http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905 Large back migration suggested, from Eurasia to Africa 3000 yrs ago, due to spread of agriculture.

Wow, about 10 cents (US currency) per SNP. Amazing. Al On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Atanas Kumbarov via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > YSEQ now offers their R1b-L21 Super-Clade Orientation Panel which > features 600 SNPs for only $69. This is unprecedented! The offer is > valid until the end of the month. > > Atanas Kumbarov > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

YSEQ now offers their R1b-L21 Super-Clade Orientation Panel which features 600 SNPs for only $69. This is unprecedented! The offer is valid until the end of the month. Atanas Kumbarov

Doug, I think when the 1000 genome project was set up, the testing technology was still evolving, and for its time it was as good as could be had. Even with error rates, it set up an important base line resource to build from, where none existed. I think it has been an amazingly good project and there has been many good consequences for genetic genealogist, including much Y SNP discovery. Even if there were 5% error rates, by mass testing, useful reliable data is gradually revealed. For example Y SNPs occurred over time in a sequential order, and we as genetic genealogists can relatively easily spot the testing errors. I believe Full Genomes Corp analysed some of the raw data, and have it available to compare with customer results, at least for Y. They have one L617 result amongst this, which is of personal interest to me. Using this result for comparison has been hugely beneficial to me, and if 1 in 20 Y SNPs were in error, it from my perspective has negligible ill effects for what I am doing. The 1000 genomes project has to be judged by its place in an evolving world. It was the sharp end of research for its time. John. Sent from my iPad > On 7/10/2015, at 8:00 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: > > The original papers show two big bold things about this project: > > 1) very poor "coverage" at 7.4% (i.e. average number of sequencing reads at each site) > > 2) a measured 5% error rate for SNP discovery. > > It seems that this thing was medically directed, and thus that medical researchers > accept bad data. Of course, they can tolerate that and even love it, because > each variant, real or not, could theoretically support a whole grant to verify it. > > Doug McDonald > > -----Original Message----- > > http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/1000-genomes-project-wraps-up-at-2-504/81251813/ > > "Offering a glimpse of the bright gleam of victory, the 1000 Genomes > Project Consortium has announced that it has accomplished its goal, the > creation of a comprehensive catalog of human genomic variation. When it > first mustered an international team of scientists back in 2008, the > project planned to build a reference dataset that would show how rare > genomic variants were distributed among populations around the world—or at > least within a microcosm of 1000 individuals. Now, seven years later, the > project has reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 > populations across Africa, East and South Asia, Europe, and the Americas. > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

​Page is here: http://www.nature.com/collections/dcfqmlgsrw ​--​ ​Steven C Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com ​

Hello all, Does FTDNA's R1b-L21 Deep Clade test appear to be a worthwhile step toward determining one's Haplogroup? I'm L-21 (R1b1a2a1a1b4), and I haven't seen any discussion of it since its announcement on Friday. I took the Deep Clade-R test back in 2008, with the assumption that the results would be updated as time went on, but I must have been mistaken. Richard -- Richard D. Warner 249 Broadway Rockland, ME 04841 (207) 542-8866

Story here: https://www.fastcompany.com/3051973/behind-the-brand/23andme-and-the-fda-reached-a-pivotal-genetic-testing-agreement -- Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/ Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

The original papers show two big bold things about this project: 1) very poor "coverage" at 7.4% (i.e. average number of sequencing reads at each site) 2) a measured 5% error rate for SNP discovery. It seems that this thing was medically directed, and thus that medical researchers accept bad data. Of course, they can tolerate that and even love it, because each variant, real or not, could theoretically support a whole grant to verify it. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/1000-genomes-project-wraps-up-at-2-504/81251813/ "Offering a glimpse of the bright gleam of victory, the 1000 Genomes Project Consortium has announced that it has accomplished its goal, the creation of a comprehensive catalog of human genomic variation. When it first mustered an international team of scientists back in 2008, the project planned to build a reference dataset that would show how rare genomic variants were distributed among populations around the world—or at least within a microcosm of 1000 individuals. Now, seven years later, the project has reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations across Africa, East and South Asia, Europe, and the Americas.

Jim-- I agree. Last fall when I had the Y-DNA upgrade done, I also looked into having a Family Finder test done and was informed by FTDNA staff that it was unlikely that it would be possible since 1) the remaining vial would likely be used in its entirety for the Y upgrade test, and 2) FF tests require "fresher" and larger samples. So, I accepted that and let it go. However, prompted by your post, I called FTDNA yesterday and raised the issue again. Happily I was informed that they did not in fact use up the whole sample last fall and that even though it's neither fresh nor large (and now a year older), it may still produce a result, and if not, it would cost me a mere 25% of the test price to find out. Well worth it since this relative's sample was from 2002, he's been deceased since 2007, and for all practical purposes, he's my last test-eligible relative on that particular line. So, just wanted to say thanks for the prompt. Hope to receive good news in 4-6 weeks. On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: > If there is enough DNA sample left, I would run the Family Finder > (autosomal) DNA test on it. Much more info would come from that test about > your father's side. IMO. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > On Oct 3, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Christy Jordan-Frank via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > I had a similar situation with a sample left on file with FTDNA for a > > deceased uncle who had tested 25 markers in 2002. I called the company > and > > explained that he was the last test-eligible male in our line and asked > if > > I could assume his account and have his test upgraded to 111 markers. > They > > graciously allowed me access to his account so that I could change > contact > > info., password, etc. and in effect became the new account owner. They > > further upgraded his test for me as requested, explaining, however, that > > such an aged sample may not produce results. I'm happy to report that > not > > only did the old sample survive the rigors of testing, it more > importantly > > allowed a 30 year brick wall to tumble. I just wish that my uncle and > > father had lived long enough to learn the outcome. > > > > Regardless, yes, it's possible to assume responsibility for a deceased > > relative's account, at least with FTDNA. I would think, if nothing else, > > it would be good business practice for Ancestry to do the same. A phone > > call will tell you, either way. Good luck to the original poster! > > > > A related question: I too, confess to being a complete novice on Y-DNA > > (the above example encompasses my complete experience). I was advised by > > the haplogroup project to which my deceased uncle now belongs that I > should > > consider Big Y and/or additional SNP testing and was left with the > > impression that this is possible even though the remaining test vial > > previously on file was used for the 111 marker upgrade. Is this true? > If > > so, what does the lab use to work with if there is (now) nothing left on > > file? > > > > >

I manage a small project that has confirmed the male patriarch. Years ago I tested my terminal SNP. What value does this new initiative offer individuals? Regards, Gregory Morley SAYRE DNA Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > We've now hit over 7600 members in the R1b project. > > FTDNA has also updated its R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack. They've removed some > problematic SNPs and added some substitutes and most importantly added > DF27. They are rerunning the early testers who came out R-P312 but were not > testing for DF27 so we now are starting to see those updated results with > DF27 included. > > As a part of the refresh to the pack, they reduced the price to $79. The > standard price is $99. It's really a good way to get R-M269 lightly tested > people to move forward and get involved in deeper SNP testing. A Next > Generation Sequencing test is always preference but about the cheapest you > can get Big Y for is $500 so fit he budget doesn't allow then the R1b-M343 > Backbone SNP Pack is an excellent test. > > Please let people in your surname projects who are R-M269 (or R-P25 or > R-M343) and lightly tested know about this test. The $79 price did not last > long in the first run so I think people want to look at this quickly. > > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background > > Regards, > Mike W > >> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Great news! We just hit the 7000 mark. We now have 7000 members in the >> R1b project. This just makes the 67 STR GD sorting/matching, Signature >> marker with side by side SNP analysis more valuable. >> >> https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background >> >> Better news yet, we have an extremely diligent and professional >> co-administrator on board, Gail Riddell. Welcome, Gail. >> >> Mike W >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> >> Date: Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:47 PM >> Subject: R1b "Gateway" Project update and request >> To: DNA Rootsweb <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> >> >> I think we have something that is helpful newbie R1b folks.I've revamped >> the big, old Kerchner R1b project a couple of times. >> >> You can read more about the project and its goals here: >> https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b ( >> https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background ) >> >> and on the accompanying discussion group here: >> https://groups.yahoo.com/groups/R1b-YDNA >> >> I've got a help tool, a spreadsheet, that can help evaluate testing >> options leveraging 67 (or 111) STR haplotypes of folks that have done >> advanced SNP testing. You can see example screenshots here in this brief >> .pdf file. >> http://tinyurl.com/R1b-Haplotypes-Help >> >> Essentially, this is like having the Y Classic, Y Colorized and Y SNP >> project pages all combined into one, with the ability to select subgroups >> of your own criteria on the fly. >> >> Genetic Distances, Variances, Modes, Means, etc. are calculated for any >> selected group. >> >> Please invite any R1b predicted people in your projects to the R1b >> project. They should stay in their current projects. This is just to help >> them further define their more youthful haplogroups. >> >> Eligible testers are those that are >> 1) R1b confirmed or predicted haplogroup from FTDNA, >> 2) at 67 STRs or willing to upgrade (111 STRs is preferable), and >> 3) that join the R1b project. >> >> Regards, >> Mike W > > ------------------------------- > 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

We've now hit over 7600 members in the R1b project. FTDNA has also updated its R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack. They've removed some problematic SNPs and added some substitutes and most importantly added DF27. They are rerunning the early testers who came out R-P312 but were not testing for DF27 so we now are starting to see those updated results with DF27 included. As a part of the refresh to the pack, they reduced the price to $79. The standard price is $99. It's really a good way to get R-M269 lightly tested people to move forward and get involved in deeper SNP testing. A Next Generation Sequencing test is always preference but about the cheapest you can get Big Y for is $500 so fit he budget doesn't allow then the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack is an excellent test. Please let people in your surname projects who are R-M269 (or R-P25 or R-M343) and lightly tested know about this test. The $79 price did not last long in the first run so I think people want to look at this quickly. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background Regards, Mike W On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: > Great news! We just hit the 7000 mark. We now have 7000 members in the > R1b project. This just makes the 67 STR GD sorting/matching, Signature > marker with side by side SNP analysis more valuable. > > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background > > Better news yet, we have an extremely diligent and professional > co-administrator on board, Gail Riddell. Welcome, Gail. > > Mike W > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> > Date: Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:47 PM > Subject: R1b "Gateway" Project update and request > To: DNA Rootsweb <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > > > I think we have something that is helpful newbie R1b folks.I've revamped > the big, old Kerchner R1b project a couple of times. > > You can read more about the project and its goals here: > https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b ( > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background ) > > and on the accompanying discussion group here: > https://groups.yahoo.com/groups/R1b-YDNA > > I've got a help tool, a spreadsheet, that can help evaluate testing > options leveraging 67 (or 111) STR haplotypes of folks that have done > advanced SNP testing. You can see example screenshots here in this brief > .pdf file. > http://tinyurl.com/R1b-Haplotypes-Help > > Essentially, this is like having the Y Classic, Y Colorized and Y SNP > project pages all combined into one, with the ability to select subgroups > of your own criteria on the fly. > > Genetic Distances, Variances, Modes, Means, etc. are calculated for any > selected group. > > Please invite any R1b predicted people in your projects to the R1b > project. They should stay in their current projects. This is just to help > them further define their more youthful haplogroups. > > Eligible testers are those that are > 1) R1b confirmed or predicted haplogroup from FTDNA, > 2) at 67 STRs or willing to upgrade (111 STRs is preferable), and > 3) that join the R1b project. > > Regards, > Mike W > >

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/1000-genomes-project-wraps-up-at-2-504/81251813/ "Offering a glimpse of the bright gleam of victory, the 1000 Genomes Project Consortium has announced that it has accomplished its goal, the creation of a comprehensive catalog of human genomic variation. When it first mustered an international team of scientists back in 2008, the project planned to build a reference dataset that would show how rare genomic variants were distributed among populations around the world—or at least within a microcosm of 1000 individuals. Now, seven years later, the project has reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations across Africa, East and South Asia, Europe, and the Americas. The culmination of the project was described in a pair of papers that appeared September 30 in Nature, along with an editorial that carried a Churchillian title, “Human genomics: The end of the start for population sequencing.” Presumably, the beginning of the end of population sequencing would see researchers and clinicians leveraging genomic variant information to develop improved diagnostics and treatments, in addition to new methods of prevention." Continued at link above. -- Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/ Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

Tim Reread the data - you are correct - there are 2 chromosomes involved here. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 4, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Tim > > If the overlap is that large, I agree with you. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Oct 4, 2015, at 5:36 PM, Tim Janzen via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Jim, >> The length of the segment where John and Jane match with Mardon but don't >> match with Sara is at least 18 cMs and this segment contains at least 1300 >> SNPs. Partial overlap should not be a factor here. It is very highly >> probable that Jane and John are matching Mardon on one chromosome and that >> Sara is matching Mardon on the opposite chromosome. Additional >> triangulation with other people would be fine, but it won't change the fact >> that the genetic data strongly suggests that Jane and John are matching >> Mardon on one chromosome and that Sara is matching Mardon on the opposite >> chromosome. >> Sincerely, >> Tim Janzen >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett via >> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:27 PM >> To: Mardon; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation for Eliminating Part of a Tree? >> >> The partial overlap is only 5Mbp. So that may be the reason for the >> non-match. You should determine TGs with John & Jane and with Sara. And/or >> upload to GEDmatch where you can compare Sara to others with a smaller >> threshold. >> >> Otherwise you could make the assumption you did, and be ready to change it, >> if warranted. >> >> Jim - www.segmentology.org >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Tim If the overlap is that large, I agree with you. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 4, 2015, at 5:36 PM, Tim Janzen via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Dear Jim, > The length of the segment where John and Jane match with Mardon but don't > match with Sara is at least 18 cMs and this segment contains at least 1300 > SNPs. Partial overlap should not be a factor here. It is very highly > probable that Jane and John are matching Mardon on one chromosome and that > Sara is matching Mardon on the opposite chromosome. Additional > triangulation with other people would be fine, but it won't change the fact > that the genetic data strongly suggests that Jane and John are matching > Mardon on one chromosome and that Sara is matching Mardon on the opposite > chromosome. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett via > Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:27 PM > To: Mardon; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation for Eliminating Part of a Tree? > > The partial overlap is only 5Mbp. So that may be the reason for the > non-match. You should determine TGs with John & Jane and with Sara. And/or > upload to GEDmatch where you can compare Sara to others with a smaller > threshold. > > Otherwise you could make the assumption you did, and be ready to change it, > if warranted. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Maybe there is a cheaper way? http://phys.org/news/2015-09-ancestral-background-fingerprints.html#nRlv Kevin Brewer

I have a segment on chromosome pair 17 where I triangulate with genetic cousins 'John' and 'Jane'. I also share a portion of the same segment with my known half first cousin, 'Sara'. Sara and I share the same patrilineal grandfather but not grandmothers. Neither John nor Jane share any DNA with Sara. Can I eliminate my patrilineal grandfather and his ancestors as the potential source of my shared ancestry with John and Jane? Here's the 23andMe results: Jane / Me 17 71,000,000-77,000,000 18.6cM 1,527 SNPs John / Me 17 72,000,000-77,000,000 21.6cM 1,324 SNPs Jane / John 17 72,000,000-81,000,000 21.6cM 1,854 SNPs Sara / Me 17 64,000,000-77,000,000 32.1cM 3,263 SNPs Sara / John None Sara /Jane None

Thanks for the reminder Kathy. I've put in for several Presentations, including a new one just on Segment-ology - it sure should be lively, and fun. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:14 PM, KATHRYN JOHNSTON via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I understand that the Southern California Genealogical Society is still accepting submissions from speakers through October 7 for the next conference June 2 - 5, 2016. See the Call for Presentations. > > I know many of you are good speakers so you are welcome to apply. Thursday, June 2 is the all-day DNA conference. The SCGS Jamboree takes place from June 3 to June 5 which generally includes a few DNA talks among many genealogy lectures. I am told there will be Friday DNA workshops on June 3. Exhibits and DNA test companies are expected to be present all weekend. Individual help is often available at one of the DNA booths if we have enough volunteers throughout the weekend. > > http://genealogyjamboree.com/ > > http://2016callforpresentations.surveyconsole.com/console/ShortURL > > Kathy J. > > ------------------------------- > 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

The partial overlap is only 5Mbp. So that may be the reason for the non-match. You should determine TGs with John & Jane and with Sara. And/or upload to GEDmatch where you can compare Sara to others with a smaller threshold. Otherwise you could make the assumption you did, and be ready to change it, if warranted. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 4, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Mardon via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I have a segment on chromosome pair 17 where I triangulate with genetic > cousins 'John' and 'Jane'. I also share a portion of the same segment with > my known half first cousin, 'Sara'. Sara and I share the same patrilineal > grandfather but not grandmothers. Neither John nor Jane share any DNA with > Sara. Can I eliminate my patrilineal grandfather and his ancestors as the > potential source of my shared ancestry with John and Jane? > > Here's the 23andMe results: > > Jane / Me 17 71,000,000-77,000,000 18.6cM 1,527 SNPs > John / Me 17 72,000,000-77,000,000 21.6cM 1,324 SNPs > Jane / John 17 72,000,000-81,000,000 21.6cM 1,854 SNPs > Sara / Me 17 64,000,000-77,000,000 32.1cM 3,263 SNPs > Sara / John None > Sara /Jane None > >

Dear Jim, The length of the segment where John and Jane match with Mardon but don't match with Sara is at least 18 cMs and this segment contains at least 1300 SNPs. Partial overlap should not be a factor here. It is very highly probable that Jane and John are matching Mardon on one chromosome and that Sara is matching Mardon on the opposite chromosome. Additional triangulation with other people would be fine, but it won't change the fact that the genetic data strongly suggests that Jane and John are matching Mardon on one chromosome and that Sara is matching Mardon on the opposite chromosome. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Bartlett via Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:27 PM To: Mardon; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation for Eliminating Part of a Tree? The partial overlap is only 5Mbp. So that may be the reason for the non-match. You should determine TGs with John & Jane and with Sara. And/or upload to GEDmatch where you can compare Sara to others with a smaller threshold. Otherwise you could make the assumption you did, and be ready to change it, if warranted. Jim - www.segmentology.org

Dear Mardon, The HIRs are all relatively long and all contain a fairly large number of SNPs. It is therefore reasonable to assume that they are IBD. Based on the information you presented you should map the segment you share with John and Jane to your mother and you should look for shared ancestors with them in your mother's family tree. Map the segment you share with Sara to your paternal grandfather. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mardon via Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 12:15 PM To: GENEALOGY-DNA-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Triangulation for Eliminating Part of a Tree? I have a segment on chromosome pair 17 where I triangulate with genetic cousins 'John' and 'Jane'. I also share a portion of the same segment with my known half first cousin, 'Sara'. Sara and I share the same patrilineal grandfather but not grandmothers. Neither John nor Jane share any DNA with Sara. Can I eliminate my patrilineal grandfather and his ancestors as the potential source of my shared ancestry with John and Jane? Here's the 23andMe results: Jane / Me 17 71,000,000-77,000,000 18.6cM 1,527 SNPs John / Me 17 72,000,000-77,000,000 21.6cM 1,324 SNPs Jane / John 17 72,000,000-81,000,000 21.6cM 1,854 SNPs Sara / Me 17 64,000,000-77,000,000 32.1cM 3,263 SNPs Sara / John None Sara /Jane None