PDA

View Full Version : Too many kits sitting at predicted M269!



GTC
04-16-2015, 09:39 AM
IMHO, looking around the various FTDNA surname and geographic projects, there are far too many sitting in limbo with the haplogroup status of 'predicted R-M269'. *

If we could nudge these kits just down to U106 or P312 for starters then we might begin to get some interesting new candidates for deeper SNP testing, not to mention STR clustering. (Of course, some M269 predictions will turn out to be incorrect, and some may not yet be able to be resolved below M269 to a major branch, but I guess one would expect those cases to be in the minority.)

Once their major subclade of R1b is known, they can be directed to the big projects where the 'cutting edge' analysis of SNPs and associated haplotree layering is being done, and where they can expect to receive good guidance as to testing strategy going forward.

I truly wish there were more ongoing inter-group discussion among the various FTDNA Group Administrators to find ways to move issues such as this one along, preferably with the active assistance of FTDNA, but nonetheless arriving at a determination to let their members know that they can, if they wish, do a lot better than sitting at 'predicted R-M269' forever, and actively encouraging them to move forward along the big R1b branch.

[* There are some predicted M269 kits hanging around in the major haplogroup projects, too, but at least we know how to contact those kit owners.]

rms2
04-16-2015, 07:09 PM
I think we will pretty much always have this situation because so many men test on a lark, just for a kind of general knowledge of their y-dna, and don't care to invest any additional money or any additional effort at learning what they need to learn to understand their results. I have a buddy I talked into ordering the basic 12-marker y-dna test from FTDNA a few years ago, and that's his situation. He is predicted as M269, but he doesn't really care to go any further with it. I have even offered to pay for an L21 test for him because I think he is probably L21 (but he could be anything under M269), but he won't even take advantage of that.

Heck, we even have deadheads with 67 markers.

dp
04-16-2015, 08:11 PM
I've wondered why they dont use the allele values of DYS390, DYS576, CDYa to try to predict the Y-37s testees status for P312 & U106. I know CDYa is the more variable of the three, but they could try. If the variance is too great from the individual modal values then just don't tell the user the prediction.
dp :-)

MitchellSince1893
04-16-2015, 09:18 PM
I've wondered why they dont use the allele values of DYS390, DYS576, CDYa to try to predict the Y-37s testees status for P312 & U106. I know CDYa is the more variable of the three, but they could try. If the variance is too great from the individual modal values then just don't tell the user the prediction.
dp :-)
4355

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29

Because significant percentages of U106 have P312 modal values and vice versa I'm not sure how useful it would be.

For example almost 1/3rd of U106 folks have P312 modal value at DYS390; and almost a quarter of P312 has U106's modal value at DYS576.

However DYS 492 in panel 38-67 does hold promise in differentiating P312 from U106
Over 95% of P312 = 12, and 96% of U106 = 13.

rivergirl
04-16-2015, 11:29 PM
I think a lot of guys are tested to see if they match other families of their surname. Thats why I tested my male relatives. They are not interested in the haplogroup and most dont understand the downstream SNPs at all.
As most of my relatives have no same surname matches I went down the Haplogroup SNP testing road and have had them all tested to 111 markers and half tested on Big Y.

GoldenHind
04-17-2015, 12:32 AM
IMHO, looking around the various FTDNA surname and geographic projects, there are far too many sitting in limbo with the haplogroup status of 'predicted R-M269'. *

If we could nudge these kits just down to U106 or P312 for starters then we might begin to get some interesting new candidates for deeper SNP testing, not to mention STR clustering. (Of course, some M269 predictions will turn out to be incorrect, and some may not yet be able to be resolved below M269 to a major branch, but I guess one would expect those cases to be in the minority.)

Once their major subclade of R1b is known, they can be directed to the big projects where the 'cutting edge' analysis of SNPs and associated haplotree layering is being done, and where they can expect to receive good guidance as to testing strategy going forward.

I truly wish there were more ongoing inter-group discussion among the various FTDNA Group Administrators to find ways to move issues such as this one along, preferably with the active assistance of FTDNA, but nonetheless arriving at a determination to let their members know that they can, if they wish, do a lot better than sitting at 'predicted R-M269' forever, and actively encouraging them to move forward along the big R1b branch.

[* There are some predicted M269 kits hanging around in the major haplogroup projects, too, but at least we know how to contact those kit owners.]

The M269 category recently grew significantly in number when FTDNA realized that many of their predicted R1b subclades were inaccurate, and rolled many people back all the way to M269. This may have been a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However the current situation may be better than the previous one, as many people didn't realize the difference between FTDNA's predictions and confirmation by actual SNP testing.

GTC
04-17-2015, 03:01 AM
I think we will pretty much always have this situation because so many men test on a lark, just for a kind of general knowledge of their y-dna, and don't care to invest any additional money or any additional effort at learning what they need to learn to understand their results. I have a buddy I talked into ordering the basic 12-marker y-dna test from FTDNA a few years ago, and that's his situation. He is predicted as M269, but he doesn't really care to go any further with it. I have even offered to pay for an L21 test for him because I think he is probably L21 (but he could be anything under M269), but he won't even take advantage of that.

Point taken, but given how many there are in predicted M269 limbo across the projects, if only 25% of them could be persuaded to move it would be a bonanza.

It's the formation of a joint campaign by Group Admins to reach out to all of these limbo men that I'm keen to see.


Heck, we even have deadheads with 67 markers.

In some projects, 67 would be considered extraordinary.

GTC
04-17-2015, 03:07 AM
I think a lot of guys are tested to see if they match other families of their surname. Thats why I tested my male relatives. They are not interested in the haplogroup and most dont understand the downstream SNPs at all.
As most of my relatives have no same surname matches I went down the Haplogroup SNP testing road and have had them all tested to 111 markers and half tested on Big Y.

Yes, but without there being some ongoing education-cum-selling by Admins in the major projects (with their thousands of members) directed specifically at "limbo men", the situation will never improve. We can't rely on FTDNA alone to do that.

GTC
04-17-2015, 03:13 AM
The M269 category recently grew significantly in number when FTDNA realized that many of their predicted R1b subclades were inaccurate, and rolled many people back all the way to M269. This may have been a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However the current situation may be better than the previous one, as many people didn't realize the difference between FTDNA's predictions and confirmation by actual SNP testing.

Indeed. I'm glad that FTDNA abandoned that attempt as it only caused confusion, and in some cases outright ridicule. SNP testing is the way to go. The challenge is to get the kit owners to move on it.

vettor
04-17-2015, 07:21 AM
If any of these are Nargeno2 tested, then force Ftdna ( when you transfer ) to accept every negative and positive marker .........and not be selective because the ftdna tree is 4 years behind the current trees which nargeno2 use.

you need to push ftdna ...and push hard

Jessie
04-17-2015, 07:38 AM
I had the 111-str test done on my brother and he was still predicted R-M269 after that was completed. I knew he was M222 from 23andMe but still had to get the M222 snp test done before being able to order the M222 Bundle.

BalkanKiwi
04-17-2015, 08:11 AM
I ordered an L-21 SNP test as that's what I was predicted before they reverted back to the original prediction system, which I'm back to as M269. I turned out negative for L-21, however during that waiting period I received my 23andMe results which have me at U106. I asked FTDNA if they would give me a free SNP test as I lost money because of their prediction system. They've put a free U106 SNP test through for me :) I think many people don't test more due to the possibility of wasting lots of money on potential negative results. I don't think I'd want to test down steam from U106 unless there was a high degree of certainty of a positive result.

GTC
04-17-2015, 08:23 AM
I had the 111-str test done on my brother and he was still predicted R-M269 after that was completed. I knew he was M222 from 23andMe but still had to get the M222 snp test done before being able to order the M222 Bundle.

As I understand it, traditionally FTDNA only used the first 12 markers for haplogroup prediction. Recently they tried to use more but that backfired (spectacularly in some cases) so they have reverted to 12.

The old Deep Clade Test served R1b pretty well, but I gather that it was unprofitable for FTDNA because it is labor intensive, so it was dropped form the product offering.

I have heard some mixed opinions on the usefulness of the SNP bundles.

GTC
04-17-2015, 08:32 AM
I asked FTDNA if they would give me a free SNP test as I lost money because of their prediction system. They've put a free U106 SNP test through for me :)

Good outcome!


I think many people don't test more due to the possibility of wasting lots of money on potential negative results. I don't think I'd want to test down steam from U106 unless there was a high degree of certainty of a positive result.

Yes, as anyone who has been "SNP hunting" for many years can attest, the motto has been: "you pays yer money, and yer takes yer chances". I blew quite a bit of money on individual SNP gambles, only to come up negative. Back then, getting a negative result, while disappointing for the individual tester, could advance the haplogroup group nonetheless in the dark art of divining possible SNPs from STRs.

Thankfully, with NGS type testing you can obtain your own SNPs rather than trying to match other people's SNPs. The hope is that the cost of NGS testing will plummet to the point where it won't be so difficult to get kit owners to fork out for it.

rms2
04-17-2015, 11:57 AM
At one point, after expending a fair amount of cash SNP hunting, I partnered up with another member of my haplotype cluster to split the SNP testing. It worked pretty well, and we bagged a positive result on what at that time was regarded as our "terminal SNP": DF41.

FTDNA's recent foray into downstream subclade prediction caused a lot of guys to join the R L21 and Subclades Project without an L21+ result. I was able to talk many of them into ordering an L21 test, and most of those got a positive result, as predicted. Every now and then one of them got a negative result though, but I always prepared them up front for that possibility.

GTC
04-17-2015, 01:30 PM
At one point, after expending a fair amount of cash SNP hunting, I partnered up with another member of my haplotype cluster to split the SNP testing. It worked pretty well, and we bagged a positive result on what at that time was regarded as our "terminal SNP": DF41.

Good approach.


FTDNA's recent foray into downstream subclade prediction caused a lot of guys to join the R L21 and Subclades Project without an L21+ result. I was able to talk many of them into ordering an L21 test, and most of those got a positive result, as predicted. Every now and then one of them got a negative result though, but I always prepared them up front for that possibility.

Good to know that you/they/the group did derive some benefit from FTDNA's short-lived attempt to be master predictors. Reportedly, in other haplogroups it created some chaos for the Admins and I guess a whole lot of "roll them back!" requests back to FTDNA.

rms2
04-17-2015, 07:00 PM
. . .
Good to know that you/they/the group did derive some benefit from FTDNA's short-lived attempt to be master predictors. Reportedly, in other haplogroups it created some chaos for the Admins and I guess a whole lot of "roll them back!" requests back to FTDNA.

A little good came out of it, but it was mostly a pain in the butt, to be honest. I still get too many people joining who have no SNP test results.

vettor
04-17-2015, 07:27 PM
A little good came out of it, but it was mostly a pain in the butt, to be honest. I still get too many people joining who have no SNP test results.

I can agree ftdna are a pain in the butt, and as stated before , I fail to understand why they do not accept ALL the testing done by their partner Natgeno2 .

as for me , after 3 months of email correspondence with ftdna they accepted the bulk of my positive and negative SNP from natgeno2 , there remains ONE negative SNP in the base of my ftdna tree which they will not touch, it sits there neither positive nor negative. Natgeno2 and 23andme has tested this as negative.

GTC
04-18-2015, 12:14 AM
I can agree ftdna are a pain in the butt, and as stated before , I fail to understand why they do not accept ALL the testing done by their partner Natgeno2 .

as for me , after 3 months of email correspondence with ftdna they accepted the bulk of my positive and negative SNP from natgeno2 , there remains ONE negative SNP in the base of my ftdna tree which they will not touch, it sits there neither positive nor negative. Natgeno2 and 23andme has tested this as negative.

How is this on topic for a discussion on R1b-M269?

If you want to discuss FTDNA and Geno 2 transfers, then start a separate thread in the appropriate forum.

Huntergatherer1066
04-18-2015, 03:53 PM
I've been putting something in my FTDNA Y-DNA kit profiles that matches see that encourages them to test whichever relevant SNPs for the particular kit to verify that it is relevant match; for instance my Z18 uncle who is WAMH and has many P312+ matches it would be great if his M269 predicted matches would test to confirm whether they're P312 or U106. I'm not sure if any matches have followed my suggestion or if anyone really looks at that but it's worth a shot.

rms2
04-18-2015, 05:41 PM
I've been trying to think of some way to discourage folks from joining the R L21 and Subclades Project who don't have an L21+ result or a positive result for a downstream SNP that shows they are L21+. It seems the majority of new members these days are people who have heard from someone, "Hey, I think you're probably L21+," and so they decide to join, many of them lacking even any close matches who are L21+.

Maybe I'll go to making prospective members use a "Join Request", but that might be more trouble than it's worth.

GoldenHind
04-18-2015, 10:57 PM
As I understand it, traditionally FTDNA only used the first 12 markers for haplogroup prediction. Recently they tried to use more but that backfired (spectacularly in some cases) so they have reverted to 12.

The old Deep Clade Test served R1b pretty well, but I gather that it was unprofitable for FTDNA because it is labor intensive, so it was dropped form the product offering.

I have heard some mixed opinions on the usefulness of the SNP bundles.

The best solution to this problem would be a new and reasonably priced R1b deep clade test from FTDNA. They could keep the price down by just offering a few SNPs for the first round- U106, P312, DF100 and maybe a few others. Once people get a result from that, they could then proceed with a U106 or P312 bundle. Any R1b test that offers hundreds of R1b SNPs in one go is likely to be fairly expensive.

GTC
04-19-2015, 05:07 AM
The best solution to this problem would be a new and reasonably priced R1b deep clade test from FTDNA. They could keep the price down by just offering a few SNPs for the first round- U106, P312, DF100 and maybe a few others. Once people get a result from that, they could then proceed with a U106 or P312 bundle. Any R1b test that offers hundreds of R1b SNPs in one go is likely to be fairly expensive.

Yes, it would be great to have a reasonably priced Deep Clade product such as you mention, just to get the main R1b branch identified so that such testers can be then directed to the appropriate haplogroup project for further testing guidance.

However, given that it's apparently a hands-on process -- and therefore costly in terms of labor -- I think for cost containment purposes it would have to be a one-shot process where you would need to expect that you may get a null result. That is, if the lab cannot confirm U106 or P312 or DF100 in one pass (assuming a good base sample is used), then it's game over for that order.

I would like to hear from FTDNA whether such a product for R1b kits is feasible.

Long term, of course, the answer is to get the price of Big Y down to $99 or so.

GTC
04-19-2015, 05:11 AM
Regarding my Big Y, I should add that FTDNA actually updated an order progress status report at each stage and, although it showed delays (i.e. re-scheduled ETAs) a couple of times, they did keep to the revised schedule and I was aware of how my order was progressing all the way through.

I don't know if they are still doing this for Big Y.

rms2
04-19-2015, 12:10 PM
. . .
Long term, of course, the answer is to get the price of Big Y down to $99 or so.

I agree. That is when the Big Y will prove itself a boon to y-dna testing for genealogical purposes, i.e., when the price comes down sufficiently to tempt many more men to test, thus increasing the database of potential matches.