Well, at least we now have precise data on Fullgenomes sequencing and I hope FTDNA will provide (by themselves) the similar information.   Didier > > Unless I missed it, Full Genomes makes no comparison of costs in their > paper. Apparently, FGC charges considerable more for their test than FTDNA > charges for the Big Y test, something like twice as much! > > Wil > > *********************************** > > Yes, more than twice as much for those who ordered Big-Y during the introductory period. And value isn't determined by coverage alone--FTDNA may provide better tools for interpreting results and an easy-to-use matching system. At least that is what I would expect/hope to see. > > After I posted the link, Thomas Krahn mentioned another factor which could change the analysis. > > Lindsey > > > > Just for the record, I was not involved in that paper from FGC, but > after reading it I have the impression that the analysis was done > accurately according to the few information we have about BigY. This may > change if FTDNA decides to run the BigY on the MiSeq machine without > barcoding. The first results reported at the FTDNA conference were based > on MiSeq runs without barcoding (one sample per run). The datasets that > were found on a public FTP server were from a HiSeq instrument with > barcoding where 9 and 12 samples were run simultaneously. > > Thomas > > > Lindsey > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >