PDA

View Full Version : New haplogroup labeling and display of Y DNA SNP reporting for L21 project



Mikewww
04-25-2014, 02:05 PM
Any FTDNA Y DNA project could be impacted by this.

I've noticed that over the last several weeks Y DNA SNP report screens have been changing. The list of SNPs displayed has been changing, seemingly weekly. My guess it is that FTDNA has been changing their reference models for ancestral for various haplogroups and is altering what's filtered or not. I don't know. That's just a guess.

This morning as I was looking at projects and twice I got knocked off even though my internet connection maintained itself. Afterwards, I noticed the long haplogroup labels used have been updated. They are still in the long letter (R1b1a2... etc) style. I haven't tried to figure them out and probably won't try until FTDNA releases some detail.

Mikewww
04-25-2014, 07:12 PM
Their new tree is based on Geno 2 data (50,000 individuals) and the data collection was cut off last November. That means this tree is definitely BEHIND our working draft knowledge.

If you are L21 and our interested in SNP testing, please be sure to join R1b-L21-project yahoo group and ask questions there. I wouldn't look at the haplotree and base decisions on that if you already know you are L21 of some type. You need to dig deeper.

[[EDIT: 04/29/2014 omitted the word "behind"... a key word. ]]]

Muircheartaigh
04-25-2014, 07:47 PM
Their new tree is based on Geno 2 data (50,000 individuals) and the data collection was cut off last November. That means this tree is definitely BEHIND our working draft knowledge.

If I recall Geno 2 was a search for SNPs existing prior to November 2011, and did not search for new SNPs so how do reconcile this fact. Are you saying that the tree more than 2 years out of date. If so then all Administrators should be strongly recommending that their members ignore the Hyped up E mail that FTDNA have just issued to all customers. It's a disgraceful piece of commercialism.

Ray

[[[Edit: 04/29. I omitted the word "behind." Sorry. Of course, the point it needs that word to have any sense of logic. ]]]

rms2
04-26-2014, 07:03 PM
I don't think the problem is "commercialism". In fact, commercialism may come to the rescue, since no doubt FTDNA would like to keep its customers happy and continue to make sales.

The new tree was just badly bungled, that's all.

Mikewww
04-29-2014, 11:42 AM
If I recall Geno 2 was a search for SNPs existing prior to November 2011, and did not search for new SNPs so how do reconcile this fact. Are you saying that the tree more than 2 years out of date.....

The tree is out of date vis a vis our working draft knowledge. To characterize it as 2 years or 1 year or 3 years out of data is probably not doable. The actual Y chromosome tree is what it is and it is stable other than new generations. All efforts to document it are temporal until the job is complete. I was trying to say our current hobbyist and/or ISOGG working draft knowledge is ahead, well ahead, of a Geno 2 data based tree. I should qualify that. Since this Geno 2 based tree has data from individuals we don't know about, it could have knowledge of branching that our current working draft trees do not have. Still, generally, I think the current working draft trees are way, way ahead.

Some of this is okay. We need formalized, large studies that folks like the National Genographic Project and other population geneticists need to do. They will always be behind until the tree is fully discovered or close. On the other hand, that does not make it a good idea have an SNP testing recommendation system based on a such a tree. For generic deep ancestral purposes, maybe, but not for genetic genealogy. That's probably a good discussion to have with Bennett Greenspan. Deep ancestral SNP testing is not the same thing as genetic genealogy SNP testing. I hadn't thought of it like this, but in that sense National Geno and FTDNA may not be in alignment.

R.Rocca
04-29-2014, 11:46 AM
The tree is out of date vis a vis our working draft knowledge. To characterize it as 2 years or 1 year or 3 years out of data is probably not doable. The actual Y chromosome tree is what it is and it is stable other than new generations. All efforts to document it are temporal until the job is complete. I was trying to say our current hobbyist and/or ISOGG working draft knowledge is ahead, well ahead, of a Geno 2 data based tree. I should qualify that. Since this Geno 2 based tree has data from individuals we don't know about, it could have knowledge of branching that our current working draft trees do not have. Still, generally, I think the current working draft trees are way, way ahead.

Some of this is okay. We need formalized, large studies that folks like the National Genographic Project and other population geneticists need to do. They will always be behind until the tree is fully discovered or close. On the other hand, that does not make it a good idea have an SNP testing recommendation system based on a such a tree. For generic deep ancestral purposes, maybe, but not for genetic genealogy. That's probably a good discussion to have with Bennett Greenspan. Deep ancestral SNP testing is not the same thing as genetic genealogy SNP testing. I hadn't thought of it like this, but in that sense National Geno and FTDNA may not be in alignment.

I'm hopeful FTDNA will get some of these issues resolved in the coming weeks as folks give their feedback. The key is, for people to give as much feedback as possible.

Mikewww
04-29-2014, 11:50 AM
.. I've noticed that over the last several weeks Y DNA SNP report screens have been changing. The list of SNPs displayed has been changing, seemingly weekly. My guess it is that FTDNA has been changing their reference models for ancestral for various haplogroups and is altering what's filtered or not. I don't know. That's just a guess....

As a precautionary stake in the ground, I saved the L21 project and about 15-20 other major "sub of" L21 project Y DNA SNP report screens into a spreadsheet I have posted at the R1b-L21-project yahoo group.

I saved this because FTDNA said they are going to display the relevant positive SNPs and negatives ONLY for downstream of the terminal SNP. Well, the terminal SNP is a temporal concept until the tree is totally discovered so I don't want to lose those SNP results in case the tree isn't what FTDNA thought it was.

I don't have this on display, but I'm using a position number, allele change format to save all the Big Y results. I will as I can for Chromo 2 and FGC, although the sharing among us publicly isn't what I want yet. If I also reverse engineer the FTDNA Y DNA SNP screens to this the same format I can get a consolidated view, automatically.

haleaton
04-29-2014, 07:43 PM
I'm hopeful FTDNA will get some of these issues resolved in the coming weeks as folks give their feedback. The key is, for people to give as much feedback as possible.

For the potential new sub-branches that may have been found in the 80% of 40K Geno Samples never transferred to FTDNA on their tree, but without supporting data--what data would be needed to to incorporate into group trees or ISOGG tree? Or will independent verification with details be needed.