You will need the zipped file for upload not the txt file. Some browsers will unzip your file and put the txt file in your download folder and the original zip file in the trash. Look in your trash file for the zipped file and choose that for upload to FTDNA. Of course, move the zipped file out of the trash first???? If you don't find the zip file in your trash folder, you can set your browser not to open/unzip files on download. Then download again. In Safari, that option is under Preferences in the first screen. I leave mine set that way all the time. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 8, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Genealice <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and > I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the mailing > list and thank you for having me! > > > > I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw data > file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message > > > > "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an > unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order > for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> or > download the file and try again." > > > > Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. There > seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's side. > That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. That > it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that > suggested on the message board but it made no difference. > > > > I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it > allows for more variations in the raw data. > > > > The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: > > > > #AncestryDNA raw data download > > #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC > > #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 > > #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 > > #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. THIS > > #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL > RESEARCH > > #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. THE > EXPORTED DATA IS > > #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT > THE > > #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. > > #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, > > #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE ANCESTRYDNA > FAQS. > > # > > #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line > > #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where > > #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair > position > > #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four and > five > > #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype is > reported > > #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. > > rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 > > > > I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone help > me with this? > > > > Thank you so much! > > > > Alice > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 am looking to see just what a high X-match that has no shared atDNA can tell us about shared ancestral lines. Clearly this is pushing back very far in time. I am using a female kit that is of pure Czech ancestry as far back as we know (roughly in the late 1600's and early 1700's). On her 6-gen X-inheritance chart, we know at least the name of 9 of the 13 X-ancestors and know the spouse's surname in all 13. So the challenge of finding a matching line is narrowed to Czech or Slavic lines. But that is not the problem that I am running into on GEDmatch. The problem is that different GEDmatch tools are presenting conflicting results. The kits come from different test companies, so that I am not sure if this is a factor. To allow anyone wanting to repeat this to do so, I am going to include kit numbers. The kit of the focus person is T685302. Here are the steps that I have done. 1 - Identify X-DNA matches, sorted by largest X-DNA cM. I used the free one-to-many and then sort descending on largest X-DNA cM. Setting aside immediate family members, the top 10 matches range from 16 to 21 largest X-DNA cMs, and all but the top one show zero total atDNA cMs (the top one M052745 has 5.1). 2 - Do a one-to-one X-DNA comparison of some of the top 10. Clicking on the X in the X-DNA Details column, you would expect to see the same information shown in the one-to-one comparison as in the sorted one-to-many. And in some cases, the X 1:1 does show about the same (an 18.8 largest X-DNA A916434 on the 1:many shows as 18.7 on the X 1:1). But in some cases, the X-DNA 1:1 shows zero shared X-DNA (an 18.3 largest X-DNA M131017 on the 1:many shows as no match at all on the X 1:1). So I tried dropping the SNP threshold with M131017 on the X 1:1 to 100 SNPs and the minimum cMs to 1 (which should not be necessary if there is indeed a largest X shared 18.3 cM as the 1:many list shows). And this does generate a list of shared ranges on the X, the largest of which is 5.4 cM (162 SNPs) by cMs or by SNPs 3.5 cM (295 SNPs). So clearly this is a radical difference from what the 1:many list is showing when it reports a largest shared X of 18.3 cM). 3 - Create a Tag Group for the highest matches. I used the Tier1 1 1:many tool to create the group, setting the option to filter by X (instead of autosomal) with offset 0, limit 500 (the minimum allowed) and cM size 3 (the minimum allowed. This gives a completely different (from step 1) top 10 list. Where the free 1:many had largest cMs of 16 or more for the top 10, the Tier1 1:many showed no one (other than close family) with a largest cM of more than 11.2. So I then tried the Tier1 1:1 on autosomal and setting to the minima and sorting on the largest X (trying to re-create the list in step 1. But since the Tier1 1:1 does not include atDNA matches of zero, neither one of these methods was able to find the same high largest X but low atDNA matches that the free 1:1 tool found. Nevertheless, I created a tag group of those X-matches (from the atDNA version of the Tier1 1:1) who had the highest total X cMS (20.0 and above, minus immediate family). This tag group has 20 members. 4 - Run the X-DNA Matrix Comparison for this tag group. This was a real shock. Since the tag group had been specifically created from a 1:many list of the X-DNA matches of T685302 who had 20.0 or more total cMs, you would expect to see a number in every cell of T685302's row/column. But 8 of the 19 cells are empty. Going back to the Tier1 1:1 list used to create this tag group, one of these empty cells is the second highest total cMs (40.8), but the largest for this match is just 6.4 and thus under the threshold of 7 cM for the matrix, which explains the empty cell. The bottom line seems to me to be implicit and explicit threshold differences among the tools. I really would like to work with the top 10 from the free 1:many, but even the free X 1:1 conflicts with some of the ones shown in that list. And the Tier1 1:many does not even discover these matches (apparently because the Tier1, even when choosing the X option) still has some implicit atDNA threshold). Choosing these low-autosomal / high largest X matches as a target is a challenge in the first place. But the GEDmatch tools make it extremely more challenging when they do not allow exploration of those matches. Clearly having more ability to twist the knobs on GEDmatch would help. But the fact that (step 1 and step 2) there are very significant conflicts between one GEDmatch tool showing  18.3 cM of a largest shared X and another showing nothing more than 5.4 cM for the same two people seems to be more than just finding the right settings of the knobs.

List 3 new Chinese mtDNA sequences have appeared on the GenBank database. I believe they come from a hospital - but I do not see anything pathological. The sequences belong to the interesting Haplogroups: D4o2a, F1c1a1 & M8a3a As usual I have added the sequences to my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk ----------------------- MF158628(China) You Haplogroup F1c1a1 04-OCT-2017 A73G T152C T195C A249- A263G 315.1C C522- A523- G709A A750G A1438G A2706G C3970T A4769G T6392C A6599G G6962A C7028T A8860G G9053A G10310A T10454C T10609C G11719A G12406A C12882T G13759A G13928C A14587G C14766T A15326G C16111T G16129A C16266T T16304C T16519C MF158629(China) You Haplogroup M8a3a 04-OCT-2017 A73G A263G 309.1C 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G A2706G A4715G A4769G C5100T G6179A C7028T C7196A G8584A C8684T A8701G A8860G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12705T G12820A G13590A T14470C C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G A15487T T16086C C16134T T16172C C16184T C16223T T16298C G16319A MF158630(China) You Haplogroup D4o2a 04-OCT-2017 A73G T195C C198T A263G 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A A4769G C4883T T5004C C5178A C7028T C8414T A8701G A8730G A8860G T9077C T9540C A10398G C10400T G10646A T10873C G11719A C12705T T13812C C14668T C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G T16093C C16223T C16232T C16290T T16362C

I am waiting on 2 Big Ys due sometime this month....so do you think the results will be processed on the new build or the old? Teddi Montes The Californio DNA Project On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:48:54 -0700, "Tim Janzen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > Earlier today I received an e-mail from FTDNA that they will be moving from > Build 37 to Build 38 for the BigY. This should lead to more accurate Y > SNPs > being reported for the BigY. The update will be rolled out on Oct. 10 and > then BigY matches will be recalculated over the following 5 to 7 days. I > wonder if they will be moving Family Finder SNPs to Build 38 eventually as > well. I would welcome that. > > Sincerely, > > Tim Janzen > > > ------------------------------- > 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 All, Earlier today I received an e-mail from FTDNA that they will be moving from Build 37 to Build 38 for the BigY. This should lead to more accurate Y SNPs being reported for the BigY. The update will be rolled out on Oct. 10 and then BigY matches will be recalculated over the following 5 to 7 days. I wonder if they will be moving Family Finder SNPs to Build 38 eventually as well. I would welcome that. Sincerely, Tim Janzen

Hi Kitty, Thanks for your comment. I’ve read your blog article before and found it very useful. Please do note that our web app requires a lot less manual steps than DNAGedcom to follow the method you describe. I hope I will have the same success as you with the lady that I’m helping find her BF. Our intention is to build the most advanced collection of DNA genealogy tools available, I’m looking forward to have you on board testing as well. More information will be send out this weekend. Cheers, Andreas > On 5 Oct 2017, at 23:33, Kitty Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andreas > I have had remarkable success finding adoptees birth families just using > ancestry data with DNAgedcom's GWorks, no segment data required. Here is > the methodology > http://blog.kittycooper.com/2017/09/solving-unknown-parentage-cases-with-dna/ > > Kitty > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:57 AM Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate >> when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for >> automatic triangulation. >> >> The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches >> groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of >> triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. >> Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. >> >> I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups >> to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done >> automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. >> >> I think we will need to focus on the groups with 2-5 matching segments as >> well as they will be closer to the current time and with so much endogamy >> in colonial families I wonder if the common ancestor will be too far back, >> even with well documented family trees (not to forget the low quality of >> click together trees that I have already seen). >> >> Her case is an unique challenge anyway as from each MRCA we have to go >> down (!) and build up a tree of descendants to hopefully eventually have >> TG’s connecting downstream which will be the path to her BF. >> >> It’s good to hear that despite the challenges of not having easy access to >> the detailed data that we need, people do find value in the large number of >> matches at Ancestry. >> >> >> Thanks for your reply, >> >> Andreas >> >>> On 28 Sep 2017, at 03:17, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> triangulated >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Kitty Munson Cooper, San Diego,CA > genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/ > > ------------------------------- > 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

Andreas I have had remarkable success finding adoptees birth families just using ancestry data with DNAgedcom's GWorks, no segment data required. Here is the methodology http://blog.kittycooper.com/2017/09/solving-unknown-parentage-cases-with-dna/ Kitty On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:57 AM Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate > when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for > automatic triangulation. > > The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches > groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of > triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. > Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. > > I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups > to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done > automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. > > I think we will need to focus on the groups with 2-5 matching segments as > well as they will be closer to the current time and with so much endogamy > in colonial families I wonder if the common ancestor will be too far back, > even with well documented family trees (not to forget the low quality of > click together trees that I have already seen). > > Her case is an unique challenge anyway as from each MRCA we have to go > down (!) and build up a tree of descendants to hopefully eventually have > TG’s connecting downstream which will be the path to her BF. > > It’s good to hear that despite the challenges of not having easy access to > the detailed data that we need, people do find value in the large number of > matches at Ancestry. > > > Thanks for your reply, > > Andreas > > > On 28 Sep 2017, at 03:17, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > triangulated > > > ------------------------------- > 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 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Kitty Munson Cooper, San Diego,CA genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/

Valerie what was your goal in doing this DNA testing? I have lots of blog posts about Ancestry DNA, see if these help you http://blog.kittycooper.com/tag/ancestrydna/ On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:11 AM Valerie Barbara Garton <[email protected]> wrote: > I have my ancestry results what now? Can someone tell me if there is a site > that will tell me what I have and what good is it to me. ? How do I > correlate or just plain HELP ? > > > > Cheers from Valerie Garton [nee Vaughan] in sunny Sydney > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Kitty Munson Cooper, San Diego,CA genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/

I agree with Kitty and most of the Adoption researchers. Finding a birth families is best done through the closest Matches with Trees - found at any/all of the DNA companies. Triangulation is a very labor intensive effort now, and getting to the birth families seems to be much faster with mirror Trees and other methods as outlined by Kitty in her blog. As you get farther out - looking for a birth family beyond the grandparent level, I think the process of mirror Trees, etc. gets harder, and Triangulation may offer some advantages. Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Kitty Cooper <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Oct 5, 2017 11:33 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Andreas I have had remarkable success finding adoptees birth families just usingancestry data with DNAgedcom's GWorks, no segment data required. Here isthe methodologyhttp://blog.kittycooper.com/2017/09/solving-unknown-parentage-cases-with-dna/KittyOn Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:57 AM Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote:> Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate> when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for> automatic triangulation.>> The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches> groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of> triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM.> Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case.>> I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups> to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done> automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down.>> I think we will need to focus on the groups with 2-5 matching segments as> well as they will be closer to the current time and with so much endogamy> in colonial families I wonder if the common ancestor will be too far back,> even with well documented family trees (not to forget the low quality of> click together trees that I have already seen).>> Her case is an unique challenge anyway as from each MRCA we have to go> down (!) and build up a tree of descendants to hopefully eventually have> TG’s connecting downstream which will be the path to her BF.>> It’s good to hear that despite the challenges of not having easy access to> the detailed data that we need, people do find value in the large number of> matches at Ancestry.

I agree with Jim's thoughts on this. With so many people being tested now it is much easier to figure out the parents of adoptees than it was say 5 years ago. However, Using autosomal DNA to figure out the parents of people born in the 1700s continues to be quite challenging. Triangulation is definitely where you need to go to solve genealogical problems in the 1700s. Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches I agree with Kitty and most of the Adoption researchers. Finding a birth families is best done through the closest Matches with Trees - found at any/all of the DNA companies. Triangulation is a very labor intensive effort now, and getting to the birth families seems to be much faster with mirror Trees and other methods as outlined by Kitty in her blog. As you get farther out - looking for a birth family beyond the grandparent level, I think the process of mirror Trees, etc. gets harder, and Triangulation may offer some advantages. Jim Bartlett [email protected]

I have my ancestry results what now? Can someone tell me if there is a site that will tell me what I have and what good is it to me. ? How do I correlate or just plain HELP ? Cheers from Valerie Garton [nee Vaughan] in sunny Sydney

Valerie make sure that your results are public Make sure that you create a family tree of at least your four grandparents, and link it to your DNA kit Load your kit to gedmatch.com and make sure it is marked as public Add your family tree as well to gedmatch.com Add your kit and tree to wikitree.com Join the facebook group for gedmatch.com -----Original Message----- From: Valerie Barbara Garton <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Oct 4, 2017 2:11 am Subject: [DNA] I have my ancestry results what now? I have my ancestry results what now? Can someone tell me if there is a site that will tell me what I have and what good is it to me. ? How do I correlate or just plain HELP ? Cheers from Valerie Garton [nee Vaughan] in sunny Sydney ------------------------------- 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

Valerie The first thing to do is share your results; so people can look to see if you have anything of interest. You do not say which company you have used; but if it is FTDNA, 23andMe, or Ancestry may I suggest you upload your RAW DATA file to both: www.GEDmatch.com & www.openSNP.org And when you have done this - post a further message giving your GEDmatch number. Keep asking questions - there are no secrets. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk ----------------- On 04/10/2017 10:10, Valerie Barbara Garton wrote: > I have my ancestry results what now? Can someone tell me if there is a site > that will tell me what I have and what good is it to me. ? How do I > correlate or just plain HELP ? > > > > Cheers from Valerie Garton [nee Vaughan] in sunny Sydney

List A set of 3 mtDNA sequences has appeared on the GenBank database to accompany the paper: 'A missense MT-ND5 mutation in differentiated Parkinson Disease cytoplasmic hybrid induces ROS-dependent DNA Damage Response amplified by DROSHA' Daniela Pignataro, et al. A free download at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5573376/ and the abstract is given below. This paper is really quite technical - but nevertheless the sequences are quite interesting and belong to Haplogroups H1a3b, H3b1b1, & L3e1a. The main point of the paper is the significance of the mutation 'G13804R' in the 'H1a3b' sequence. Whereas, the 'L2e1a' is perhaps the more interesting sequence from a phylogenetic point of view - as the subgroup is uncommon. As usual I have added the sequences to my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk ------------------------------------------- Abstract Genome integrity is continuously threatened by endogenous sources of DNA damage including reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by cell metabolism. Factors of the RNA interference (RNAi) machinery have been recently involved in the cellular response to DNA damage (DDR) in proliferating cells. To investigate the impact of component of RNAi machinery on DDR activation in terminally differentiated cells, we exploited cytoplasmic hybrid (cybrid) cell lines in which mitochondria of sporadic Parkinson’s disease patients repopulate neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y-Rho(0) cells. Upon differentiation into dopaminergic neuron-like cells, PD63 cybrid showed increased intracellular level of ROS and chronic DDR activation, compared to other cybrids with the same nuclear background. Importantly, DDR activation in these cells can be prevented by ROS scavenging treatment suggesting that ROS production is indeed causative of nuclear DNA damage. Sequence analysis of the mitogenomes identified a rare and heteroplasmic missense mutation affecting a highly conserved residue of the ND5-subunit of respiratory complex I, which accounts for ROS increase. We demonstrated that the assembly of nuclear DDR foci elicited by oxidative stress in these cells relies on DROSHA, providing the first evidence that components of RNAi machinery play a crucial role also in the mounting of ROS-induced DDR in non-replicating neuronal cells. ----------------------------------------- KY498629(Italy-cybrid) Pignataro Haplogroup L2e1a 12-SEP-2107 A73G T146C C150T T152C C182T A183G A263G 309.1C 315.1C A479G G719A A750G G769A C954T G1018A A1171R G1211A A1438G T2416C A2706G A3537G C3594T C4086T A4104G A4562G A4769G A5069T T6014C C6617T C7028T C7256T G7521A T8383C A8701G A8860G G8994A A9221G A9377G T9540C C9971T T10115C A10398G T10873C G11149A G11719A T11935C A11989G T12189C G12236A C12705T G13194A G13590A C13650T G13708A C14266T T14299C C14766T G15301A A15326G T15697C G15734A T15889C C16111T G16145A C16184T T16189C C16223T C16239T C16278T C16292T C16355T G16390A A16399G C16400T T16519C KY498630(Italy-cybrid) Pignataro Haplogroup H1a3b 12-SEP-2107 A73G T195C A263G 315.1C C522- A523- A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G A8860G G13804R A15326G A16051G A16162G A16241C C16465T T16519C KY498631(Italy-cybrid) Pignataro Haplogroup H3b1b1 12-SEP-2107 T146C A153G A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C A750G A1438G A2581G A4769G G5147A T6776C A7403G A8860G G13813A A15326G C16111T G16129A C16256T T16519C

List This new mtDNA sequence has appeared on the GenBank database. The sequence has been submitted by a FGC customer and belongs to Haplogroup T1a1. As usual I have added the sequence to my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk ------------ MF614760(English) FGC Haplogroup T1a1 01-OCT-2017 A73G T152C T195C A263G 309.1C 315.1C G709A A750G A1438G G1888A A2706G T4216C A4769G A4917G C7028T G8697A A8860G T9899C T10463C A11251G G11719A C12633A G13368A C14766T G14905A A15326G C15452A A15607G G15928A T16126C A16163G C16186T T16189C C16294T T16519C

(Perhaps echoing Andreas) I don't quite get the value of "counting TGs," because Mom has K TGs one generation back, but then N (>K) TGs another generation back, etc. Saying "Mom has 273 TGs" doesn't seem hugely useful if some of them are TGs traced to a 3-generation-ago MRCA pair but others are TGs traced to an 8-generation-ago MRCA pair--i.e. they're not "equivalent" TGs. Wouldn't a TG be usefully defined to be "final" only when the size of the HIR has reached the "lower limit" below which we can't reliably call matches (in the TG) IBD? Else any TG around an HIR larger than that might be (probably is) subject to being subdivided ... Best, Eric > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Andreas West > Sent: October 2, 2017 03.20 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches > I was waiting for you to react to this, as I know we've discussed the point of > how many TG's there are. It's obviously determined by the size of these

The app is automatically adjusting to the data. You enter only one of your parents data, you will get very long segments in many cases for the TG’s. I’ve send a screenshot to the DNA Newbie list that shows how I got 21 TG’s in just 5 minutes from 23andMe data with just allowing access to 23andMe and downloading and importing two files! Hope this clarifies. Andreas > On 2 Oct 2017, at 10:17, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Andreas, > I agree with Jim that it would be nice to have the threshold variable. I have a fair number of TGs where the longest segment covering everyone in the TG is in the 30 cM range. > Sincerely, > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett > Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 9:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches > > Andreas, > > > It would be great to have the threshold be a variable - the default at 10, 12 or 15cM, but the user could adjust it up or down. > > > Jim Bartlett > [email protected] > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Unfortunately that won’t work Jim. Reason is that each user is part of many TG’s and having different threshold amongst your TG won’t work. Also we differentiate ourselves by making many difficult to understand decisions for the user. People don’t understand the thresholds in GEDmatch, it’s a tool for few but not for the masses. Andreas > On 2 Oct 2017, at 08:49, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andreas, > > > It would be great to have the threshold be a variable - the default at 10, 12 or 15cM, but the user could adjust it up or down. > > > Jim Bartlett > [email protected] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas West <[email protected]> > To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Oct 1, 2017 11:56 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches > > Hi Jim,I apply your method though I learned from both of you a lot ;-)This allows our web app to apply the same rule for everyone (important in coding). No information is lost, we do have the info from the closer cousins/parents who are indeed holding those smaller TG’s together.The chromosomes map which we build up automatically is key as it shows those close and far MRCA’s.I think there is still work to be done to try out which threshold is the best one for TG’s and when one should stop splitting them up further.Andreas > > ------------------------------- > 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

How do I change my email address for my subscription. Thank you. Dutch O’Connell.

Eric Just as we use cM to roughly estimate the cousinship, I use total TGs as a quality assurance factor - as in: not too many, not too few. If I would up with 8 TGs on Chr 5 at the grandparent level; I'd be looking hard at flipping at least one, maybe two, of them. In general, at the grandparent level, we don't expect to see more than 4 crossovers (5 TGs) on one Chr. Not that it cannot happen, it generally does not. The point is - at each generation, does it look reasonable. I also throw out the 400 TG number to indicate, roughly, what you're getting into when you decide to map. And, yes, for a given shared segment threshold, each person's map will wind up with one set of crossover points, and ancestral segments between them (represented by TGs). Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > On Oct 2, 2017, at 5:41 AM, Eric S Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > (Perhaps echoing Andreas) I don't quite get the value of "counting TGs," > because Mom has K TGs one generation back, but then N (>K) TGs another > generation back, etc. > > Saying "Mom has 273 TGs" doesn't seem hugely useful if some of them are TGs > traced to a 3-generation-ago MRCA pair but others are TGs traced to an > 8-generation-ago MRCA pair--i.e. they're not "equivalent" TGs. > > Wouldn't a TG be usefully defined to be "final" only when the size of the > HIR has reached the "lower limit" below which we can't reliably call matches > (in the TG) IBD? > Else any TG around an HIR larger than that might be (probably is) > subject to being subdivided ... > > Best, > Eric