Bernie, The reason that the Geno 2.0 chip didn't work is that the PF3514 mutation is A to C, not A to G. The good news is that, according to Full Genomes, I am PF3514=C+. So we have a new SNP for L161-Isles. John O'Grady > > I think Geno 2.0 has recalibrated/fixed PF3514 recently. I have multiple > PF3514=A,A in I-P37.2 since November, before that they were almost all A G. > > Bernie

John, I wouldn't call PF3514=C a new SNP. I am I1-Z138 and also have C. In fact, the ISOGG Y browser says this SNP is at the IJ level in the Y tree so probably all I and J people should have it. The problem seems to be that the original reference for PF3514 showed A to G instead of A to C. All of the next-generation-sequencing results that I have seen for I1 and !2 people show C. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:21 PM, John O'Grady <[email protected]>wrote: > Bernie, > The reason that the Geno 2.0 chip didn't work is that the PF3514 mutation > is A to C, not A to G. The good news is that, according to Full Genomes, I > am PF3514=C+. So we have a new SNP for L161-Isles. > John O'Grady > >

Thanks, Obed. John O'Grady > > John, I wouldn't call PF3514=C a new SNP. I am I1-Z138 and also have C. In > fact, the ISOGG Y browser says this SNP is at the IJ level in the Y tree so > probably all I and J people should have it. The problem seems to be that > the original reference for PF3514 showed A to G instead of A to C. All of > the next-generation-sequencing results that I have seen for I1 and !2 > people show C. > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:21 PM, John O'Grady <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Bernie, >> The reason that the Geno 2.0 chip didn't work is that the PF3514 mutation >> is A to C, not A to G. The good news is that, according to Full Genomes, I >> am PF3514=C+. So we have a new SNP for L161-Isles. >> John O'Grady