I'm in the process of doing some detailed comparisons of the SNP sets. It's just not the sheer number of SNPs that counts, but how informative they are for most customers. For instance, 421 of the v4 SNPs have fewer than 10 instances in the GenBank database of 37,545 records, while only 25 v5 SNPs are in that category. Hopefully some of those "wasted" SNPs were replaced with more informative SNPs. Of course, someone with a rare SNP would love to know about it, but chip-based testing is no substitute for full mitochondrial sequencing. Ann Turner On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Ian Logan <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric > > Whilst we are talking about the new V5 - may I just mention the mtDNA SNPs. > > Unfortunately, it would seem V5 is not as good as V4 for mtDNA analysis; > and 23andMe are currently only reporting on 14.7% of mtDNA bases > (whereas the V4 chip results very usefully reported on 19.7%) > > And to make things worse, there appears to be around an 8.3% 'no call' > level; > which knocks the coverage back even further. > > Overall, 23andMe appear to have missed the opportunity to improve their > mtDNA reporting - and in fact seem to have gone backwards. > > I hope future analysis of the Autosomal results do not prove to disappoint > also. > > Ian > --------------------- >