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/ Ann Turner On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Brooks Family via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > 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. >

Chromosome 9 has a history of giving some unusual / flawed results. Two or three years ago Ftdna did a revision of their software so it would supposedly handle chromosome 9 better. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bartlett via Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 9:19 AM To: Coverly@xmission.com ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: Comparison difference between gedmatch & Ftdna 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 ------------------------------- 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

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

On my side, both the ftDNA and gedmatch kit were from results from a 23andme kit. I do have another kit on my side from AncestryDNA. Comparison results: 9 131,390,868 137,526,418 18.9 1,897 So virtually identical. Both of my kits have acceptable levels of no-calls. Just ran the utility on the cousin's kit - "no problems were found" > 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 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 Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 8:47 AM, 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 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? >

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

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

I believe the FTDNA data is based on Build 37; GEDmatch uses Build 36. This doesn't make much difference in most locations, but in a few locations when FTDNA shifted from 36 to 37) Matches dropped out and others were added. In the big picture, your shared segment stayed about the same. Jim Bartlett On 10/23/15, Robert Paine via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: I would check to see if the raw data and the comparisons are all using the correct build number, you might also want to lookup how the SNPs and CentiMorgans are distributed along the segment. I do not use Gedmatch but would also question why Gedmatch is showing fewer SNPs with a longer segment with more cM. None of my 4 Ftdna matches in that area extend past 134121902 (all 4 of my Ftdna matches are listed as the same segment 126064861-134121902, 8.38 cM, 2031 SNPs) I have no matches in that area at 23andme. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 12:11 PM To: [1]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: Comparison difference between gedmatch & Ftdna Not sure how that explains the much larger cM count, when the boundaries and SNPs are near identical in the two systems? On 10/23/15 1:05 PM, Robert Paine wrote: > The issue you are running into is that when you reduce the criteria > for a segment to be reported as a match the likelihood of errors > increases. Ftdna uses the most stringent criteria for reporting a > match and its length while gedmatch can be the most relaxed. > > RPaine > > -----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 G[2]ENEALOGY-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 G[3]ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com 2. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 3. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com

Yes, it took a number of years, but I do have a couple of full sequence matches that go back to Mary Beach, born about 1640 in Watertown, MA. Ann On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Roberta Estes <robertajestes@att.net> wrote: > So, I'm curious Ann - did you ever find any of those more distant mtDNA > ancestors beyond your Pamela Nims? > > Hard to believe it's been 15 years. > > My first test was through Oxford Ancestors too, and boy, were they > expensive > then! HVR2 and full sequence were still a thing of the future. > > We've come a very long way. > > Roberta Estes > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ann Turner via > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 8:57 AM > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List > Subject: [DNA] Happy Quinceañera GENEALOGY-DNA > > Today is the 15th anniversary of the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list. Hard to > believe! Here's the first post: > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2000-10/09721761 > 35 > > 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 > >

>From what I have seen the turn around times depend on the type test or number of Y-panels ordered rather than the batch number which is only based on the sample's arrival date at the lab. My g-granddaughter's Mtdna Full Sequence recently arrived at the lab and is in batch 646, estimated completion 12/02/2015 - 12/16/2015 (I expect her results sooner than the estimate). RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Orin Wells via Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:13 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Progress in the FTDNA Lab There are signs that FTDNA may have made some changes at the lab to reduce the turn-around time. The most recent test in our project (Batch 640) was completed in 6 weeks. Compared to the old days at Relative Genetics/Ancestry of two weeks it is still slow, but compared to the more recent 10 to 12 weeks minimum it is a significant improvement! -- Orin Wells 253-630-5296 ------------------------------- 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

There are signs that FTDNA may have made some changes at the lab to reduce the turn-around time. The most recent test in our project (Batch 640) was completed in 6 weeks. Compared to the old days at Relative Genetics/Ancestry of two weeks it is still slow, but compared to the more recent 10 to 12 weeks minimum it is a significant improvement! -- Orin Wells 253-630-5296

I would check to see if the raw data and the comparisons are all using the correct build number, you might also want to lookup how the SNPs and CentiMorgans are distributed along the segment. I do not use Gedmatch but would also question why Gedmatch is showing fewer SNPs with a longer segment with more cM. None of my 4 Ftdna matches in that area extend past 134121902 (all 4 of my Ftdna matches are listed as the same segment 126064861-134121902, 8.38 cM, 2031 SNPs) I have no matches in that area at 23andme. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 12:11 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: Comparison difference between gedmatch & Ftdna Not sure how that explains the much larger cM count, when the boundaries and SNPs are near identical in the two systems? On 10/23/15 1:05 PM, Robert Paine wrote: > The issue you are running into is that when you reduce the criteria > for a segment to be reported as a match the likelihood of errors > increases. Ftdna uses the most stringent criteria for reporting a > match and its length while gedmatch can be the most relaxed. > > RPaine > > -----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

List Readers might find this new paper of interest (abstract below):- 'PCR-Free Enrichment of Mitochondrial DNA from Human Blood and Cell Lines for High Quality Next-Generation DNA Sequencing.' Gould MP, Bosworth CM, McMahon S, Grandhi S, Grimerg BT, LaFramboise T. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 21;10(10) A free download at: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139253&representation=PDF The paper describes the problems associated with the sequencing of mtDNA; and by so doing goes some way to explaining why mtDNA sequencing as a by-product of Big-Y and other whole genome products often give very poor mtDNA results. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk ------------------- Abstract Recent advances in sequencing technology allow for accurate detection of mitochondrial sequence variants, even those in low abundance at heteroplasmic sites. Considerable sequencing cost savings can be achieved by enriching samples for mitochondrial (relative to nuclear) DNA. Reduction in nuclear DNA (nDNA) content can also help to avoid false positive variants resulting from nuclear mitochondrial sequences (numts). We isolate intact mitochondrial organelles from both human cell lines and blood components using two separate methods: a magnetic bead binding protocol and differential centrifugation. DNA is extracted and further enriched for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) by an enzyme digest. Only 1 ng of the purified DNA is necessary for library preparation and next generation sequence (NGS) analysis. Enrichment methods are assessed and compared using mtDNA (versus nDNA) content as a metric, measured by using real-time quantitative PCR and NGS read analysis. Among the various strategies examined, the optimal is differential centrifugation isolation followed by exonuclease digest. This strategy yields >35% mtDNA reads in blood and cell lines, which corresponds to hundreds-fold enrichment over baseline. The strategy also avoids false variant calls that, as we show, can be induced by the long-range PCR approaches that are the current standard in enrichment procedures. This optimization procedure allows mtDNA enrichment for efficient and accurate massively parallel sequencing, enabling NGS from samples with small amounts of starting material. This will decrease costs by increasing the number of samples that may be multiplexed, ultimately facilitating efforts to better understand mitochondria-related diseases.

Not sure how that explains the much larger cM count, when the boundaries and SNPs are near identical in the two systems? On 10/23/15 1:05 PM, Robert Paine wrote: > The issue you are running into is that when you reduce the criteria > for a segment to be reported as a match the likelihood of errors > increases. Ftdna uses the most stringent criteria for reporting a > match and its length while gedmatch can be the most relaxed. > > RPaine > > -----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 >

I've had a cousin on ftDNA for a while, but I can't get too excited about tracking down this small a segment: 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 but on gedmatch, even tho the boundaries & SNP count are almost identical, the cMs are much larger: 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 and there's another segment 13 103,165,059 105,554,332 7.1 873 which doesn't show up even as a snippet on ftDNA I know - different companies, different definitions of a match - but that's a large difference on the cM count? BTW - he's a 4C1R

The issue you are running into is that when you reduce the criteria for a segment to be reported as a match the likelihood of errors increases. Ftdna uses the most stringent criteria for reporting a match and its length while gedmatch can be the most relaxed. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Fwd: Comparison difference between gedmatch & ftDNA I've had a cousin on ftDNA for a while, but I can't get too excited about tracking down this small a segment: 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 but on gedmatch, even tho the boundaries & SNP count are almost identical, the cMs are much larger: 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 and there's another segment 13 103,165,059 105,554,332 7.1 873 which doesn't show up even as a snippet on ftDNA I know - different companies, different definitions of a match - but that's a large difference on the cM count? BTW - he's a 4C1R ------------------------------- 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

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/

So, I'm curious Ann - did you ever find any of those more distant mtDNA ancestors beyond your Pamela Nims? Hard to believe it's been 15 years. My first test was through Oxford Ancestors too, and boy, were they expensive then! HVR2 and full sequence were still a thing of the future. We've come a very long way. Roberta Estes -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ann Turner via Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 8:57 AM To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List Subject: [DNA] Happy Quinceañera GENEALOGY-DNA Today is the 15th anniversary of the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list. Hard to believe! Here's the first post: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2000-10/09721761 35 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

Reading about the tribulations of the *Brooks* Family reminds me of the story to *Ted*, who wanted to become a great writer. As a child growing up in south Texas, Ted’s desire was to be a great writer of fiction. It was his goal in life. When asked what kind of writer he wanted to be, Ted replied, “ *I want to write about stuff that everyone in the world will read. I want what I write to make people react on an emotional level. I want them to scream, laugh, cry, and howl in pain and anger. *“ Today Ted is that great writer, able to make us scream, cry and howl in pain. He composes your Pending Lab Results messages for FamilyTreeDna. Finally a quote for today: “ Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery. Today is God’s gift and that’s why we call it -- the present.” Joan Rivers 1933 – 2014 Regards, Robert On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Brooks Family via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > A project member's Y-37 results "expected date" just slipped again, this > time from 10/21/15 to 11/04/15. > > The kit arrived in the lab (with orders waiting) on 7/14/15. > > Sigh. > > ------------------------------- > 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 >