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 >

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

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 >