I assume that the different DNA testing companies are giving different (private) labels to the same markers for a reason. But then how do they justify saying that they offer more or additional markers than their competitors if they cannot provide their customers (participants) the means to verify this? What is the reason for reticence on their part to contribute to a "Rosetta Stone" to translate / compare results from the different vendors? Is it just greed? Or is there some legal constraint that is holding them back? Are there legal roadblocks to members of this list to create such a translation table? Could an independent entity like the ISOGG host such a table that could provide the transparency we are looking for? I find it interesting how quickly access to the following table was withdrawn: >> 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 Bob Doherty Sent from my iPad

One of my favorite sayings comes from a not very good movie; and it is "Follow the Money" It is a bit more complex however than simply marketing. Professional reputations in addition to grant money for research, publication rights, etc. For the DTC companies it is keeping the competitive edge and advertising to their "market" In discussions with those in positions to know, BISDNA is fully aware of all the particulars of the Geno2 SNPs; however they have stated that they are not using them on their Chromo2 chip. Frankly, I don't blame them if indeed that is the truth as I simply cannot believe that all of those 21 SNPs are actually M222 down stream SNPs beyond the few which have turned up in the results of only a few R-M222 people we are aware of; at that we do not know what their positions are and they cannot be added to the ISOGG tree without further confirmations. This however is based on our testing, and we really are not privy to how or why those SNPs were ID'd and vetted for the Geno2 chip to begin with. Except for df85, we do not know the particulars of the BISDNA Chromo2 SNPs reported to be also M222 down streams, and unless they forward all the particulars to ISOGG and release to the scientific community for verification, we are not likely to know any more than we do beyond the results for those who have ordered. We have no information from FGC, so we cannot even speculate or comment on any of that beyond the fact that we have not even their FG names for what ever SNPs they believe that they have. Since those are the majority of the DTC companies most of us are familiar with, what little we have been given information of is the sum total of our knowledge which is not comprehensive by any means. There is a lot of chatter within the GG community for exactly what you are referring to as the Rosetta Stone. Several very vocal members of ISOGG among others are rallying for more transparency and disclosure with mention of some sort of standardization of references for SNPs. We'll see what happens. Susan On 11/11/2013 7:16 PM, Robert Doherty wrote: > I assume that the different DNA testing companies are giving different (private) labels to the same markers for a reason. But then how do they justify saying that they offer more or additional markers than their competitors if they cannot provide their customers (participants) the means to verify this? What is the reason for reticence on their part to contribute to a "Rosetta Stone" to translate / compare results from the different vendors? Is it just greed? Or is there some legal constraint that is holding them back? Are there legal roadblocks to members of this list to create such a translation table? Could an independent entity like the ISOGG host such a table that could provide the transparency we are looking for? > > I find it interesting how quickly access to the following table was withdrawn: >>> 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 > Bob Doherty > Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Bob, The ISOGG tree lists all supplied alternative names from the different labs. As I pointed out the other day even M222 itself has at least three names and M222 is not the original one so there is no need to get too excited about it as long as all the alternatives are made available. I believe this will happen in due course once the bulk data starts coming in from the lab and they can see which ones are actually working on the chip. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html Bear in mind that some SNPs are still in the 'under investigation' group (just manually search the page for them) and one or two of the Geno 2.0 SNPs I believe we were told are not going to be sold as separate tests as they are considered unreliable. I forget which ones now. Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:16:43 -0800 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] Rosetta Stone > > I assume that the different DNA testing companies are giving different (private) labels to the same markers for a reason. But then how do they justify saying that they offer more or additional markers than their competitors if they cannot provide their customers (participants) the means to verify this? What is the reason for reticence on their part to contribute to a "Rosetta Stone" to translate / compare results from the different vendors? Is it just greed? Or is there some legal constraint that is holding them back? Are there legal roadblocks to members of this list to create such a translation table? Could an independent entity like the ISOGG host such a table that could provide the transparency we are looking for? > > I find it interesting how quickly access to the following table was withdrawn: > >> 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 > > Bob Doherty > Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------- > 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