Kitty The 23andMe test should only be considered as a simple test that looks at a few health issues; and is perhaps more helpful for the Family History. It is very unlikely that a 23andMe test will show anything of real importance; for example only about 1 person in 500 shows a meaningful mitochondrial mutation. And for the autosomal results the yield is arguably even less. Ian -------------- On 26/10/2015 05:27, Kitty Cooper via wrote: > I got a query from a relative > > "I have a question for you. My wife's ex husband was adopted. He does not > want to know anything of his past. She has a son and daughter with him. Her > daughter has been having some medical conditions that they are calling > disconnected amnesia. I had recommended that we do DNA on her son to see > their past and possible medical information that could help us with her > daughter. What would be the best dna test for this? " > > My answer was > "the health side of DNA is still very new and not my area of my expertise > but I can ask around without revealing any names. Why test the brother and > not the girl? Tests are changing 23andme is offering some health results > again but ... Do any of her dr.s think there is value?" > > Any suggestions? or thoughts? > Kitty > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/ > family history and genealogy at http://kittymunson.com >

Nope, logged in no problem just now On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:06 AM, B Griffiths via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > wrote: > Is anyone else having difficulty signing in to 23andMe at the moment? > > For the past 5 days, every attempt to sign in has been met with an > error message ("A site error has occurred. We have logged this error, > and will be working to fix this problem as soon as we can. Thank you > for your patience.") > > I sent a message to 23andMe using the contact form on Saturday and > haven't yet received a reply, but just wondered if anyone else was > having the same problem. > > With the forthcoming changes to the site, I am already quite concerned > about losing data (as I currently have 2658 matches on my DNA > Relatives, and another profile I manage under my account has 2246), as > well as having messages to reply to. With the new 2000 limit to DNA > Relatives, I can imagine the change will result in me losing a lot of > my anonymous matches who haven't yet accepted an invitation. > > Regards > Barbara Griffiths > UK > > > > > > > On 24 October 2015 at 13:07, Karla Huebner via > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The changes in 23andMe will be significant--some good, some more > > problematic. We'll need to download data from Countries of Ancestry soon, > > also will (later) need to reinvite many people. Shannon Christmas's post > > gives the details. > > > > Of course, the hike in price comes just as I was thinking that we might > > want to add the Mother Dear to 23andMe... > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Shannon Christmas via < > > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > >> What The New 23andMe means for genetic genealogy: > >> > >> > http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/131724191762/the-23andme-metamorphosis > >> > >> Very Respectfully, > >> Shannon > >> -- > >> Mr. Shannon S. Christmas > >> Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist > >> The Christmas Collective > >> <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> > >> Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions > >> New York, NY | Washington, DC > >> P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 > >> F: 1.888.788.5984 > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Karla Huebner > > calypsospots AT gmail.com > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ FranklinGenetics@gmail.com http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & helps. *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY one with all the tools you need for genealogy and DNA!--* http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY BOOK! http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy

I'm not familiar with the term disconnected amnesia -- could she mean dissociative amnesia? If so, there's no particular evidence that it is a genetic condition. http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/d/dissociative_amnesia/inherit.htm Ann Turner On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Kitty Cooper via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I got a query from a relative > > "I have a question for you. My wife's ex husband was adopted. He does not > want to know anything of his past. She has a son and daughter with him. Her > daughter has been having some medical conditions that they are calling > disconnected amnesia. I had recommended that we do DNA on her son to see > their past and possible medical information that could help us with her > daughter. What would be the best dna test for this? " > > My answer was > "the health side of DNA is still very new and not my area of my expertise > but I can ask around without revealing any names. Why test the brother and > not the girl? Tests are changing 23andme is offering some health results > again but ... Do any of her dr.s think there is value?" > > Any suggestions? or thoughts? > Kitty > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/ > family history and genealogy at http://kittymunson.com > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I got a query from a relative "I have a question for you. My wife's ex husband was adopted. He does not want to know anything of his past. She has a son and daughter with him. Her daughter has been having some medical conditions that they are calling disconnected amnesia. I had recommended that we do DNA on her son to see their past and possible medical information that could help us with her daughter. What would be the best dna test for this? " My answer was "the health side of DNA is still very new and not my area of my expertise but I can ask around without revealing any names. Why test the brother and not the girl? Tests are changing 23andme is offering some health results again but ... Do any of her dr.s think there is value?" Any suggestions? or thoughts? Kitty --------------------------------------------------------------- genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/ family history and genealogy at http://kittymunson.com

FYI - http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/131724191762/the-23andme-metamorphosis

Thanks Ann, that is a very helpful calculator. Re: those suspicious results under discussion: >>>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM >>>> FTDNA >>>>> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: >>>>> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 The Rutgers map interpolator gives the same result as gedmatch for the slightly longer gedmatch segment (18.8 cM), and gives a result of 17.8 cM for the FTDNA slightly shorter version of the same segment. These numbers seem consistent with what would be expected from the small difference in physical length (in base pairs). So the FTDNA estimate of segment length of 8.85 cM seems to be the suspicious number. I don’t have any explanations in mind for this. > On Oct 25, 2015, at 3:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 16:03:42 -0700 > From: Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 578 > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: > <CAA-Ub_CFQZjqshYa_2DKqZSJ2E1-qK95uxYdghqH4F=snsyZMA@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > You can enter base positions in this calculator. It's for Build 36, which > is used by FTDNA and GEDmatch. > > http://compgen4.rutgers.edu/mapinterpolator > > Ann Turner > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, David Hamill via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Yes, the 10 cM difference (from 8 to 18) in such a small difference of >> physical length seems implausible. >> >> I calculated a 236,091 SNP difference in the physical length of the >> segments, and according to these results that total length is about 10 cM. >> >> I could not easily find anything online which maps different segment >> locations to length in cM, though I am sure it?s out there somewhere. >> >> It is just worrisome that the comparison makes it look like something is >> amiss. >> >> >>> On Oct 24, 2015, at 1:15 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >>> >>> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:51:26 -0400 >>> From: jlerch1@lighttube.net >>> Subject: [DNA] re FTDNA vs Gedmatch >>> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>> Message-ID: <20151024115126.vush13734g4o08w4@webmail.lighttube.net> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>> >>> To be specific, you're saying that there never can be a stretch where 10 >> cM is compressed into? 330,000 SNPs?? I don't know.? I know there are some >> pretty fragile spots.? On all my allegedly pileup spots, the middles which >> everyone shares is some unknown # but the difference between persons at the >> ends can be quite large, certainly 1 cM in about 100,000 SNPs. >>> >>> DHamill wrote >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 >>> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>> Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>> >>> I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference >> in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are >> reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten >> in Denmark. >>> >>> Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be >> sure there are no typos etc involved? >>> >>> Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop >> locations? ? if so how many cM? >>> >>>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via >>>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM >>>> FTDNA >>>>> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: >>>>> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 >>> >

Did you check the quality of the kit? The two tools might handle no calls differently. I assume you used the standard settings on GEDmatch with 700 SNP and 7cM, right? I know FTDNA uses a very different criteria than anyone else, looking at total cM as well. Not sure how many mismatches they allow. Does anyone know? If FTDNA doesn't allow any mismatch and GEDmatch allows one in the standard settings that might explain the different size. Andreas > On 24 Oct 2015, at 23:47, Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I thought Jim's & Robert's explanations were good enough for me, but > here's the segment in question again, newly derived this morning: > > Gedmatch: > 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 > > ftDNA: > 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1,955 > > The relationship is solid. The kit manager had her tree up on ftDNA, > and I had already independently worked the relationship to the MRCAs in > my tree. 4C1R. > > >> On 10/24/15 1:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:29:14 -0400 >> From: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> >> Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 >> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten in Denmark. >> >> Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be sure there are no typos etc involved? >> >> Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop locations? ? if so how many cM? >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I can't tell: since they're going to convert to only Public Matches on DNA Relatives, aren't they going to give our anonymous invitees a chance to become Public before deleting our Invites? John L Ann T wrote From: Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [DNA] The New 23andMe To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <CAA-Ub_Cw_srxD1OE2cA48wja7tWvRsESM1aSh-H153r6Lmbd5g@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Your current sharing list will not be affected by the change. Invitations sent to people with a public profile will be maintained. Introductions (i.e. messages sent to *anonymous* people on your DNA Relatives) will not be maintained. https://www.23andme.com/you/community/thread/41020/

You can enter base positions in this calculator. It's for Build 36, which is used by FTDNA and GEDmatch. http://compgen4.rutgers.edu/mapinterpolator Ann Turner On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, David Hamill via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Yes, the 10 cM difference (from 8 to 18) in such a small difference of > physical length seems implausible. > > I calculated a 236,091 SNP difference in the physical length of the > segments, and according to these results that total length is about 10 cM. > > I could not easily find anything online which maps different segment > locations to length in cM, though I am sure it’s out there somewhere. > > It is just worrisome that the comparison makes it look like something is > amiss. > > > > On Oct 24, 2015, at 1:15 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:51:26 -0400 > > From: jlerch1@lighttube.net > > Subject: [DNA] re FTDNA vs Gedmatch > > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Message-ID: <20151024115126.vush13734g4o08w4@webmail.lighttube.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > To be specific, you're saying that there never can be a stretch where 10 > cM is compressed into? 330,000 SNPs?? I don't know.? I know there are some > pretty fragile spots.? On all my allegedly pileup spots, the middles which > everyone shares is some unknown # but the difference between persons at the > ends can be quite large, certainly 1 cM in about 100,000 SNPs. > > > > DHamill wrote > > Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 > > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference > in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are > reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten > in Denmark. > > > > Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be > sure there are no typos etc involved? > > > > Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop > locations? ? if so how many cM? > > > >> On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via > >>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM > >> FTDNA > >>> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 > >>> > >>> > >>> gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: > >>> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes, the 10 cM difference (from 8 to 18) in such a small difference of physical length seems implausible. I calculated a 236,091 SNP difference in the physical length of the segments, and according to these results that total length is about 10 cM. I could not easily find anything online which maps different segment locations to length in cM, though I am sure it’s out there somewhere. It is just worrisome that the comparison makes it look like something is amiss. > On Oct 24, 2015, at 1:15 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:51:26 -0400 > From: jlerch1@lighttube.net > Subject: [DNA] re FTDNA vs Gedmatch > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <20151024115126.vush13734g4o08w4@webmail.lighttube.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > To be specific, you're saying that there never can be a stretch where 10 cM is compressed into? 330,000 SNPs?? I don't know.? I know there are some pretty fragile spots.? On all my allegedly pileup spots, the middles which everyone shares is some unknown # but the difference between persons at the ends can be quite large, certainly 1 cM in about 100,000 SNPs. > > DHamill wrote > Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten in Denmark. > > Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be sure there are no typos etc involved? > > Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop locations? ? if so how many cM? > >> On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via >>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM >> FTDNA >>> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 >>> >>> >>> gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: >>> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 >

Without my reference data! Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 24, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Ann > > FTDNA must either use a different cM look up table, or the other companies assume some of the gray areas. I've had some segments at 23andMe start at 1 in chromosomes that are usually grayed out at the beginning (typing from a beach chair with my reference data) > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Oct 24, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> I don't know if this addresses your specific observation, but FTDNA >> consistently reports lower cM values than GEDmatch and 23andMe. >> >> http://isogg.org/wiki/CM#cm_values_per_chromosome >> >> Ann Turner >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I don't know what you actually call those spots.  They seem too small to be called an allele.  In any event, what they call 1M, 2M etc. On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 13:49:45 -0400, Jim Bartlett wrote: 330,000 SNPs seems high... Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 24, 2015, at 11:51 AM, jlerch1 via wrote: > > To be specific, you're saying that there never can be a stretch where > 10 cM is compressed into 330,000 SNPs? I don't know. I know there are > some pretty fragile spots. On all my allegedly pileup spots, the > middles which everyone shares is some unknown # but the difference > between persons at the ends can be quite large, certainly 1 cM in > about 100,000 SNPs. DHamill wrote > Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a > difference in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. > If they really are reporting these results, I think there is > something computationally rotten in Denmark. Maybe you could start by > just double-checking these numbers.. just to be sure there are no > typos etc involved? > > Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop > locations? ? if so how many cM? > >>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via >>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM >> FTDNA >>> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 >>> >>> >>> gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: >>> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Read my blogpost on Pile-up. I am a believer in Pile-Ups - some are very bad; some are really good. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:25 PM, Brooks Family <Coverly@xmission.com> wrote: > > Ah, now there's another interesting observation. Pile ups. > There's a group of 4 that triangulate on this segment. The common ancestors I've identified with the other kit were born c.1800 in Banffshire, Scotland. > > Seems a bit unusual to find two other kits who can match on just this segment. > > But I didn't think you were a great believer in pile-ups, Jim? > >> On 10/24/15 10:19 AM, Jim Bartlett wrote: >> I have two shared segments from GEDmatch: >> 9: 132.2-137.0 at 16.9cM >> 9: 131.4-136.0 at 10.0cM >> >> So it appears there is a very narrow cM pile-up area... (or a typo...) >> >> Jim Bartlett >

330,000 SNPs seems high... Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 24, 2015, at 11:51 AM, jlerch1 via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > To be specific, you're saying that there never can be a stretch where 10 cM is compressed into 330,000 SNPs? I don't know. I know there are some pretty fragile spots. On all my allegedly pileup spots, the middles which everyone shares is some unknown # but the difference between persons at the ends can be quite large, certainly 1 cM in about 100,000 SNPs. > > DHamill wrote > Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten in Denmark. > > Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be sure there are no typos etc involved? > > Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop locations? ? if so how many cM? > >>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via >>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM >> FTDNA >>> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 >>> >>> >>> gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: >>> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dave I believe that you are counting base pairs rather than SNPs. CentiMorgans are not a physical measurement of length, they are the probability of a crossover at various points along the chromosome. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: David Hamill via Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 12:43 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 578 Yes, the 10 cM difference (from 8 to 18) in such a small difference of physical length seems implausible. I calculated a 236,091 SNP difference in the physical length of the segments, and according to these results that total length is about 10 cM. I could not easily find anything online which maps different segment locations to length in cM, though I am sure it’s out there somewhere. It is just worrisome that the comparison makes it look like something is amiss. > On Oct 24, 2015, at 1:15 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:51:26 -0400 > From: jlerch1@lighttube.net > Subject: [DNA] re FTDNA vs Gedmatch > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <20151024115126.vush13734g4o08w4@webmail.lighttube.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > To be specific, you're saying that there never can be a stretch where 10 > cM is compressed into? 330,000 SNPs?? I don't know.? I know there are some > pretty fragile spots.? On all my allegedly pileup spots, the middles which > everyone shares is some unknown # but the difference between persons at > the ends can be quite large, certainly 1 cM in about 100,000 SNPs. > > DHamill wrote > Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference in > criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are > reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten > in Denmark. > > Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be > sure there are no typos etc involved? > > Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop > locations? ? if so how many cM? > >> On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via >>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM >> FTDNA >>> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 >>> >>> >>> gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: >>> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ann FTDNA must either use a different cM look up table, or the other companies assume some of the gray areas. I've had some segments at 23andMe start at 1 in chromosomes that are usually grayed out at the beginning (typing from a beach chair with my reference data) Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 24, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I don't know if this addresses your specific observation, but FTDNA > consistently reports lower cM values than GEDmatch and 23andMe. > > http://isogg.org/wiki/CM#cm_values_per_chromosome > > Ann Turner >

> >> On 24 Oct 2015, at 23:47, Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> I thought Jim's & Robert's explanations were good enough for me, but >> here's the segment in question again, newly derived this morning: >> >> Gedmatch: >> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 >> >> ftDNA: >> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1,955 >> >> The relationship is solid. The kit manager had her tree up on ftDNA, >> and I had already independently worked the relationship to the MRCAs in >> my tree. 4C1R. >> I have several matches on 23andMe in this same region of chromosome 9, and the cM figures are running in the teens, i.e. much more similar to what you're getting from GedMatch. For example, xxxxxxx vs. Elizabeth Harris 9 131000000 138000000 18.8 cM 1779

To be specific, you're saying that there never can be a stretch where 10 cM is compressed into  330,000 SNPs?  I don't know.  I know there are some pretty fragile spots.  On all my allegedly pileup spots, the middles which everyone shares is some unknown # but the difference between persons at the ends can be quite large, certainly 1 cM in about 100,000 SNPs. DHamill wrote Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten in Denmark. Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be sure there are no typos etc involved? Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop locations? ? if so how many cM? > On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM > FTDNA >> 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 >> >> >> gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: >> 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904

On 10/24/15 11:15 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > We'll need to ...(later) need to reinvite many people. OMG. I share with people that are known cousins, who are /not/ into genealogy, who will /not/ accept another sharing invite again (perhaps even because they are not in this world now). This would /not/ be progress.

I have two shared segments from GEDmatch: 9: 132.2-137.0 at 16.9cM 9: 131.4-136.0 at 10.0cM So it appears there is a very narrow cM pile-up area... (or a typo...) Jim Bartlett On 10/24/15, Brooks Family via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: I thought Jim's & Robert's explanations were good enough for me, but here's the segment in question again, newly derived this morning: Gedmatch: 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 ftDNA: 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1,955 The relationship is solid. The kit manager had her tree up on ftDNA, and I had already independently worked the relationship to the MRCAs in my tree. 4C1R. On 10/24/15 1:00 AM, g[1]enealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:29:14 -0400 > From: David Hamill <[2]dnhamill@aol.com> > Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 > To: [3]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-43[4]23-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten in Denmark. > > Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be sure there are no typos etc involved? > > Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop locations? ? if so how many cM? > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to G[5]ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:enealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com 2. mailto:dnhamill@aol.com 3. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com 4. mailto:23-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com 5. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com