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

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

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 > > > > > >

Rob, I've got inquiries into both companies on what they mean by coverage, etc. I'll let you know what I can figure out, if anything. Unfortunately, some of this is chicken and egg. You have to try it to see what it is. As far as SNPs go, I've tried to tell both companies I don't really care about total coverage, etc., etc. I only care about the probability of accurately reporting and discovering stable (for phylgenetic trees) SNPs downstream of what we already known. Thousands of SNPs upstream make little difference to genetic genealogy and SNPs that are highly recurrent/unstable or can not be consistently/accurately tested are of not much use that I can see. On Full Genome Corp, I have a personal concern that others may not have. It appears your DNA sample has to be shipped to China to a lab that may be little more than a state agency. I don't trust my own government so I don't why I'd trust theirs. Regards, Mike W On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Rob McFadden <[email protected]>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 >