Larry, your comments illustrate exactly the problem I raised a few weeks ago about the lack of transparency from the companies selling these tests. Sandy went on to investigate and eked out the information that DF85 is in the Chromo2 test under a different name and that S668 and DF97 are different SNPs. On that basis, I did order DF97 and Chromo2 at the end of October. There is really no reason for this confusion - it would appear to be an obfuscation to prevent competitors from reproducing data. A SNP is a single nucleotide polymorphism. However, it does not exist in isolation, but in the context of its surrounding sequence. The "critical" surrounding sequence provides two unique sequences, minimally about 15 bases long, one on either side of the SNP. These sequences provide information for the synthesis of two "complementary primer sequences" that hybridize on either side of the SNP site and allow the short segment between the primers to be amplified thousands of times so that it can be sequenced and the polymorphic SNP site identified after comparison of multiple human sequences. Once this SNP site is shown to be reproducibly polymorphic, it can be synthesized on a chip and analyzed in a different way. The point is that if the sequences surrounding and including the unique primer sites become publicly available, then anyone with access to analysis of the publicly funded human genome sequence can directly compare the differently named SNPs. David On 2013-11-06 7:17 AM, "Larry Slavens" <[email protected]> wrote: >For those keeping track, I mailed my vial of spit back to Nottingham for >the Chromo2 test on October 23. > >Also, I was DF85+ at FTDNA but didn't order DF97 at the time. From what >I've gathered from the list (and I haven't been following terribly >closely the past few weeks as fatigue has set in), Chromo2 doesn't test >DF97. Is there much value in going ahead with the DF97, or should I just >wait to see what the Chromo2 test tells us? Thanks. > >Larry > >------------------------------- >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

David, You are correct, and I absolutely agree; and because of your impeccable scientific credentials your sharing in forum these realities is greatly appreciated. As some may remember, when I brought up the reality of BISDNA private labeling SNPs and mentioning their history of little to no transparency as well as sensationalizing theory for commercial reasons, I was accused of being negative and complaining. None the less, as distasteful as the BIS competitive practices may be, and it does indeed annoy me to no end, it is what it is and we are rather stuck with it if we want to further these investigations now rather than wait for FTDNA to figure it out and incorporate all of these SNPs in their single SNP testing program so that that we and others could conduct specifically targeted inquiry. To further this to some extent, we also do not know what and/or how many of these SNPs have turned up in the full Y sequencing of those M222 who have completed that process via FG. I have been met with silence in regard to inquiry about this, and the two we know who have completed with results have not shared information beyond confirming that within their results were df85 negative status; hence, BIS is not alone regarding the transparency issues. There is a 3rd who is awaiting his results, and we can only hope that he will share information where the other two have not. As mentioned previously, they certainly are not beholden to share their information; however, if the testing is in line with researching for M222, one must also ask what the prohibition to sharing with us is beyond speculatively desiring positioning for possible publishing and/or commercial enterprise. Susan On 11/6/2013 10:44 AM, David Maclennan wrote: > Larry, your comments illustrate exactly the problem I raised a few weeks > ago about the lack of transparency from the companies selling these tests. > Sandy went on to investigate and eked out the information that DF85 is in > the Chromo2 test under a different name and that S668 and DF97 are > different SNPs. On that basis, I did order DF97 and Chromo2 at the end of > October. > There is really no reason for this confusion - it would appear to be an > obfuscation to prevent competitors from reproducing data. A SNP is a > single nucleotide polymorphism. However, it does not exist in isolation, > but in the context of its surrounding sequence. The "critical" surrounding > sequence provides two unique sequences, minimally about 15 bases long, one > on either side of the SNP. These sequences provide information for the > synthesis of two "complementary primer sequences" that hybridize on either > side of the SNP site and allow the short segment between the primers to be > amplified thousands of times so that it can be sequenced and the > polymorphic SNP site identified after comparison of multiple human > sequences. Once this SNP site is shown to be reproducibly polymorphic, it > can be synthesized on a chip and analyzed in a different way. > The point is that if the sequences surrounding and including the unique > primer sites become publicly available, then anyone with access to > analysis of the publicly funded human genome sequence can directly compare > the differently named SNPs. > David > > >