A few weeks ago Sandy Paterson reported ScotlandsDNA discovered 27 new SNPs below M222 and now a few weeks later, we have the NatGeo Geno Project reporting 21 new SNPs also under M222+. I agree, none of this is making sense and something isn't right. Are these 21 newly discovered SNPs additional to those apparently discovered by ScotlandsDNA or are they just the same but reported differently under another name? There is a hint of commercial rhetoric in all of this, that is echoed in the claim the M222 SNP is most frequent in County Mayo in Ireland and [unconfirmed] that location is most likely to be the place where the mutation originated. Are we now to believe Dr Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for National Geographic's Geno Project, which shared its Geno 2.0 results through FTDNA (which has just announced a new SNP test!), that we should now be focusing on County Mayo, when Trinity College Dublin reported a higher concentration in NW Ireland reaching its highest point in eastern County Donegal? Who do we now believe? Will the National Geographic's Geno Project publish its data for others to analyse in the same way TCD did or will there be another cloak of secrecy like ScotlandsDNA? We need more accurate and transparent information about these SNPs to test them out, before people become increasingly disillusioned!! Alan In a message dated 10/11/2013 17:00:28 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: 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? Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:52:33 -0600 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights are reported at > > http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950 > > I should note that the new M222 SNPs are available on Geno2 chip as well as FTDNA's new Big-Y test of 10 million Y base pairs on sale for $495. > > > ------------------------------- > 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

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? Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:52:33 -0600 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights are reported at > > http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950 > > I should note that the new M222 SNPs are available on Geno2 chip as well as FTDNA's new Big-Y test of 10 million Y base pairs on sale for $495. > > > ------------------------------- > 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 guess I was accidently removed from the pending list. My DF85 results are expected on Dec 2. Lawrence Dill, Kit # 73271

It may look never ending but it isn't, since you can already find all your SNPs via just one of these tests (FullG). All the others just find various subsets of them. It is quite possible that new subset tests issue forth regularly, at least until the price of full sequencing drops a lot and makes them superfluous. Iain > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:07:15 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] FTDNA's New Big Y Test > > I have tested for this and I have tested for that. But then come new tests. > > Do I need another test or am I simply supporting new technology? > > I am very much prepared to leave this perpetual rat race. > > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Susan Hedeen < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree with Iain. This sale from FTDNA ends I believe on Nov. 30. > > With the conference still underway and for the next many days there to > > be hashing and rehashing of the information and opinions there of, there > > is good thinking time ahead. > > > > The technology for WTY was different than this as they used Sanger > > technology and it didn't have the capability of the newer technology. > > There is a question regarding the rumored trial testing using bar coded > > runs by FTDNA and what this could do to the result of the sequencing of > > the "Big Y" endeavor. > > > > I'll link an article discussing this for any who might want to weed > > through it. > > > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016607 > > > > Susan Hedeen > > > > On 11/10/2013 7:44 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > > > Rob, there is a lot of confusion concerning exactly how the coverage or > > rather the good accurate coverage compares between the two and as usual not > > all the commentators are unbiased. I think I have seen only one person > > order the new test who is already doing the FullG test. The problem with > > the Walk the Y which it replaces is that it didn't find that much; this > > should be better but I doubt anyone is going to claim its better in > > absoluate terms than FullG. Whether its better value say in dollars per SNP > > is impossible to say until we see some results. > > > > > > There is some suggestion we may learn more about some new Irish M222 > > SNPs at the talks today and get clarity about how if at all they might be > > purchased - there is an upgrade to the Geno chip too but its only just > > getting underway so the best part of a year away. So I wouldn't make any > > purchasing decisions until after the weekend! > > > > > > 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

Rob, there is a lot of confusion concerning exactly how the coverage or rather the good accurate coverage compares between the two and as usual not all the commentators are unbiased. I think I have seen only one person order the new test who is already doing the FullG test. The problem with the Walk the Y which it replaces is that it didn't find that much; this should be better but I doubt anyone is going to claim its better in absoluate terms than FullG. Whether its better value say in dollars per SNP is impossible to say until we see some results. There is some suggestion we may learn more about some new Irish M222 SNPs at the talks today and get clarity about how if at all they might be purchased - there is an upgrade to the Geno chip too but its only just getting underway so the best part of a year away. So I wouldn't make any purchasing decisions until after the weekend! Iain > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 06:38:19 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] FTDNA's New Big Y Test > > I don't think this has been posted on this list yet: > http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-new-big-y-test-from-family-tree-dna.html > > FTDNA is offering a new test for $499 (limited time, then $699) that > covers 10 million base pairs, 25,000 known SNPs and is expected to > discover new SNPs. > > The Full Genome is currently out of my price range. This is low > enough to be tempting, but would be a stretch. Are enough details out > there that someone could explain how much coverage this provides vs. > the Full Genome test? I also would like to know more about the > possibility of discovering new SNPs. If the whole genome is not > covered, what are the odds of finding them? > > Rob > > > ------------------------------- > 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

We have heard this all before. Geno2 still has me as DF23 & despite more than a few emails. So many M222 tested Geno2 but very few got any real answers. If there are really so many new SNPs under M222 then they should retest us.

Agreed...perhaps a misspeak to allude to the new Geno product? But if he's referring to the old Geno2 product either these snps he is referring to were not vetted very well to begin with or they didn't report all the positives so that the reservation could be incorporated into papers and products being announced now--ie does the reference that the personal home pages in process of being up-dated allude to this possibility?--or just WHAT IN THE HECK is going on????? or not going on? Susan Hedeen On 11/10/2013 11:59 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > 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? > > Iain > > > > > >

Ah-Ha, well I may be sorry that I brought this. Thomas Krahn just qualified the issue by stating that the bar coding is added only after the sequencing is complete. So...if I'm interpreting his answer, then the added bar coding may not be such an issue. I'm going to ask a follow up question to him. On 11/10/2013 10:44 AM, Susan Hedeen wrote: > Since I introduced this to the list, in full transparency: > I just received answer from Greg Magoon regarding the bar code runs. > BGI does not use them; UCLA? Not a definitive answer with the > qualification, "To the best of my knowledge UCLA will not be using bar > coding, either" > > On 11/10/2013 10:17 AM, Susan Hedeen wrote: >> Onto the issue of bar coded testing runs: * >> >> In view of the issue of bar coded runs raised by Thomas Krahn, I have >> asked Justin Loe specifically if he knows whether or not BGI (China) or >> UCLA labs (that FG is attempting to Vet as an alternative lab to BGI in >> view of the sequencing delays) also use the bar coding technology in >> their runs. I asked this because the issue arose and wonder if it is a >> red herring issue...that is if BGI and UCLA also use bar coding, then >> FTDNA using it is the same, and then the issue is not which company does >> it better but comes down to cost and coverage. > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights are reported at http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950 I should note that the new M222 SNPs are available on Geno2 chip as well as FTDNA's new Big-Y test of 10 million Y base pairs on sale for $495.

Since I introduced this to the list, in full transparency: I just received answer from Greg Magoon regarding the bar code runs. BGI does not use them; UCLA? Not a definitive answer with the qualification, "To the best of my knowledge UCLA will not be using bar coding, either" On 11/10/2013 10:17 AM, Susan Hedeen wrote: > Onto the issue of bar coded testing runs: * > > In view of the issue of bar coded runs raised by Thomas Krahn, I have > asked Justin Loe specifically if he knows whether or not BGI (China) or > UCLA labs (that FG is attempting to Vet as an alternative lab to BGI in > view of the sequencing delays) also use the bar coding technology in > their runs. I asked this because the issue arose and wonder if it is a > red herring issue...that is if BGI and UCLA also use bar coding, then > FTDNA using it is the same, and then the issue is not which company does > it better but comes down to cost and coverage.

> Dear R-M222 Group Administrator, > > The following project member ordered an additional product: > > Edward Cantwell Leonard > > Kit Number: 47582 > > Test: Big Y

Dear Doug, and all for that matter, it is of my opinion that the considerations entering into any aspect of testing decision is the question: "why?" Now let me preface this next remark with this: I do not have a bias for either testing products or testing companies; so any inference that some may jump to as a result of the remark isn't there. I am simply stating an opinion based on my experience. FTDNA is an expert at marketing. They like BISDNA, FG, 23 & Me, AncestryDNA are a direct to consumer profit intending company. In my opinion they are a leader in the industry and have produced great information for the Genetic Genealogy Community; however this does not mean that there have not been issues. For R-M222, Geno2 was not all that helpful for us. I mention this because the announcement of it and the manner by which it was advertised and sold led us all to believe that it was going to be our answer. Beyond the few who were successfully ID'd with some down stream SNPs (for which the great majority have not received sufficient positive numbers yet to qualify what further potential help they may be to us as a project) it was not the help we hoped for. Similarly, Chromo2 has been hyped and sold to us, and really and honestly, the jury is out yet to know whether or not it will be the help that we anticipate that it will. In view of the preliminary testing via Sandy and others, it holds tremendous promise; but until the results come through for those who have ordered to date, we do not know how much more help it actually will avail us. The best bargain on the block are the single snp options for df85 and df97 through FTDNA; however, at best they likely will assist with only 25% (df85) and 12.5% (df97--1/2 of the df85 positives) of our project; hence 75% using the single SNP options will not get further definition. So, coming back to the question of "Why?" Presently our R-M222 project is in the investigative mode to further understand the genetic genealogical questions regarding our heritages ie which groups are allied with one another since the mutation that birthed the beast of a clade M222 once ascribed to being that of the descendants of Niall. We know that not all R-M222 are the descendants of Nial and/or his brothers. We also know that there is diversity in the sub-clade among other things. Hence the testing we are under going now via Chromo2 and the single SNP testing for df85/df97 via FTDNA may well answer that question of which groups belong to who, and give us ample opportunity to flesh out the theories of which SNPs are allied to which groups. Now what does either full Y sequencing and/or near full Y sequencing further offer? More SNPs? Yes, but how useful may they be? That question certainly will have a variety of answers depending on peoples inclinations and desire to know in their quests. IMO there could be too many SNPs. Let me qualify that statement: If the testing intent is to identify SNPs right down into the nuclear family this type of full Y sequencing has the potential to do that, the cost of which is any where from the entry price through FTDNA of $495.00 to $1250 through FG to more than that with other entities. FTDNA's project does not have the coverage of FG; however, in any case we haven't been forwarded any information on any help or assistance any of these FG SNPs may be to R-M222 because those who have tested with results out haven't shared any information with us. So how can we in actuality even know how helpful their sequencing effor is? FTDNA's new product isn't up and running yet, so we don't have any information there. There actually is more than 1 FG subscriber that have ordered the new "Big Y" so when complete we should have a better idea in comparison, but that is down the road. With enough tested member results, there should in time ability to distinguish between individual families. The question then, "is that what people really want?" For the most part families through their genealogical quests have an idea of who are closely related to who. *My sense is that what people are most interested in is who may be related when the paper trail stops. I believe that those confused and/or in question need to focus and come back to the fundamental question as to why we will test for anything. There need be a reason worth investing the $$ into and a cost to information benefit. "What do we really want to know and will the testing answer reasonably?" There will always be pioneers, and the first down the trail doesn't always equate with the success or failure of those who follow...they are simply traveling ahead earlier. No one needs to incorporate testing pressure upon themselves, particularly if the fundamental questions are not easily answered. Onto the issue of bar coded testing runs: * In view of the issue of bar coded runs raised by Thomas Krahn, I have asked Justin Loe specifically if he knows whether or not BGI (China) or UCLA labs (that FG is attempting to Vet as an alternative lab to BGI in view of the sequencing delays) also use the bar coding technology in their runs. I asked this because the issue arose and wonder if it is a red herring issue...that is if BGI and UCLA also use bar coding, then FTDNA using it is the same, and then the issue is not which company does it better but comes down to cost and coverage. I have not received an answer. Susan Hedeen On 11/10/2013 9:28 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > It may look never ending but it isn't, since you can already find all your SNPs via just one of these tests (FullG). All the others just find various subsets of them. It is quite possible that new subset tests issue forth regularly, at least until the price of full sequencing drops a lot and makes them superfluous. > > Iain > > > > > >

Dear Doug, and all for that matter, it is of my opinion that the considerations entering into any aspect of testing decision is the question: "why?" Now let me preface this next remark with this: I do not have a bias for either testing products or testing companies; so any inference that some may jump to as a result of the remark isn't there. I am simply stating an opinion based on my experience. FTDNA is an expert at marketing. They like BISDNA, FG, 23 & Me, AncestryDNA are a direct to consumer profit intending company. In my opinion they are a leader in the industry and have produced great information for the Genetic Genealogy Community; however this does not mean that there have not been issues. For R-M222, Geno2 was not all that helpful for us. I mention this because the announcement of it and the manner by which it was advertised and sold led us all to believe that it was going to be our answer. Beyond the few who were successfully ID'd with some down stream SNPs (for which the great majority have not received sufficient positive numbers yet to qualify what further potential help they may be to us as a project) it was not the help we hoped for. Similarly, Chromo2 has been hyped and sold to us, and really and honestly, the jury is out yet to know whether or not it will be the help that we anticipate that it will. In view of the preliminary testing via Sandy and others, it holds tremendous promise; but until the results come through for those who have ordered to date, we do not know how much more help it actually will avail us. The best bargain on the block are the single snp options for df85 and df97 through FTDNA; however, at best they likely will assist with only 25% (df85) and 12.5% (df97--1/2 of the df85 positives) of our project; hence 75% using the single SNP options will not get further definition. So, coming back to the question of "Why?" Presently our R-M222 project is in the investigative mode to further understand the genetic genealogical questions regarding our heritages ie which groups are allied with one another since the mutation that birthed the beast of a clade M222 once ascribed to being that of the descendants of Niall. We know that not all R-M222 are the descendants of Nial and/or his brothers. We also know that there is diversity in the sub-clade among other things. Hence the testing we are under going now via Chromo2 and the single SNP testing for df85/df97 via FTDNA may well answer that question of which groups belong to who, and give us ample opportunity to flesh out the theories of which SNPs are allied to which groups. Now what does either full Y sequencing and/or near full Y sequencing further offer? More SNPs? Yes, but how useful may they be? That question certainly will have a variety of answers depending on peoples inclinations and desire to know in their quests. IMO there could be too many SNPs. Let me qualify that statement: If the testing intent is to identify SNPs right down into the nuclear family this type of full Y sequencing has the potential to do that, the cost of which is any where from the entry price through FTDNA of $495.00 to $1250 through FG to more than that with other entities. FTDNA's project does not have the coverage of FG; however, in any case we haven't been forwarded any information on any help or assistance any of these FG SNPs may be to R-M222 because those who have tested with results out haven't shared any information with us. So how can we in actuality even know how helpful their sequencing effor is? FTDNA's new product isn't up and running yet, so we don't have any information there. There actually is more than 1 FG subscriber that have ordered the new "Big Y" so when complete we should have a better idea in comparison, but that is down the road. With enough tested member results, there should in time ability to distinguish between individual families. The question then, "is that what people really want?" For the most part families through their genealogical quests have an idea of who are closely related to who. *My sense is that what people are most interested in is who may be related when the paper trail stops. I believe that those confused and/or in question need to focus and come back to the fundamental question as to why we will test for anything. There need be a reason worth investing the $$ into and a cost to information benefit. "What do we really want to know and will the testing answer reasonably?" There will always be pioneers, and the first down the trail doesn't always equate with the success or failure of those who follow...they are simply traveling ahead earlier. No one needs to incorporate testing pressure upon themselves, particularly if the fundamental questions are not easily answered. Onto the issue of bar coded testing runs: * In view of the issue of bar coded runs raised by Thomas Krahn, I have asked Justin Loe specifically if he knows whether or not BGI (China) or UCLA labs (that FG is attempting to Vet as an alternative lab to BGI in view of the sequencing delays) also use the bar coding technology in their runs. I asked this because the issue arose and wonder if it is a red herring issue...that is if BGI and UCLA also use bar coding, then FTDNA using it is the same, and then the issue is not which company does it better but comes down to cost and coverage. I have not received an answer. Susan Hedeen On 11/10/2013 9:07 AM, tuulen wrote: > I have tested for this and I have tested for that. But then come new > tests. > > Do I need another test or am I simply supporting new technology? > > I am very much prepared to leave this perpetual rat race. > > > >

I have tested for this and I have tested for that. But then come new tests. Do I need another test or am I simply supporting new technology? I am very much prepared to leave this perpetual rat race. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Susan Hedeen < [email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Iain. This sale from FTDNA ends I believe on Nov. 30. > With the conference still underway and for the next many days there to > be hashing and rehashing of the information and opinions there of, there > is good thinking time ahead. > > The technology for WTY was different than this as they used Sanger > technology and it didn't have the capability of the newer technology. > There is a question regarding the rumored trial testing using bar coded > runs by FTDNA and what this could do to the result of the sequencing of > the "Big Y" endeavor. > > I'll link an article discussing this for any who might want to weed > through it. > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016607 > > Susan Hedeen > > On 11/10/2013 7:44 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > > Rob, there is a lot of confusion concerning exactly how the coverage or > rather the good accurate coverage compares between the two and as usual not > all the commentators are unbiased. I think I have seen only one person > order the new test who is already doing the FullG test. The problem with > the Walk the Y which it replaces is that it didn't find that much; this > should be better but I doubt anyone is going to claim its better in > absoluate terms than FullG. Whether its better value say in dollars per SNP > is impossible to say until we see some results. > > > > There is some suggestion we may learn more about some new Irish M222 > SNPs at the talks today and get clarity about how if at all they might be > purchased - there is an upgrade to the Geno chip too but its only just > getting underway so the best part of a year away. So I wouldn't make any > purchasing decisions until after the weekend! > > > > 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 >

I agree with Iain. This sale from FTDNA ends I believe on Nov. 30. With the conference still underway and for the next many days there to be hashing and rehashing of the information and opinions there of, there is good thinking time ahead. The technology for WTY was different than this as they used Sanger technology and it didn't have the capability of the newer technology. There is a question regarding the rumored trial testing using bar coded runs by FTDNA and what this could do to the result of the sequencing of the "Big Y" endeavor. I'll link an article discussing this for any who might want to weed through it. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016607 Susan Hedeen On 11/10/2013 7:44 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > Rob, there is a lot of confusion concerning exactly how the coverage or rather the good accurate coverage compares between the two and as usual not all the commentators are unbiased. I think I have seen only one person order the new test who is already doing the FullG test. The problem with the Walk the Y which it replaces is that it didn't find that much; this should be better but I doubt anyone is going to claim its better in absoluate terms than FullG. Whether its better value say in dollars per SNP is impossible to say until we see some results. > > There is some suggestion we may learn more about some new Irish M222 SNPs at the talks today and get clarity about how if at all they might be purchased - there is an upgrade to the Geno chip too but its only just getting underway so the best part of a year away. So I wouldn't make any purchasing decisions until after the weekend! > > Iain > > > > > >

Here is a copy paste from Genealogy DNA list; I also viewed directly Thomas' comments on FB. I do not have an opinion as I do not know enough about this technology to have one; even if I knew more I'm not certain that anyone knows all the technical answers. FG (Full Genomes--the citizen scientist owned and operated group) for instance stated they were sending a rep to Hong Kong to discuss delays of the sequencing for their batches and attempt to discover what the problems there are. The message here is that none of the companies and perhaps not geneticists themselves know enough about this technology to fully be able to predict performance, accuracy, or any of the rest of it. There are several with deep pockets and have gone the route of FG who have ordered Big Y. I would guess comparing the results will be the proof to the pudding; unfortunately that will not occur before the price goes up at FTDNA from $495 to $699.00 Krahn write: "Since I have designed this "Big Y" test by myself I can confirm that the enrichment assay is designed to cover about 18 Mb and I took special care for tweaking it so that the final coverage is in fact around 10MB." Here I recall that Wei Wei et al. 2012, to obtain high-quality SNPs, limited the testing to only 8.97 Mbps, after the separation of all insecure regions Y-DNA. Skip exploration in regions repeated. They received an average of about 1029 SNPs per sample. They suggested, however, that in the future you need to take into account the additional regions where there is any possibility of finding qualified polymorphisms. Stan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Swann"<[email protected]> To:<[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA new Y test Just before we all go overboard, you might want to read what Thomas Krahn has posted at Full Genomes on Facebook: Since I have designed this "Big Y" test by myself I can confirm that the enrichment assay is designed to cover about 18 Mb and I took special care for tweaking it so that the final coverage is in fact around 10MB. This was confirmed by a couple of test runs that have been done at Illumina. No such testing has been done in the FTDNA lab yet. However FTDNA is planning on doing 15000 of those tests on the HiSeq machines which means that they'll combine quite a lot of samples on a single run with "DNA barcoding". I am very worried that this will bring up a lot of crosstalk which will lead to confusing results across the combined samples. David Mittelmann didn't even get the numbers right for the WTY so I doubt that he'll be able to do the correct math for the Next Gen sequencing. In either case customers will be excited about the price and will not care about quality. On 11/10/2013 6:38 AM, Rob McFadden wrote: > I don't think this has been posted on this list yet: > http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-new-big-y-test-from-family-tree-dna.html > > FTDNA is offering a new test for $499 (limited time, then $699) that > covers 10 million base pairs, 25,000 known SNPs and is expected to > discover new SNPs. > > The Full Genome is currently out of my price range. This is low > enough to be tempting, but would be a stretch. Are enough details out > there that someone could explain how much coverage this provides vs. > the Full Genome test? I also would like to know more about the > possibility of discovering new SNPs. If the whole genome is not > covered, what are the odds of finding them? > > Rob > > > ------------------------------- > 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 this has been posted on this list yet: http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-new-big-y-test-from-family-tree-dna.html FTDNA is offering a new test for $499 (limited time, then $699) that covers 10 million base pairs, 25,000 known SNPs and is expected to discover new SNPs. The Full Genome is currently out of my price range. This is low enough to be tempting, but would be a stretch. Are enough details out there that someone could explain how much coverage this provides vs. the Full Genome test? I also would like to know more about the possibility of discovering new SNPs. If the whole genome is not covered, what are the odds of finding them? Rob

296945....Seamus Doherty.....DF85 and DF97 N113724...James William Rourke....DF85 29142.....Robert Doherty....Chromo2 Thanks to these latest trailblazers.........

To save everyone looking him up, Dr. Miguel Vilar is the science manager on the Genographic project: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/author/miguelvilar/ and has been talking at the annual FTDNA conference in Houston. Iain > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 17:35:52 +0000 > Subject: [R-M222] Dozens of M222 SNPs found in Ireland? > > tweeted just now: > > Katherine H. Borges > ‏@khborges > > > > > 36m > > > > > > > Dr. Miguel Vilar "Dozens of SNPs downstream from M222 found in Ireland" #FTDNA2013 > I have no further information than this and so can't confirm whether this is true or not. > > 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

tweeted just now: Katherine H. Borges ‏@khborges 36m Dr. Miguel Vilar "Dozens of SNPs downstream from M222 found in Ireland" #FTDNA2013 I have no further information than this and so can't confirm whether this is true or not. Iain