PDA

View Full Version : R-L21 Plus Project News



rms2
12-29-2013, 05:44 PM
Hi. I am the group Administrator for Family Tree DNA's R-L21 Plus Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21/default.aspx). I thought I would start this thread to post project news and updates. The R-L21 Plus Project is separate from the Yahoo group called the R1b-L21 Project, although many of the same people are involved in both.

If you are an FTDNA customer with at least 12 y-dna STR markers and an L21+ (S145+, M529+, etc.) result from some reputable dna testing company, or a positive result for one of the SNPs downstream of L21, then you should join the R-L21 Plus Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21/default.aspx).

What is on my mind this morning is the current member subgrouping on our Y-DNA Results pages. The R-L21 Plus Project is a large y-dna project, with over 2700 members. Originally, in the early days of the project, members were grouped geographically, according to the country in which each member's y-dna mdka (most distant known ancestor) was born. That was a fairly easy-to-maintain scheme. Later, we went to grouping according to terminal SNP. That was fairly simple at first, but with the advent of Geno 2.0 and then Chromo2, the L21 tree has put forth a lot of new branchlets, most of them off the old branches and subbranches. That's great, but it makes managing the member subgrouping categories a chore. Now along comes Full Genome and Big Y testing and the forecast of what some have characterized as a veritable tsunami of new L21+ SNPs. That promises to render member subgrouping by terminal SNP - the current system - a nightmare of byzantine complexity.

I am thinking of avoiding this problem by reducing the number of member subgrouping categories to DF63 and the branches immediately below DF13 and including categories for those who have tested L21+ or DF13+ but who have not yet tested positive for anything further downstream. All downstream subgroups would be subsumed in the immediate branch from which they stem. For example, all the members currently in the DF49, DF23, Z2961, M222, DF85, and DF97 categories would be grouped together in the much larger, catch-all DF49 category.

This would reduce the project categories to the following:

L21 (Need further SNP testing)
DF13 (Need further SNP testing)
DF63
CTS2457
CTS4466
DF21
DF41
DF49
FGC5496
L96
L144
L371
L513
L679
L1335
Z251
Z253
Z255

As you can see, those are still plenty of categories, and there may be more to add, as new results come in. Some of the current categories may themselves eventually be subsumed under larger categories beneath DF13.

Many if not all of the subgroups have their own separate projects. Those projects are the proper places for fine subgroup and sub-sub-group, etc., resolution and categorization.

I have not done this yet. For one thing, even reducing and simplifying things takes a lot of work in a project as large as the R-L21 Plus Project. I hope you all will bear with me and stick with the project.

Your input is appreciated.

MJost
12-29-2013, 06:41 PM
Yes, can see your points. With DF63 and 15 different DF13 subclades, the L21 project could now be considered a large umbrella project like the R1b Haplogroup (M343) and Subclades Y DNA project to help funnel people to their major down stream subclades. I feel this project is still very valid and will maintain a solid source of Haplotypes for origin and dispersal research assisting the possible determining points of origin for L21 and its various subclades. With informed people like yourself and others, this project is an island in a sea of SNP information, with enough high ground to withstand the "tsunami" effects.

Good Job.

MJost

seferhabahir
12-29-2013, 07:06 PM
Might finally be time for me to start up the Jewish Z251 Project (which I had previously considered doing as a Jewish DF13 Project, and before that considered doing as a Jewish L21 Project). At present, there is not an R-Z251 sub-project off-shoot from R-L21 Plus, probably because all the Irwin R-L555 have their own Clan Irwin Surname Study Project, and most of the 11EE people probably do not care about such things, except for the ones that were receptive to testing L583. I've noticed as more and more new SNPs get identified under L21, the old "Baltic Cluster" group has been less and less interesting to most folks except for me and my L583 buds. Am trying to figure out how in the world I will ever get anyone to consider testing the new SNPs that show up for me from Full Genomes, one of which will undoubtedly be the long-sought Baltic Cluster SNP.

George Chandler
12-29-2013, 07:50 PM
Hi Richard,

Glad to see you posting here again. The L21+ Group at FTNDA has been really helpful in terms of looking for patterns and hunting for unique mutations. Hopefully everyone testing positive for L21 will continue to join.

George

Dave-V
12-29-2013, 08:12 PM
Richard - I don't disagree with the direction since the growing demands will only increase with new SNPs and (hopefully) more people tested. But I don't know how all the sub-sub-groups could ever get anywhere near the quality support we all enjoy today from yourself, Mike Walsh, and all the other volunteer experts.

Are there consistent approaches or tools that make sense to suggest for the sub-groups, in a way that helps keep consistent support up and down the groups on the SNP tree, and would allow the sub-groups to continue to share in the common expertise? One example is that perhaps if Mike Walsh's Excel file becomes unmanageable, it could be split up or perhaps have different sections assigned to the subgroups, so that everyone still shares the benefits with Mike acting as advisor. I'm not suggesting that that one example is the right approach, I'm just suggesting that that kind of coordination would benefit us all.

Dave

rms2
12-29-2013, 08:19 PM
I may leave things the way they are and hope that FTDNA upgrades the GAP (Group Admin Page) so that major branch headings could be created with subgroups under them. Another thing that would be helpful is for a new R tree to come online so that member terminal SNPs appear on the Y-DNA Results pages in some form like "R-This" or "R1b-That" (the shorthand). That would make it quick and easy to sort members and assign them to categories based on terminal SNPs.

With the impending explosion of new SNPs, however, I think it may be awhile before FTDNA updates its R tree. Can't say as I blame them for holding off.

jdean
12-29-2013, 10:11 PM
I may leave things the way they are and hope that FTDNA upgrades the GAP (Group Admin Page) so that major branch headings could be created with subgroups under them. Another thing that would be helpful is for a new R tree to come online so that member terminal SNPs appear on the Y-DNA Results pages in some form like "R-This" or "R1b-That" (the shorthand). That would make it quick and easy to sort members and assign them to categories based on terminal SNPs.

With the impending explosion of new SNPs, however, I think it may be awhile before FTDNA updates its R tree. Can't say as I blame them for holding off.

Being able to create sub-groups wouldn't just be an idea for haplogroup and geographic projects but also surname projects, I think petitioning FTDNA for this would be good !!

Mikewww
12-30-2013, 10:50 PM
I just did a count of the higher/earlier level subclade branching with the L21+ confirmed folks. This goes beyond the L21 project to any project I can find someone.

10 - true L21* (DF13- DF63-)

66 - DF63

3261 - DF13 (but DF13 is split among the following)

315 - DF1/L513

302 - DF21

104 - DF41

1226 - DF49 (but it split among the two immediately below)
90 - DF49xM222
1136 - M222

157 - L1335

35 - Z251

390 - Z253

213 - Z255

84 - CTS4466

53 - CTS1571 (& L144)

27 - L371

6 - CTS3386

5 - CTS2457.2

Celtarion
12-31-2013, 12:45 AM
I was wondering, with the increase of potential new SNPs under L21, new customers, new testing coming... and as you have stated, the workload may become more and more difficult as L21 is a massive project, I'm suggesting 2 things here.

1. Either you keep the L21 project as is and the admins of the project will maintain the project as it is including sub grouping and sub sub grouping etc.., new members, new sub groups... but in this case, I would suggest to add some co-admins to help to maintain the project by splitting the groups among them. High level of datas may increase the workload and why not getting ISOGG involved at some stage.

2. Or as you have stated, reducing the number of member subgrouping categories (we would loose the clarity of the information), but it would imply that among the existing SNPs that there is a distinct project created apart of L21 project like Z253, L1335 (make sure that there is a distinct project for each of them)... and a new project be created for new SNPs but validated by some Project Admins if it is under L21 and why not getting ISOGG involved at some stage.

By involving ISOGG, I don't mean that you guys and and other admins are not doing a great work, you have done so much and this is where my learning is coming from, and I'm glad to see you there, however, I was thinking more from a support and data perspective.

What would be interesting is to know what further development FTDNA has planned with GAP and the new phylogenetic tree is still not updated, it would help to make further decision. Simplifying the L21 project will reduce the workload, but will reduce also the visibility of the information of sub sub grouping but in the meantime, it's doubling the work with the separated project who can provide deeper insight.

Joss.

MacUalraig
12-31-2013, 09:58 AM
It shouldn't be a matter for those running the L21 project to oversee who does what lower down though, IMHO. Especially not with M222 which was around a long time before L21 came along and has been highly active ever since.

marosjor
12-31-2013, 12:14 PM
I have been reading this thread with interest as we in the Ireland yDNA Project have over 5,500 members from many different clades although the vast majority fall into L21>DF13+. Up to now we have tried to keep up with all the newly discovered SNPs and we classify people by their terminal SNP (based on ISOGG). With the impending tsunami of SNPs, this task may become too much for us as well! It would help if FTDNA updated its y-haplotree so that people could be identified quickly by the SNPs which have been accepted for a long time. Will this update ever happen?

Surely many big projects are facing this problem? FTDNA has to take some action to (i) update the way it classifies people's y-haplogroup and (ii) provide tools for admins.

Regards,
Margaret Jordan
Ireland yDNA/O'Shea yDNA Projects

Mikewww
12-31-2013, 07:10 PM
It shouldn't be a matter for those running the L21 project to oversee who does what lower down though, IMHO. Especially not with M222 which was around a long time before L21 came along and has been highly active ever since.

I generally agree with you on that. For instance, a particular advanced marker (i.e. 464x=2c2g) or slow moving STR marker (i.e. 490=10 or 435=null) may be especially important.

However, I'll add that I think there should be some general consistencies across haplogroup projects so individuals no what to expect when joining a haplogroup project. Surname and geographic projects are horses of a different color, though.

Also, integration or sharing of data between subclades is important, particularly in the future with all of the SNPs. When we need to quickly do comparisons across subclades to see which SNPs are shared and at what levels in the tree they are shared.

Mikewww
12-31-2013, 07:20 PM
I have been reading this thread with interest as we in the Ireland yDNA Project have over 5,500 members from many different clades although the vast majority fall into L21>DF13+. Up to now we have tried to keep up with all the newly discovered SNPs and we classify people by their terminal SNP (based on ISOGG). With the impending tsunami of SNPs, this task may become too much for us as well! It would help if FTDNA updated its y-haplotree so that people could be identified quickly by the SNPs which have been accepted for a long time. Will this update ever happen?

Surely many big projects are facing this problem? FTDNA has to take some action to (i) update the way it classifies people's y-haplogroup and (ii) provide tools for admins.

Regards,
Margaret Jordan
Ireland yDNA/O'Shea yDNA Projects

First of all, let me compliment you on how you and your team run the Irish Y DNA project. You do a great job of separating people out, including what "unknown's" they have.

I've long said that FTDNA needs to enhance the functionality of their project systems. Haplogroup projects need a nesting capability where membership in a high level haplogroup automatically inserts you in any appropriate lower level haplogroups and vice versa. This allows the lower level haplogroup projects (the "sub of" projects) to raise money and be creative and very detailed in their subgroupings while letting people at higher levels or those who haven't tested deeply do analysis and make decisions on SNP testing.

I think this has already been brought up, but enhancements to the GAP tool project subgrouping management is needed to do searches for combinations of SNP results across all subgroups within the project. Right now it only works for one subgrouping at a time which tends push one for creating temporary "pending" subgroups and making us spend more time tracking orders/results.

As far as work-arounds ago, I tried this general concept by making the R1b project a "gateway" project that can automatically join people to sub projects with a blanket approval by the nature and documentation of the project, which FTDNA blessed.

Another type of work around is what the U106 guys are doing. They have a monolithic project, save L1 and U198. Their work around is just having a large project administrator team where each has specific roles. From the outside, they seem to team very effectively.

rms2
12-31-2013, 07:49 PM
Honestly, I don't want to go to the team model with different admins in charge of different groups within the R-L21 Plus Project. I just see that as asking for trouble.

Mikewww
12-31-2013, 07:57 PM
Honestly, I don't want to go to the team model with different admins in charge of different groups within the R-L21 Plus Project. I just see that as asking for trouble.

I'm not recommending it, but it does work for the U106 people, at least from the outside looking in.

On a couple of other projects I'm on, sometimes it doesn't work or causes more time getting approvals, etc. between administrators. Not my favorite thing to do... extra time on administrative stuff.

MMulcahy
01-02-2014, 06:19 PM
I'm awaiting confirmation of CTS4466-Geno 2 ordered before anouncement of Big Y- So I have two tests to share this winter-I'm most excited for the explosion!! I'm sure with all your experience you will find a smooth way to accomodate all the new knowledge that is on its way!!

jdean
01-02-2014, 06:37 PM
First of all, let me compliment you on how you and your team run the Irish Y DNA project. You do a great job of separating people out, including what "unknown's" they have.

I've long said that FTDNA needs to enhance the functionality of their project systems. Haplogroup projects need a nesting capability where membership in a high level haplogroup automatically inserts you in any appropriate lower level haplogroups and vice versa. This allows the lower level haplogroup projects (the "sub of" projects) to raise money and be creative and very detailed in their subgroupings while letting people at higher levels or those who haven't tested deeply do analysis and make decisions on SNP testing.

I think this has already been brought up, but enhancements to the GAP tool project subgrouping management is needed to do searches for combinations of SNP results across all subgroups within the project. Right now it only works for one subgrouping at a time which tends push one for creating temporary "pending" subgroups and making us spend more time tracking orders/results.

As far as work-arounds ago, I tried this general concept by making the R1b project a "gateway" project that can automatically join people to sub projects with a blanket approval by the nature and documentation of the project, which FTDNA blessed.

Another type of work around is what the U106 guys are doing. They have a monolithic project, save L1 and U198. Their work around is just having a large project administrator team where each has specific roles. From the outside, they seem to team very effectively.

Don't forget Z18

rms2
01-20-2014, 01:53 PM
Recently we've had a rash of people joining the R-L21 Plus Project without even the faintest glimmer of an L21+ result. Apparently, surname project admins are telling them they are probably L21+, so they join the project. Please, if you think someone is maybe L21+, recommend they test for it before joining the R-L21 Plus Project.

Thanks!

Mikewww
01-20-2014, 02:08 PM
Recently we've had a rash of people joining the R-L21 Plus Project without even the faintest glimmer of an L21+ result. Apparently, surname project admins are telling them they are probably L21+, so they join the project. Please, if you think someone is maybe L21+, recommend they test for it before joining the R-L21 Plus Project.
Thanks!

RMS2, you know this, but just so everyone else does, I'm a primary administrator on the R1b project. This is a large and old project originally started by Charles Kerchner. It sat around for some time without much maintenance. No wonder, it is so large and to do detailed haplogroup assignments across the board for R1b would be a full time job, literally. That's why I went to FTDNA and asked for permission to automatically join people in that project to subclade projects, like L21, U106, L1, U198, U152, P312, DF27. I don't try to go to deeper levels than that.

However, I only* do that based on SNP testing, so any new L21 people would be from L21+ or downstream SNP positive testing.

The U106 project goes a little bit stricter as far as SNP testing. You have to apply to join and the administrators will confirm your testing before you get in. I've never been restrictive like that in any of my projects but I always wonder if that is not the right way to go.

* Since DF27 is large but had a late start (and it isn't in Geno 2), I have looked for special STR signatures, i.e. NS cluster, SRY2627 490=10, Rox2, to add to the "holding" subgroupings of the DF27 project with specific testing recommendations.

rms2
01-20-2014, 02:37 PM
RMS2, you know this, but just so everyone else does, I'm a primary administrator on the R1b project. This is a large and old project originally started by Charles Kerchner. It sat around for some time without much maintenance. No wonder, it is so large and to do detailed haplogroup assignments across the board for R1b would be a full time job, literally. That's why I went to FTDNA and asked for permission to automatically join people in that project to subclade projects, like L21, U106, L1, U198, U152, P312, DF27. I don't try to go to deeper levels than that.

However, I only* do that based on SNP testing, so any new L21 people would be from L21+ or downstream SNP positive testing.

The U106 project goes a little bit stricter as far as SNP testing. You have to apply to join and the administrators will confirm your testing before you get in. I've never been restrictive like that in any of my projects but I always wonder if that is not the right way to go.

* Since DF27 is large but had a late start (and it isn't in Geno 2), I have looked for special STR signatures, i.e. NS cluster, SRY2627 490=10, Rox2, to add to the "holding" subgroupings of the DF27 project with specific testing recommendations.

I'm like you, Mike. I let anyone join, but I do remove people from the project who are obviously L21-. I won't put anyone into an L21+ category unless they have an L21+ result or a positive result for one of the L21+ subclades or a very close match with someone with the same surname or a close variant who has already tested positive for L21 or one of the L21+ subclades. I do accept L21+ and subclades results from 23andMe and BritainsDNA (aka ScotlandsDNA, IrelandsDNA, etc.), as well as FTDNA results.

People who could possibly be L21+ but who join without an L21+, etc., result I shove off into the "Need L21 Testing" category, which is kind of like "The Island of Misfit Toys" in the old Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer animated Christmas classic. Some folks have been in there for years and never seem to order any kind of SNP test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SH1j1luFOw

Mikewww
01-24-2014, 04:31 PM
Another type of work around is what the U106 guys are doing. They have a monolithic project, save L1 and U198. Their work around is just having a large project administrator team where each has specific roles. From the outside, they seem to team very effectively.

Don't forget Z18

Sorry. I didn't intend to omit Z18 from lack of significance or that they don't have another project.

I only specifically mentioned L1 and U198 because they have special status in some kind of agreement. From the R1b project, I can join anyone who is U106 of any kind into the U106 project but I can't for L1 and U198. They have to be excluded from the U106 project. I'm not sure why, other than pre-existing conditions.

jdean
01-24-2014, 05:12 PM
Sorry. I didn't intend to omit Z18 from lack of significance or that they don't have another project.

I only specifically mentioned L1 and U198 because they have special status in some kind of agreement. From the R1b project, I can join anyone who is U106 of any kind into the U106 project but I can't for L1 and U198. They have to be excluded from the U106 project. I'm not sure why, other than pre-existing conditions.

Yes the whole situation's rather odd, as was the fuss kicked up when the Z18 project was created : )

rms2
02-23-2014, 05:47 PM
I wish people would quit joining the R-L21 Plus Project or joining others to the R-L21 Plus Project without an L21+ result or a positive result for one of the downstream SNPs.

It seems to me the project's Background page is pretty explicit on that subject.

And if you are joining based on an L21+ result from 23andMe, BritainsDNA or some other company, send me an email and let me know. Don't make me write and ask you, please.

Sorry: pet peeve.

GoldenHind
02-23-2014, 06:35 PM
Recently we've had a rash of people joining the R-L21 Plus Project without even the faintest glimmer of an L21+ result. Apparently, surname project admins are telling them they are probably L21+, so they join the project. Please, if you think someone is maybe L21+, recommend they test for it before joining the R-L21 Plus Project.

Thanks!

I was contacted recently by someone in the P312 project asking for advice. He had been told by the administrator of one of the projects that he is in that he was highly likely to be M222. When I looked at his markers, he had all the indicators for the North-South variety, which is of course a subclade of DF27. He now has Z220 on order. Fortunately he contacted me for advice before beginning what would probably have been a waste of money if he had begun with M222.

I don't know how we remedy bad SNP testing advice by ill informed project administrators.

rms2
02-26-2014, 08:02 PM
I just changed the name of what was the R-L21 Plus Project to the R L21 and Subclades Project at the request of Mike Walsh to make it easier to find in the list of R haplogroup projects. Dropping the dash or hyphen bumped the project name up the list. I wrote FTDNA a couple of years ago or more asking to change the name to R-L21 and Subclades, but at that time there was some reason why a name change had to wait (I don't recall why), so I just gave up on it for that time and eventually forgot about it. "R-L21 Plus" was the original name of the project and was already in place when I became its group admin.

I have not yet had the chance to change the name on the pages of the public web site. I'll try to do that later today.

Mikewww
03-08-2014, 04:45 AM
I just changed the name of what was the R-L21 Plus Project to the R L21 and Subclades Project at the request of Mike Walsh to make it easier to find in the list of R haplogroup projects. Dropping the dash or hyphen bumped the project name up the list. I wrote FTDNA a couple of years ago or more asking to change the name to R-L21 and Subclades, but at that time there was some reason why a name change had to wait (I don't recall why), so I just gave up on it for that time and eventually forgot about it. "R-L21 Plus" was the original name of the project and was already in place when I became its group admin.

I have not yet had the chance to change the name on the pages of the public web site. I'll try to do that later today.

Thanks, Richard. People don't realize what a massive job it is to keep up with the new members and subgroupings on a mammoth project like L21. You are the speediest project admin I know. I feel bad when I think of how far behind I am in some situations.

rms2
03-08-2014, 01:24 PM
I am a little worried about the Big Y results and the impending flood of new SNPs and subclades. Thus far, however, it seems that most of the Big Y stuff comes from guys who already have positive results for SNPs downstream of DF13. No adjustment to their terminal SNP status or categories is necessary or even possible since no one yet knows what the new data mean.

Mikewww
03-08-2014, 01:36 PM
I am a little worried about the Big Y results and the impending flood of new SNPs and subclades. Thus far, however, it seems that most of the Big Y stuff comes from guys who already have positive results for SNPs downstream of DF13. No adjustment to their terminal SNP status or categories is necessary or even possible since no one yet knows what the new data mean.

I am worried too but there is no doubt there will be a raft of terminal SNP adjustments to come. We just don't have enough results in yet to do full comparisons. I didn't hear this directly, but I was told that Greenspan said they'd (including National Geno) would be updating the haplotree in 2-3 weeks. I don't know as we've seen this deferred forever. In any case we'll have a whole set of SNPs that they can't know about today.

Heber
03-08-2014, 06:55 PM
I am worried too but there is no doubt there will be a raft of terminal SNP adjustments to come. We just don't have enough results in yet to do full comparisons. I didn't hear this directly, but I was told that Greenspan said they'd (including National Geno) would be updating the haplotree in 2-3 weeks. I don't know as we've seen this deferred forever. In any case we'll have a whole set of SNPs that they can't know about today.

Mike,

There was a slide devoted to this topic on the FTDNA Big Y Webinar. Elise said the new tree would be published very soon and it had the full support of Bennett Greenspan. I asked this question during the webinar and I also asked Bennett during WDYTYA and got a similar response. Debbie posted about it on her blog. I hope we don't have to wait until the DNA in Forensics conference in Brussels where CTS usually reveals a new tree and we are left waiting for a publication date.

"BIG Y data is currently being released using the now very out-of-date and somewhat irrelevant 2010 Y-tree. Bennett Greenspan, the Chief Executive Officer of Family Tree DNA, advised in the webinar that they have had teams of people working on the new tree in collaboration with the Genographic Project. The new tree will be fully integrated with Geno 2.0. The tree needs to be ready from both the technical point of view and the graphical interface, and it seems that it is the latter which is proving more problematic. The tree is not dependent on the release of a scientific paper. Bennett advised that it might be ready in the “next several weeks”. When the new tree is finally launched, SNPs from the BIG Y will be automatically mapped on the new tree."

http://cruwys.blogspot.nl/2014/03/the-big-y-roll-out-snp-tsunami-is-on.html

rms2
04-26-2014, 06:41 PM
Apparently with the advent of FTDNA's new tree, they are making many more official predictions of R-L21 than they did in the past. As a consequence, people are joining the R L21 and Subclades Project based on a prediction of R-L21 rather than on an L21+ test result.

At first I was a little taken aback by this, but then it occurred to me that this might be a good thing, since it gives me a chance to recruit people for L21 and further testing who have a good chance of success. So, I have created a category for them, "Zza. Predicted L21+ (Need L21 Test Confirmation)", and in my welcome letter I am asking them to test for L21.

evon
04-26-2014, 07:07 PM
rms2,

can you see participants with tests in progress via your project page? as i am wondering if you can see how far back my batch number (548) is in the waiting line..

rms2
04-26-2014, 09:44 PM
rms2,

can you see participants with tests in progress via your project page? as i am wondering if you can see how far back my batch number (548) is in the waiting line..

It's hard to tell. There are some very old batches with people still stuck in them awaiting results (I'm guessing they have not sent back the new kits they were sent), but the most recent batch underway, as far as I can tell, is 567. Apparently you are the only one from the L21 Project still awaiting a result from Batch 548. I would contact FTDNA. The test you have on order should be a quickie, and you are over two months overdue. They may have run out of y-dna and need to send you a fresh kit.

rms2
04-26-2014, 10:52 PM
Apparently with the advent of FTDNA's new tree, they are making many more official predictions of R-L21 than they did in the past. As a consequence, people are joining the R L21 and Subclades Project based on a prediction of R-L21 rather than on an L21+ test result.

At first I was a little taken aback by this, but then it occurred to me that this might be a good thing, since it gives me a chance to recruit people for L21 and further testing who have a good chance of success. So, I have created a category for them, "Zza. Predicted L21+ (Need L21 Test Confirmation)", and in my welcome letter I am asking them to test for L21.

This is working out well. A number of the newbies have ordered L21, and one of them has ordered DF13. B)

rms2
04-30-2014, 12:58 AM
Now that FTDNA has gone to showing the green, SNP-tested, shorthand haplogroup designators on projects' Y-DNA Results pages, I can see I have some tidying up to do in the R L21 and Subclades Project. That won't happen tonight. Perhaps tomorrow!

Yggdrasil
04-30-2014, 01:18 PM
I´m still waiting on my DF13 results. The test was ordered in January and expected march 25. At least all Geno 2.0 negative SNPs are now acknowledged as negative in the new FTDNA tree.

rms2
05-01-2014, 12:54 AM
Okay, I did some housekeeping today, even creating a couple of new categories. Everyone who could be moved into his proper category has been moved into it.

I'm sure more of this type of work is right around the corner, as the Big Y begins to make itself felt.

rms2
05-03-2014, 12:03 PM
Well, there is another problem with the new FTDNA haplotree: a few folks are showing up as L513+ who are NOT L513+. I won't list them all, but I have found it necessary now to double check what FTDNA is showing as a haplogroup designator and make sure the person actually has an L513+ (or whatever) result. As an example, kit 229499, Bertrand, is DF13- DF63+ but is currently showing up as "R-L513". He's not the only one.

L513 seems to be the default choice this morning for errors.

Caramba!

Mikewww
05-09-2014, 08:00 PM
Well, there is another problem with the new FTDNA haplotree: a few folks are showing up as L513+ who are NOT L513+. I won't list them all, but I have found it necessary now to double check what FTDNA is showing as a haplogroup designator and make sure the person actually has an L513+ (or whatever) result. As an example, kit 229499, Bertrand, is DF13- DF63+ but is currently showing up as "R-L513". He's not the only one.

L513 seems to be the default choice this morning for errors.

Caramba!

I don't know how they messed that up. Please be aware that Z249+ is an equivalent to L513. Geno 2 doesn't actually report L513/DF1 but Z249 seems to work nicely as a proxy. In reality, the best proxy seems to be CTS5396. It also equivalent and tested in Big Y. The Illumina equipment and FTDNA process seem to pick it up perfectly.

rms2
06-25-2014, 02:05 PM
In view of the rapidly proliferating branches of the L21 tree, with all the new SNPs coming out of the Big Y, I am really starting to come to the conclusion that having separate categories for every public SNP is becoming impractical and soon will be nearly impossible.

So, I am thinking of cutting the categories back to the main branches off of L21 or of going back to geographic categories. I'll probably go with the former, although even that could be problematic, since not everybody bothers testing the major branches anymore, opting instead for the most informative downstream SNP (a procedure fraught with its own hazards, if one has not at least tested L21+ first).

I don't want to render the L21 Project obsolete, but I also do not have the time to keep up with every little new sub-sub-sub-branchlet off every sub-sub-branchlet of this or that barely populated sub-branchlet.

Comments?

jdean
06-25-2014, 02:22 PM
I agree Rich, that's what the subgroup projects are for and just grouping everybody into the main branches is a job in itself with a project as large as R-L21.

Sealgair
06-25-2014, 08:41 PM
I agree Rich, that's what the subgroup projects are for and just grouping everybody into the main branches is a job in itself with a project as large as R-L21.

Ditto


"I don't want to render the L21 Project obsolete"

I do not think you have to worry about this. The purpose of the L-21 Project should be different then the purpose of the downstream projects. And I think most people will still see the value of the L21 Project.

rms2
06-26-2014, 10:27 AM
Thanks. I will probably make the category changes soon, but even simplifying things by reducing the categories back to the main branches will take some doing.

In some ways I miss the old geographic categories.

rms2
07-08-2014, 06:34 PM
I just finished reducing the categories on the Y-DNA Results pages of the R L21 and Subclades Project to just the major branches of DF63 and DF13, plus an L21* category; an L21+, DF13- (please test for DF63) category; an L21+, DF13-, DF63- category; and the usual catch-all categories on the last page or two.

I did this because Big Y and other NGS testing are growing the L21 tree exponentially and so rapidly that it makes creating and maintaining categories for every little sub-branch and branchlet a full-time job. Greater subclade detail will have to be left to each branch project.

I reckon some folks won't be happy about this, but you can't please everyone all the time. I have to make things manageable for myself. The R L21 and Subclades Project is a very large project.

seferhabahir
07-27-2014, 06:25 PM
I'm at an international genealogy conference in Salt Lake City this week. Bennett Greenspan is here manning the FTDNA booth until Wednesday. Does anyone have any R-L21 related questions you would like me to ask him while I have the chance? Sometimes he is willing to talk publicly about new products in the FTDNA pipeline.

hoxgi
07-28-2014, 11:15 AM
Thanks Gerard, that's a kind offer.

I wonder if Bennett would consider having a spreadshheet of Y-SNP mutations and their corresponding FTDNA names on the FTDNA website, or otherwise available, at least for project admins. I have recently been notified that an SNP I requested has been added to the FTDNA advanced orders menu and named BY1. The trouble is that I have requested several new SNPs at different times since the first Big Y results became available, and no one at FTDNA seems prepared to tell me which one is now called BY1, so I don't know when to recommend that project members test it.

Greg H

jdean
07-28-2014, 11:56 AM
Thanks Gerard, that's a kind offer.

I wonder if Bennett would consider having a spreadshheet of Y-SNP mutations and their corresponding FTDNA names on the FTDNA website, or otherwise available, at least for project admins. I have recently been notified that an SNP I requested has been added to the FTDNA advanced orders menu and named BY1. The trouble is that I have requested several new SNPs at different times since the first Big Y results became available, and no one at FTDNA seems prepared to tell me which one is now called BY1, so I don't know when to recommend that project members test it.

Greg H

All the BY SNPs are on Ybrowser

http://ybrowse.isogg.org/cgi-bin/gb2/gbrowse/chrY?name=ChrY:9000651..9000750

brygian
08-13-2014, 06:51 PM
I just got this e-mail from YSEQ. Might be interesting for R-L21 people.


YSEQ R1b-L21 Super-Clade Orientation Panel (c) YSEQ 2014

R1b-L21 (ISOGG R1b1a2a1a2c) is the largest haplogroup in West-European males and has a star-like distribution. This means that after a narrow bottleneck situation the R1b-L21 population drastically spread very fast over the half continent. The SNP mutations that we find are very recent and it's difficult to predict the correct branch from the STR haplotype. That's why SNP testing is crucial for finding your subclade below L21.

With the YSEQ R1b-L21 Super-Clade Panel we want to provide a cost-efficient tool for researchers to check off all the major known SNPs directly below DF13. When a sample is predicted as R1b-L21 after standard Y-STR testing, this package will immediately identify a derived branch and exclude all relevant others. The researcher can then get in contact with the group administrator / haplogroup specialist of just that specific branch and he can then work out a further testing strategy with the expert.

The R1b-L21 Super-Clade Panel is tested in two stages:

First DF13 and the 7 most frequent occurring markers are tested. These are L1335, DF21, DF49, FGC11134, L513, Z251 and Z253. If a marker downstream of DF13 is found positive, the mission is completed and no further testing is needed.

If all SNPs are negative (including DF13) it is likely that the sample is DF63+ or that the sample isn't L21+ after all. Therefore we'll test L21, DF63 and three downstream SNPs of DF63 (CTS6919, F3901 and Z16245) in the second round.

However in most cases we expect that DF13 will be positive. Then we'll test the following 12 markers in stage two: CTS1751, CTS3386, DF41, FGC5496, L371, MC14, S1026, S1051, S16264, Z16500, Z16502 and Z255. YSEQ will add new markers or modify the panel according to the latest findings when new major branches are discovered. Our main goal is to cover all major branches downstream of L21.

The YSEQ R1b-L21 Super-Clade Orientation Panel is now available for only $149.
http://shop.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=4321
http://shop.yseq.net/images/YSEQ_R1b-L21_Super-Clade_Orientation_Panel.pdf

Also YSEQ is planning to establish a “Reverse R1b-L21 Super-Clade Panel” where we collect a set of volunteer customer samples with one representative for each branch. A customer who finds a new SNP downstream of L21 can order this test and we'll verify his new SNP on his own sample and on the representatives of each branch in this Reverse R1b-L21 Super-Clade Panel. If you want to represent one of those branches (and get free results on new SNPs) please contact us ( info@yseq.net ) with your exact haplogroup information. Only one representative per branch will be accepted and existing YSEQ customers are preferred. This will facilitate the crosschecking of more than a dozen DF13 downstream branches without contacting each haplogroup expert individually.

References:

Mike Walsh: “R1b-L21 Descendant Tree Chart (draft)” (2014)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Tree_Chart.pdf

Alex Williamson: “The Big Tree” (Last Updated August 6, 2014)
http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

Mikewww
08-13-2014, 09:59 PM
Thanks Gerard, that's a kind offer.

I wonder if Bennett would consider having a spreadshheet of Y-SNP mutations and their corresponding FTDNA names on the FTDNA website, or otherwise available, at least for project admins. I have recently been notified that an SNP I requested has been added to the FTDNA advanced orders menu and named BY1. The trouble is that I have requested several new SNPs at different times since the first Big Y results became available, and no one at FTDNA seems prepared to tell me which one is now called BY1, so I don't know when to recommend that project members test it.

Greg H

Right. I can download all of Ybrowse and search for just "BY" SNPs but I wouldn't know which were L21 or not, unless the person entering them marked that. A lot of times that is not well entered in the Ybrowse.

Mikewww
08-13-2014, 10:02 PM
Can you forward me this email to mwwdna @ gmail.com. I guess I'm am cited. That's okay as that is the intent of the draft tree, to help. I need to figure out this "two-step" thing.


I just got this e-mail from YSEQ. Might be interesting for R-L21 people.


References:

Mike Walsh: “R1b-L21 Descendant Tree Chart (draft)” (2014)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Tree_Chart.pdf

Alex Williamson: “The Big Tree” (Last Updated August 6, 2014)
http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

rms2
08-14-2014, 03:07 PM
I wonder about the accuracy of this statement:



. . . R1b-L21 (ISOGG R1b1a2a1a2c) is the largest haplogroup in West-European males . . .


I'm sure L21 is one of the largest y haplogroups among West-Europeans males, but the largest y haplogroup?

rms2
08-24-2014, 12:17 PM
For the past two days I have not been able to get into "Member Subgrouping" at the R L21 and Subclades Project. I keep getting the "Uh-oh, Houston, we have a problem" error message. Thus I am currently unable to place new members.

If you just joined the project, please be patient. I'm not ignoring you.

Mikewww
08-24-2014, 02:47 PM
I wonder about the accuracy of this statement:



I'm sure L21 is one of the largest y haplogroups among West-Europeans males, but the largest y haplogroup?

Yeah, I wondered about that one too. That's from Thomas and/or Astrid Krahn so they should be aware what studies show. L21 may have one of the largest Y haplogroup "projects" but that is based, probably, on the preponderance of Irish, Scottish and British immigrants to the U.S. who are interested in DNA testing.

I wonder if they got mixed up and didn't mean to say "P312" rather than L21. I think some of the academic studies have described M269 (higher up/older even yet) as the largest Y haplogroup in Western Europe with something like 110 million men carrying it.

Mikewww
09-01-2014, 09:46 PM
This is not just in the project but across the project system.

We have crossed over the 600 threshold for L21+ Big Y results in and now pending. This is continuing to grow.

This came up on another forum. I mentioned that I thought the Big Y pricing might plateau for a while. I was speculating just based on the amount of price change we've seen over the last year. However, there may be new news that makes this to be a little less speculative.

I am a strong advocate of the idea that you need two Next Generation Sequencing results (which is what Big Y and FGC Elite are) per surname (with some diversity) per cluster. You also want neighboring clusters tested. The tree shakes out nicely and you end up with SNPs for just your surname and even within surnames.

rms2
02-28-2015, 04:07 PM
Today I converted the R L21 and Subclades Project over to the new "myGroups" format. Not sure how I feel about it. I'm still learning how it works.

We have 3,555 members. That's a lot.

If you all get a new SNP test result that means you should be moved to a different major branch category than the one you're in, shoot me an email and let me know about it. I try to catch all the new SNP results, but some of them are pretty far downstream and pretty arcane, so I might miss your new result. Do me a favor and let me know if you see that I have not moved you where you rightfully belong.

Honestly, I am very seriously thinking about going back to the old geographic categories because the incredible proliferation of SNPs in the last year or two has made it difficult to manage the project.

rms2
02-28-2015, 04:45 PM
Today I converted the R L21 and Subclades Project over to the new "myGroups" format. Not sure how I feel about it. I'm still learning how it works.

We have 3,555 members. That's a lot.

If you all get a new SNP test result that means you should be moved to a different major branch category than the one you're in, shoot me an email and let me know about it. I try to catch all the new SNP results, but some of them are pretty far downstream and pretty arcane, so I might miss your new result. Do me a favor and let me know if you see that I have not moved you where you rightfully belong.

Honestly, I am very seriously thinking about going back to the old geographic categories because the incredible proliferation of SNPs in the last year or two has made it difficult to manage the project.

BTW, YSeq and BritainsDNA Chromo2 results don't show up at FTDNA, so if you want me to know about them, send me an email and let me know. You aren't bothering me. I will be very happy to know about your new results and to move you to the appropriate category.

Please include your kit number and the category you are currently in. That info makes it way easier to find you.

dp
02-28-2015, 05:11 PM
"So, doc, where do you think L21 came from?"

nice engravings, dp :-)

PS: everything looks fine. Seems like you have more space to give information about the clade.

PPS: RE the links. would like to see more that go to places to the major compilations on L-21 Yahoo.
Such as: SNP discovery: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_SNP_Tree_Discovery_V1.pdf
& / or the zipped datafile: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_SNP_Tree_Discovery_V1.zip

rms2
02-28-2015, 10:02 PM
I'm not a big fan of Yahoo.

We have Mike Walsh's R1b-L21 SNP tree on our Background page.

dp
03-04-2015, 06:52 PM
I'm not a big fan of Yahoo.

We have Mike Walsh's R1b-L21 SNP tree on our Background page.

Do all projects get a $10 daily coupon (limit $100)? I've seen notices of such on some projects being placed --as far as I can tell-- under automatic notification. On the menu to the left I don't see "Activity Feed"?
dp :-)

N21163
03-06-2015, 12:31 AM
Have just ordered the Big Y to determine my SNPs down from MC14

rms2
03-06-2015, 03:23 PM
Do all projects get a $10 daily coupon (limit $100)? I've seen notices of such on some projects being placed --as far as I can tell-- under automatic notification. On the menu to the left I don't see "Activity Feed"?
dp :-)

I don't know the answer to your first question, but I'll try to find out. Regarding the activity feed thing: the L21 admins discussed it and none of us has the desire to moderate a potentially huge chat forum, so it's in off mode for now.

rivergirl
03-07-2015, 02:59 AM
Yes all projects recieve the daily coupons.
I tried to use a $20.00 coupon for ordering a single SNP and it was rejected, as I wasnt spending enough money.:(

dp
03-09-2015, 09:46 PM
I don't know the answer to your first question, but I'll try to find out. Regarding the activity feed thing: the L21 admins discussed it and none of us has the desire to moderate a potentially huge chat forum, so it's in off mode for now.

Dear Rich,
I understand. I personally prefer vBulletin's format and have gotten used to BB coding.
dp :-)

dp
03-09-2015, 09:50 PM
Yes all projects recieve the daily coupons.
I tried to use a $20.00 coupon for ordering a single SNP and it was rejected, as I wasnt spending enough money.:(

I too have been Sanger verifying some SNP results from my Big-Y. I'm expecting a ZP69- result to come in this week or so. That's why the coupons would be useful. I can reach the $100 limit pretty easy.
dp :-)

Mikewww
03-09-2015, 10:25 PM
Dear Rich,
I understand. I personally prefer vBulletin's format and have gotten used to BB coding.
dp :-)
We have several forums available. This one of course. There is also an R1b-L21 Facebook. The one where a lot of the data links are stored is the R1b-L21-project yahoo group.

dp
03-10-2015, 09:43 PM
We have several forums available. This one of course. There is also an R1b-L21 Facebook. The one where a lot of the data links are stored is the R1b-L21-project yahoo group.

Once a month I scan Yahoo L21 for your posts that give url's to current spreadsheets, etc., as well as to see what recent DF49 tagged Big-Y's have been uploaded.
Thanks for keeping it going.
dp :-)

rms2
06-03-2015, 11:39 AM
Two things on my mind:

1. People who join the project without any obvious evidence of an L21+ result.

2. Multiple members of the same family (same surname) who then all expect to be moved to a new category because one of them gets a new terminal SNP result.

Regarding #1 above, I don't think I or any of the other admins should have to inquire after a person's L21 status when he joins the project. It should either be plainly listed, as it is when one has tested L21+ (or positive for one of the downstream L21 clades) with FTDNA, or the prospective member should send me an email letting me know what his L21 status is. I also do not want to have to hunt through the prospective member's matches to see if it is likely he is L21+. One's L21 status should be based on an actual test, up or down, cut and dried.

Regarding #2: multiple related entries with the same surname can be a real hassle when it comes to hunting them down and moving them all based on one family member's latest terminal SNP result. Yikes! I'm not sure what to do about this, but something needs to be done. Suggestions are welcome.

Mikewww
06-03-2015, 01:30 PM
Two things on my mind:

1. People who join the project without any obvious evidence of an L21+ result.

2. Multiple members of the same family (same surname) who then all expect to be moved to a new category because one of them gets a new terminal SNP result.

Regarding #1 above, I don't think I or any of the other admins should have to inquire after a person's L21 status when he joins the project. It should either be plainly listed, as it is when one has tested L21+ (or positive for one of the downstream L21 clades) with FTDNA, or the prospective member should send me an email letting me know what his L21 status is. I also do not want to have to hunt through the prospective member's matches to see if it is likely he is L21+. One's L21 status should be based on an actual test, up or down, cut and dried.

Regarding #2: multiple related entries with the same surname can be a real hassle when it comes to hunting them down and moving them all based on one family member's latest terminal SNP result. Yikes! I'm not sure what to do about this, but something needs to be done. Suggestions are welcome.

These kinds of problems become enormous as the groups grow in size, which is actually a great thing. The more people interested and active, the better. However, "yikes!" is the appropriate description.

My way of handling this is somewhat black and white so that I can support the growth efficiently without killing myself and creating more errors because of off-line records and assuming this or that.

The whole point of haplogroup projects is to advance understanding of the haplogroup and encourage testing.

The corollary position is that I try to hold to a strict line - if you want to be in a particular subgrouping, test for it to prove it. The SNP results can be filtered and searched in the GAP tool subgrouping function. That function still needs work (and I long for the the days when the long haplogroup label is there is an addition), but it is sure better that tracking emails and off-line records that facilitate mistakes and administrative workload.

Mikewww
06-03-2015, 03:38 PM
...
1. People who join the project without any obvious evidence of an L21+ result.
....
The U106 project administrators are pretty hard line on this. They make you fill out the pre-approval form before even joining the project. Here is how their project profile leads off...
"U106+ SNP Test Required! PLEASE READ BEFORE SUBMITTING THIS GROUP JOIN REQUEST FORM: Either an individual SNP test confirming that you are U106+ OR BELOW....... "

It's not a bad approach. It helps keep things clean. I don't like the pre-approval step but this there good reason to employ it.

rms2
06-03-2015, 03:42 PM
Yes, and for starters, I believe I am going to go with the requirement that one have an L21+ result (or a positive result for one of the downstream SNPs) to join, even if his closest match is already a member and has an L21+ result. Guess I'll have to go to the "Join Request" method to give prospective members the chance to tell me about their 23andMe, BritainsDNA, FGC, YSeq, etc., results, but no one without the appropriate SNP test result will be allowed to join.

I might have to get around to sending a bulk email out to all the guys in the "Need L21 Testing" category to tell them to either mess or get off the pot, as well, and give them a deadline for ordering the test, after which they will be removed from the project. I'm guessing just about that entire category will be gone. There are a lot of people in it who have been there for years.

Mikewww
06-03-2015, 04:05 PM
.... I might have to get around to sending a bulk email out to all the guys in the "Need L21 Testing" category to tell them to either mess or get off the pot, as well, and give them a deadline for ordering the test, after which they will be removed from the project. I'm guessing just about that entire category will be gone. There are a lot of people in it who have been there for years.

Some of these cases might have the same kit owner/contact (just different tester) up above in classified subgroups so we might want to give everyone fair warning.

There's probably a sale coming up for Father's Day. We could out a bulk email to everyone for that sale and include a brief email to let people know SNP confirmation is required. Then later, send out the bulk email to just the "untested for L21/downstream" telling them a little more firmly they should leave the project if they have no intention of SNP testing.

I'm not sure what the rules are anymore, but a month or two down the road we could try to boot those who did nothing from the "untested" category.

rms2
06-04-2015, 11:18 AM
This morning I switched over to requiring Join Requests for new members, and I posted a bold blurb in the largest font possible for an FTDNA web site advising visitors to the public web site that membership requires a positive result for L21 or one of its downstream SNPs and that close matches to someone with such a result, even a relative, are not sufficient. Hopefully that will tamp down the "cousin Harold got an L21+ result, let's all join" type of thing.

Should have done this long ago.

Mikewww
06-05-2015, 01:33 PM
This morning I switched over to requiring Join Requests for new members, and I posted a bold blurb in the largest font possible for an FTDNA web site advising visitors to the public web site that membership requires a positive result for L21 or one of its downstream SNPs and that close matches to someone with such a result, even a relative, are not sufficient. Hopefully that will tamp down the "cousin Harold got an L21+ result, let's all join" type of thing.

Should have done this long ago.
I think in such a large project that has a well defined scope it makes sense. I don't like the "join" function, but it is a necessary evil.