from any of these companies so I recommend considering the company/institution itself, their long term viability, apparent business model, executives and technical people and succession, product line breadth, modularity and upgrade paths, geographic focus, support, matching databases, etc. etc. I am positive there will be a new package next year or the year that will be better than anything you have to day. The question is who to do business with and when? Well, at least that is my point of view. For genetic genealogists, I think Iain said it very well, "no SNP on the chip is new in any meaningful sense of the word anyway... unless the database also has data". In the end we don't care about many of these SNPs, maybe even most of them. Many will be upstream, many recurrent and many will be phylogenetically equivalent. That's not to say those won't be useful for science in general. Regards, Mike W On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Iain Kennedy <[email protected]>wrote: > Doug, the only thing we can say reasonably for sure right now is that BigY > isn't guaranteed to fully cover all the regions containing the Chromo2 > SNPs. I think that particular binary choice coupled with the tight deadline > is a difficult one to call. Some people feel they are being bounced into > buying BigY at the cheap intro price unsighted, whereas with the fully > comprehensive FullGenomes test (which would be guaranteed to find all the > Chromo2 SNPs) there was a pilot phase and later customers could talk to the > pilot testers and see their results whilst still getting the early bird > price. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:30:44 -0500 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo > forum > > > > As a consumer, let me say that I am annoyed at this lack of clarity. At > > this time I have the option of taking the ScotlandsDNA Chromo2 test > and/or > > the FTDNA Big Y test, but could they essentially duplicate each other? > > > > Doug > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Iain Kennedy > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > This number of 'new' Geno M222 SNPs must set some kind of record for > the > > > number of times it's changed ;-) > > > > > > It still fails to make any sense since all the ones on the diagram from > > > their talk are already on the Geno 2.0 chip (I checked each one > manually in > > > my Geno file) and no SNP on the chip is new in any meaningful sense of > the > > > word anyway... unless the database also has data that was obtained by > some > > > other method than the Geno 2.0 chip which I'm not aware of. In which > case > > > their list of SNP names was wrong. > > > > > > Not to mention the question of how they will get them through > > >

I just crosschecked all the M222 SNPs we got from Geno 2.0 based on a post by John dated Jan 24, 2013. If there were any later ones can someone please shout out? Geno 2.0 SNPs that are PRESENT on Chromo 2.0 PF1169 PF3292 F3952 CTS8002 Geno 2.0 SNPs that are *NOT* PRESENT on Chromo 2.0 F1265 I will wait until we here more from the Mayo presentation before doing the big recent list given the amount of confusion it has caused. I did run through them quickly the other day but didn't save it. The overlap was a lot lower than in the group above. Iain

Yes, Susan, > 11 off modal at 37 and has the Nial Badge? .......he is a transfer today into the SNP M222+ Project.......a new member of M222+ but coming from another FTDNA yDNA group. I was being a bit facetious with my post as I recall being asked about if my 127187 was really M222+ before I had his SNP M222+ tested a few years back. ;-) Will share his kit number with you offline but not for public unless by his choice. Linda On 11/17/2013 12:33 PM, Susan Hedeen wrote: > 11 off modal at 37 and has the Nial Badge? Did he SNP test or test > w/Geno2? That's wild if he didn't because I've never seen them predict > by haplotype that far out at all. > > I think we've got these new SNPs because both citizen scientists and > geneticists alike have been looking into the 1000 Genome material which > was released. That's where Andy G found df85 & df97; Geno2 supposedly > got some of their SNPs from there, WTY, and other work that Thomas K did > as well as other research; Jim Wilson for Chromo2 got df85 from Andy G, > also looked into 1000 Genomes, other research, and in house work, too. > > Some equate the new products because of competition from FGC; in truth, > perhaps not as these products have development time and although there > may have been rumors of a new start up, that really isn't enough time > for product developments, so the timing for all of them probably > competitively coincidental. > > Britains DNA for instance started test driving Chromo2 earlier this > year, a bit later than FGC was kicking off if I remember, but FGC didn't > have much in the way of data at that point; Geno2 information--a lot of > it had already been released and they had been planning for the new Geno > (in our future) at the time G2 began. As for Big Y, FTDNA acquired a > couple of companies one which had more sequencing capability, they'd > been up-grading facilities (from what I hear anyway), and they've the > data from "WTY", Geno2 plus the further research to now kick off BigY. > > On 11/17/2013 1:10 PM, Linda McKee wrote: >> Is it remotely possible that one of the reasons we suddenly have all >> these new SNPs for M222+ can be explained by a new member having 11 off >> modal markers on 37 markers tested and still be given the Niall badge? >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > >

12701 Colin Ferguson M222+ DF85- DF97- Big Y

11 off modal at 37 and has the Nial Badge? Did he SNP test or test w/Geno2? That's wild if he didn't because I've never seen them predict by haplotype that far out at all. I think we've got these new SNPs because both citizen scientists and geneticists alike have been looking into the 1000 Genome material which was released. That's where Andy G found df85 & df97; Geno2 supposedly got some of their SNPs from there, WTY, and other work that Thomas K did as well as other research; Jim Wilson for Chromo2 got df85 from Andy G, also looked into 1000 Genomes, other research, and in house work, too. Some equate the new products because of competition from FGC; in truth, perhaps not as these products have development time and although there may have been rumors of a new start up, that really isn't enough time for product developments, so the timing for all of them probably competitively coincidental. Britains DNA for instance started test driving Chromo2 earlier this year, a bit later than FGC was kicking off if I remember, but FGC didn't have much in the way of data at that point; Geno2 information--a lot of it had already been released and they had been planning for the new Geno (in our future) at the time G2 began. As for Big Y, FTDNA acquired a couple of companies one which had more sequencing capability, they'd been up-grading facilities (from what I hear anyway), and they've the data from "WTY", Geno2 plus the further research to now kick off BigY. On 11/17/2013 1:10 PM, Linda McKee wrote: > Is it remotely possible that one of the reasons we suddenly have all > these new SNPs for M222+ can be explained by a new member having 11 off > modal markers on 37 markers tested and still be given the Niall badge? > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Is it remotely possible that one of the reasons we suddenly have all these new SNPs for M222+ can be explained by a new member having 11 off modal markers on 37 markers tested and still be given the Niall badge?

Hi Linda, At 59 I do not feel so young anymore, but thanks for the birthday greetings! Doug On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Linda McKee <[email protected]> wrote: > A wiki link posted on the ISOGG Group at yahoo.com by Debbie Kennett: > > > > http://www.isogg.org/wiki/SNP_testing > > A useful link for information about SNP testing. > > Linda > > ------------------------------- > 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 Iain, OK, I am not so much concerned about the costs involved, but I am left to wonder about whatever redundancy could be involved. Could one test effectively duplicate another? At this time I am inclined to go with the Chromo2 test. But more than whatever I personally could get out of it, I am trying to provide fresh DNA evidence to the researchers here. This is the M222 project, and I am just trying to do my part. Doug On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Iain Kennedy <[email protected]>wrote: > Doug, the only thing we can say reasonably for sure right now is that BigY > isn't guaranteed to fully cover all the regions containing the Chromo2 > SNPs. I think that particular binary choice coupled with the tight deadline > is a difficult one to call. Some people feel they are being bounced into > buying BigY at the cheap intro price unsighted, whereas with the fully > comprehensive FullGenomes test (which would be guaranteed to find all the > Chromo2 SNPs) there was a pilot phase and later customers could talk to the > pilot testers and see their results whilst still getting the early bird > price. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:30:44 -0500 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo > forum > > > > As a consumer, let me say that I am annoyed at this lack of clarity. At > > this time I have the option of taking the ScotlandsDNA Chromo2 test > and/or > > the FTDNA Big Y test, but could they essentially duplicate each other? > > > > Doug > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Iain Kennedy > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > This number of 'new' Geno M222 SNPs must set some kind of record for > the > > > number of times it's changed ;-) > > > > > > It still fails to make any sense since all the ones on the diagram from > > > their talk are already on the Geno 2.0 chip (I checked each one > manually in > > > my Geno file) and no SNP on the chip is new in any meaningful sense of > the > > > word anyway... unless the database also has data that was obtained by > some > > > other method than the Geno 2.0 chip which I'm not aware of. In which > case > > > their list of SNP names was wrong. > > > > > > Not to mention the question of how they will get them through > > > qualification for the ISOGG tree (see the criteria I posted the other > day) > > > without transferring them to FTDNA and manually checking STR > diversity, for > > > which each tester would have to have a set of STRs which at this stage > they > > > probably don't. > > > > > > I give up. Until they reveal all, tomorrow. > > > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:46:06 -0600 > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo > forum > > > > > > > > > 3) Since the CROMO2 test does not publish the YChr positions to the > > > > > public, many very meaningful YSNPs under R-L21 (and other English > > > > > speaking origins) can only be tested at English DNA. With the flood > > > > > of Full Genomes and Big Y tests, many of these YSNPs will be > > > > > identified to become available for FTDNA testing. FTDNA also > > > > > announced that several thousand new YSNPs were discovered by data > > > > > mining the "entire" Nat Geo 2.0 database (not just those > transferred > > > > > to FTDNA). They stated another ten R-M222 YSNPs were found in this > > > > > method - now up to around 24 YSNPs under R-M222. Of the 25,000 > static > > > > > YSNPs being tested, many more came from other academic sources (and > > > > > probably some from early Full Genomes results). Many of these will > > > > > add to the ISOGG haplotree as did the Nat Geo 2.0 tests have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

My raw Y chromosome sequencing data is now back from Hong Kong and is being analyzed by Justin Loe and his team. Pretty exciting!! Iain

Billy, send me an email privately with as much detail about any family traditions etc that show why Belfast or vinicity, and I'll see what I can do. Alan In a message dated 16/11/2013 16:37:56 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Wished I could find this kind of information on my 5th great Grandfather William Dunbar, he was born in or around Belfast some time in the 1700's sailing from I would suspect Belfast about 1728 to 1730 settlings just outside Carlisle, Pa at site called Meeting House Springs. I can not find his birth date , ship he may have sailed on . The Wiliam Dunbar listed I believe is the one that President Andrew Jack had surveying for the Louisiana Purchase. My 5th Great settled in Penn and was a farmer and a Tax collector and married my 5th great grandmother who I only know as Catherine. Anyone got any ideas" to many William Dunbar's out there. Also he had brother's Andrew and David. William (Billy) Dunbar In a message dated 11/16/2013 6:09:18 A.M. Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes: ID: I15690 Name: William Dunbar Sex: M Birth: 23 FEB 1752 in Belfast Ireland Death: 17 NOV 1798 in Steel Creek Barnwell District, South Carolina Burial: NOV 1798 Speedwell Methodist Church Cemetery Millett, Allendale County, South Carolina Note: George Robison Dunbar, married widow Sarah Middleton of Charlestown who had plenty of property of her own which she protected in a marriage agreement, copy available from SCDAH, book No. 2, page 13, about 1800, signed 7 July 1794. Dunbar was prominent in political affairs, serving in the Fourth General Assembly in 1782 for the District of Orangeburg between the Savannah River and the North Fork of the Edisto. He also served in the sixth and seventh general assemblies, 1785-1786 and 1787-1788. In 1788 he voted to ratify the Federal Constitution. He then represented the renamed district, Winton County, in the tenth general assembly 1792-1794. Dunbar family records as written in the Dehuff manuscripts available from the Beech Island Historical Society, Beech Island SC, state "William Dunbar was buried in the family cemetery at his home near the Savannah River above Old Ellenton. His tombstone read "Died 7th of November 1798 in the 46th year, 9th month and 16th day of his age." This tombstone disappeared before the removal of graves for the Savannah River Site in 1952. ************************************************* _Celebrate the Wedding at Middleton Place–in South Carolina! | ..._ (http://myroyalwedding.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/celebrate-the-wedding-at-mid dleton- place-in-south-carolina/) myroyalwedding.wordpress.com/.../celebrate-the-wedding-at-middleton- place-... Apr 9, 2011 ... Middleton Place, like most organizations this month, has decided to use the ... Celebrate the Wedding at Middleton Place–in South Carolina! ... Released; HRH The Duchess of Cambridge at 100 Women Hedge Funds Gala ... ------------------------------- 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 Iain Just sent this without completing to say thanks for clarifying the issue. Hopefully, we will know more shortly. Regards Alan In a message dated 17/11/2013 12:39:07 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: In a message dated 13/11/2013 07:17:14 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Alan, One of the blogs I read yesterday reported the claim that the record for multiple occurrences of a Geno 2.0 SNP is 7!! I don't think we need to say any more? http://dna-explained.com/ "New Y tree will be released shortly as a result of the Geno 2.0 testing. Some of the SNPs have mutated as much as 7 times, and what does that mean in terms of the tree and in terms of genealogical usefulness. This tree has taken much longer to produce than they expected due to these types of issues which had to be revised individually." Having said that, I was planning to put the SNPs like PF1169, F1265 etc on the diagram when I can assign them to one of the upper branches. I think our criteria can be a little more relaxed IMHO and we should only discard a SNP if it is unstable within M222. That would mean though including some of this new list of 21 as well and might mean we show SNPs that ISOGG discards. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_SNP_Requirements.html "While not a part of the definition for binary polymorphism, it is expected that the markers proposed for inclusion as defining markers for haplogroups will also have the characteristics: (a) the effective mutation rate will be less than approximately 5 x 10-7, and (b) that the polymorphism has not been observed more than twice in human history." It will be interesting to see whether ISOGG feels like relaxing this rule in the light of our increased knowledge. regards Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:34:22 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > Iain, what is your current thoughts now since your working the matrix? Alan > > > In a message dated 11/11/2013 09:43:05 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:11 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > > > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of > them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > > > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from > M222 has been published at: > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.62172979455 1000&type=1&theater > > > > > > I read the SNPs as: > > > > PF3297 > > PF3988 > > F3952 > > F3024 > > CTS8007 > > M226 > > F499 > > L196 > > Z70 > > PF2026 > > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > > CTS3771 > > CTS10488 > > F1400 > > CTS9501 > > PF910 > > PF7301 > > F3637 > > CTS6 > > F1636 > > CTS11548 > > > Well spotted Bernard. I checked my raw Geno file and these are all in it > except CTS8007. The image isn't quite good enough to be sure that's what it > says though (there is a CTS8002 listed for example).. Given the large > number of M222 people who took the Geno test though, it seems unlikely these are > significant since no-one we know of has had a 'hit' 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------- 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

Doug, the only thing we can say reasonably for sure right now is that BigY isn't guaranteed to fully cover all the regions containing the Chromo2 SNPs. I think that particular binary choice coupled with the tight deadline is a difficult one to call. Some people feel they are being bounced into buying BigY at the cheap intro price unsighted, whereas with the fully comprehensive FullGenomes test (which would be guaranteed to find all the Chromo2 SNPs) there was a pilot phase and later customers could talk to the pilot testers and see their results whilst still getting the early bird price. Iain > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:30:44 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo forum > > As a consumer, let me say that I am annoyed at this lack of clarity. At > this time I have the option of taking the ScotlandsDNA Chromo2 test and/or > the FTDNA Big Y test, but could they essentially duplicate each other? > > Doug > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Iain Kennedy > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > This number of 'new' Geno M222 SNPs must set some kind of record for the > > number of times it's changed ;-) > > > > It still fails to make any sense since all the ones on the diagram from > > their talk are already on the Geno 2.0 chip (I checked each one manually in > > my Geno file) and no SNP on the chip is new in any meaningful sense of the > > word anyway... unless the database also has data that was obtained by some > > other method than the Geno 2.0 chip which I'm not aware of. In which case > > their list of SNP names was wrong. > > > > Not to mention the question of how they will get them through > > qualification for the ISOGG tree (see the criteria I posted the other day) > > without transferring them to FTDNA and manually checking STR diversity, for > > which each tester would have to have a set of STRs which at this stage they > > probably don't. > > > > I give up. Until they reveal all, tomorrow. > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:46:06 -0600 > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [R-M222] A quote from Robert Brooks Casey R1b-L21 at yahoo forum > > > > > > > 3) Since the CROMO2 test does not publish the YChr positions to the > > > > public, many very meaningful YSNPs under R-L21 (and other English > > > > speaking origins) can only be tested at English DNA. With the flood > > > > of Full Genomes and Big Y tests, many of these YSNPs will be > > > > identified to become available for FTDNA testing. FTDNA also > > > > announced that several thousand new YSNPs were discovered by data > > > > mining the "entire" Nat Geo 2.0 database (not just those transferred > > > > to FTDNA). They stated another ten R-M222 YSNPs were found in this > > > > method - now up to around 24 YSNPs under R-M222. Of the 25,000 static > > > > YSNPs being tested, many more came from other academic sources (and > > > > probably some from early Full Genomes results). Many of these will > > > > add to the ISOGG haplotree as did the Nat Geo 2.0 tests have. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

In a message dated 13/11/2013 07:17:14 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Alan, One of the blogs I read yesterday reported the claim that the record for multiple occurrences of a Geno 2.0 SNP is 7!! I don't think we need to say any more? http://dna-explained.com/ "New Y tree will be released shortly as a result of the Geno 2.0 testing. Some of the SNPs have mutated as much as 7 times, and what does that mean in terms of the tree and in terms of genealogical usefulness. This tree has taken much longer to produce than they expected due to these types of issues which had to be revised individually." Having said that, I was planning to put the SNPs like PF1169, F1265 etc on the diagram when I can assign them to one of the upper branches. I think our criteria can be a little more relaxed IMHO and we should only discard a SNP if it is unstable within M222. That would mean though including some of this new list of 21 as well and might mean we show SNPs that ISOGG discards. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_SNP_Requirements.html "While not a part of the definition for binary polymorphism, it is expected that the markers proposed for inclusion as defining markers for haplogroups will also have the characteristics: (a) the effective mutation rate will be less than approximately 5 x 10-7, and (b) that the polymorphism has not been observed more than twice in human history." It will be interesting to see whether ISOGG feels like relaxing this rule in the light of our increased knowledge. regards Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:34:22 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > Iain, what is your current thoughts now since your working the matrix? Alan > > > In a message dated 11/11/2013 09:43:05 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:11 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > > > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of > them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > > > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from > M222 has been published at: > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater > > > > > > I read the SNPs as: > > > > PF3297 > > PF3988 > > F3952 > > F3024 > > CTS8007 > > M226 > > F499 > > L196 > > Z70 > > PF2026 > > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > > CTS3771 > > CTS10488 > > F1400 > > CTS9501 > > PF910 > > PF7301 > > F3637 > > CTS6 > > F1636 > > CTS11548 > > > Well spotted Bernard. I checked my raw Geno file and these are all in it > except CTS8007. The image isn't quite good enough to be sure that's what it > says though (there is a CTS8002 listed for example).. Given the large > number of M222 people who took the Geno test though, it seems unlikely these are > significant since no-one we know of has had a 'hit' 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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

another useful post for those wishing to be billed for Big Y: > > 2 FW: Information on Your Request Big Y order on Invoice Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:32 pm (PST) . Here is > the answer from FTDNA about using the Invoice system when ordering > the Big Y Test > >> >> >> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:02:32 -0600 >> From: [email protected] Subject: Information on Your Request >> {13548} >> >> Thank you for your email and I apologize for the >> delay in my reply. This is intended through the promotional sale. >> During this time an admin would need to contact us directly to >> place the order on invoice. If you have the kit number I can go >> ahead and get it set up for you. -Darren Marin >> >> Family Tree DNA

A wiki link posted on the ISOGG Group at yahoo.com by Debbie Kennett: > http://www.isogg.org/wiki/SNP_testing A useful link for information about SNP testing. Linda