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

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 > > > > > >

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.