Ah-Ha, well I may be sorry that I brought this. Thomas Krahn just qualified the issue by stating that the bar coding is added only after the sequencing is complete. So...if I'm interpreting his answer, then the added bar coding may not be such an issue. I'm going to ask a follow up question to him. On 11/10/2013 10:44 AM, Susan Hedeen wrote: > 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. > > ------------------------------- > 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 >