PDA

View Full Version : R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack FTDNA



Pages : [1] 2

Joe B
07-28-2015, 09:52 PM
The SNPs for the new R1b-M343 SNP Pack from FTDNA.


Get 140 SNPs downstream of M343 for only $79!

Remove the guess work. Save money!
Test 140 SNPs downstream of M343.
140 total SNPs including M343.
5336

P25 SNP PACK

Includes 61 SNPs on the Haplotree:

M343, L278, P297, M269, L23, L51, P310, P311, P312, L21, DF21, M222, Z255, Z253, L513, L371, CTS3386, CTS4466, CTS1751, Z195, SRY2627, Z295, U152, L2, Z49, Z367, PF6610, CTS5689, Z36, Z225, DF19, CTS11567, F2691, CTS10429, U106, Z381, L48, Z9, L47, Z156, Z18, CTS4528, PF6714, PF7589, PF3252, CTS7763, Z1862, CTS6937, F2863, M73, V88, L238, DF99, L389, M335, DF13, DF63, DF95, DF49, S11601, Z17

Includes 79 SNPs not on the Haplotree:

BY2895, A6454, BY2896, A1773, A2150, A274, A4670, A517, BY2823, BY2868, BY575, CTS11994, CTS5330, DF110, DF17, DF41, DF81, DF83, DF88, DF90, FGC10516, FGC11134, FGC13620, FGC13780, FGC20761, FGC22501, FGC396, FGC5301, FGC5336, FGC5338, FGC5344, FGC5345, FGC5351, FGC5354, FGC5356, FGC5367, FGC5373, FGC5494, FGC5798, L1335, L277, L408, L584, L617, L881, M1994, MC14, PF331, PF6658, PF7562, PF7600, S1026, S1051, S11493, S12025, S1567, S16264, S1688, S18632, S18827, S7721, Y5058, Z16500, Z198, Z209, Z2103, Z2106, Z2109, Z251, Z2542, Z2573, Z262, Z296, Z301, Z302, Z56, Z8056, DF103, Z17300

GoldenHind
07-28-2015, 11:21 PM
That is excellent news. I have been waiting for a replacement for the old R1b deep clade test for some time. This should move many of the large number of those who are predicted R-M269 some distance down the tree. I note however that DF27 does not appear to be included, so those who are DF27+ Z195/6- may be left with nothing below P312 (unless some of the alternate SNPs to Z195/6 are among those included). Nonetheless it goes some way in filling a much needed vacuum.

Mikewww
07-28-2015, 11:36 PM
That is excellent news. I have been waiting for a replacement for the old R1b deep clade test for some time. This should move many of the large number of those who are predicted R-M269 some distance down the tree. I note however that DF27 does not appear to be included, so those who are DF27+ Z195/6- may be left with nothing below P312 (unless some of the alternate SNPs to Z195/6 are among those included). Nonetheless it goes some way in filling a much needed vacuum.

I requested DF27 but it did not pass through their testing filters/validation. I told them we needed everything just above it and just below as an accommodation. I haven't checked the details, but a good handful of DF27 subclade SNPs should be included.

Mikewww
07-28-2015, 11:42 PM
The SNPs for the new R1b-M343 SNP Pack from FTDNA.
...
Includes 79 SNPs not on the Haplotree:
...
There is a group at FTDNA that has to run some kind of query/validation against their database before they add these to their haplotree, which they should be doing.

We should probably consider some of these SNPs as "under investigation". That's the nice thing about the FTDNA method for fixed SNP packs. They test everything for everybody all in one fell swoop. That should help on validation and publicly disclosed proofs for the tree.

Cofgene
07-28-2015, 11:47 PM
I wonder at the wisdom of putting some of the minor U106 upper level twigs on this panel and not targeting the R-Z326 null region. Why place a SNP on this panel that has 7 results when there is the null2425 Z326 region with over 200+ lineages? We could have used this panel as a pointer into the potential Z326 panel. Now individuals who test Z9+ and have only 37 markers will need to consider moving to 67 markers before we know which potential U106 panel they should consider. The nulls represent a little over 8% of the U106+ results.

Of course we do recommend FGC Elite or Big-Y results over taking panels. :P

Huntergatherer1066
07-29-2015, 12:14 AM
All in all seems pretty good. Really anything that helps move downstream the horde of people hanging out at M269 predicted is welcome.

Mikewww
07-29-2015, 03:50 AM
I wonder at the wisdom of putting some of the minor U106 upper level twigs on this panel and not targeting the R-Z326 null region. .... :P
Please keep in mind I went to the project admin coordinator at FTDNA to ask for help. She talked to someone on the U106 project admin team and they and I struck up a conversation. The main thrust on my part is what subclade packs does the U106 team plan? I apologize if I missed that Z326 was planned pack. I went back and looked through the emails and I can see it was brought up. Different project admins brought different pack ideas so I was confused. The leader I thought was saying something different.

This "back-bone" pack is really aimed at the top/eldest layers with a twist to help people jump straight to subclade SNP packs.
For example, you'll see Z18, M222, Z255, Z253 (and CTS4466 I think... I better check) all represented and they all have packs already. M222 is really not that old but it is very big and already has its own pack. I will pursue getting Z326 added to the M343 backbone, though.

VinceT
07-29-2015, 05:04 AM
This "back-bone" pack is really aimed at the top/eldest layers with a twist to help people jump straight to subclade SNP packs.

I concur. The main point of this "backbone" pack should be considered a "tier-one" classifier, since it really isn't practical to test all sub-R1b SNPs with this platform.

A "tier-two" pack specific to R-Z9 (including Z331, Z330, Z326 etc.) should be developed next, if it isn't already - similar to the approach for R-M222 and R-Z18.

Mikewww
07-29-2015, 05:16 AM
I concur. The main point of this "backbone" pack should be considered a "tier-one" classifier, since it really isn't practical to test all sub-R1b SNPs with this platform.

A "tier-two" pack specific to R-Z9 (including Z331, Z330, Z326 etc.) should be developed next, if it isn't already - similar to the approach for R-M222 and R-Z18.
Agreed, VinceT. This is where we need to use some smarts as far an SNP pack coverage strategy. FTDNA apparently doesn't like my choice of wording but I say there are two types of SNP packs. One is a "backbone" or "top-layer" super SNP set while as the others are the "subclade" SNP packs.

I think the "subclade" SNP probably require a certain population size and penetration of NGS testing to
1) justify a dedicated SNP pack offering from FTDNA
2) have enough SNPs discovered to provide good value

I would consider the "subclade" SNP packs as "terminal haplogroup finders" and potentially "phylogenetic blockblusters".

The "back-bone" SNP packs traverse the top-layers or older layers of the tree putting people in the right major subclades.... but there is another potential use too.

STRs have their place too. They are always good for matching in the database because everyone gets measured at the same locations and the matching database is large. However, distinctive STR signatures like the NW Irish, Irish II, Irish III, Z326 null425, N-S cluster, etc., etc. can skip "backbone" testing altogether and go right to the home "subclade" pack.

... assuming the can't afford Big Y.

corner
07-29-2015, 11:10 AM
The "back-bone" SNP packs traverse the top-layers or older layers of the tree putting people in the right major subclades.... For a 'backbone' test it is very important that DF27 itself is included.

Cofgene
07-29-2015, 11:56 AM
Z18 doesn't need 3 SNPs to represent it on the backbone. From the existing panel results only one was needed. Those other 2 slots should be considered for other regions under R1b.

Getting a backbone result of Z9+ for 25 or 37 markers doesn't help us figure out which of two potential panels the individual should test for. This means the backbone is not really going to feed the panels representing the Z9 branch. We need 67 markers to see if they are null425's and drop into that large cluster. We have a lot of people that are tested at less than 37 markers.

Let's ask for one of the Z18 region SNPs to be removed today and replaced with Z326.

Mikewww
07-29-2015, 12:19 PM
....
Getting a backbone result of Z9+ for 25 or 37 markers doesn't help us figure out which of two potential panels the individual should test for. This means the backbone is not really going to feed the panels representing the Z9 branch. We need 67 markers to see if they are null425's and drop into that large cluster. We have a lot of people that are tested at less than 37 markers.
I agree that 67 STRs is essential and am very consistent in saying that everyone in R1b (unless your brother has already done so) needs to get to 67 STRs. Please read the background web pages of the R1b project.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background
In fact, the project subgroupings include these two expressly there to encourage STR upgrades: "Uat67" and "Uneed67".


Let's ask for one of the Z18 region SNPs to be removed today and replaced with Z326.
Please do not ask for any SNPs to be removed. It only diminishes the value of the test which means value to the project members. The price will not be lowered by removing SNPs. I have asked for Z326 to be added even though it is down a couple of layers and it isn't as early in its branching.

rms2
07-29-2015, 12:24 PM
It looks pretty good to me, although I do agree it is a pity that DF27 couldn't be squeezed in somehow. Guess that one is a tougher nut to crack than the other major branch SNPs.

Wing Genealogist
07-29-2015, 12:44 PM
Gauging from the other SNP packs which FTDNA has released, we have to expect some of the SNPs included will not work properly. My understanding is even FTDNA cannot know in advance which SNPs will work, and which SNPs will not. They can (and have) done some "front-end" testing and determined some SNPs (such as DF27) could not be made available, but they actually need to run a batch of tests to see which SNPs are failing.

Again, past experience from other SNP packs, most failures are fairly easy to identify (everyone positive or everyone negative). However, I have seen in at least one SNP pack (Z18) a couple of anomalous SNP results (a couple of negative results for SNPs that should be positive as they are positive for subclades). While these anomalous results are concerning, we must remember that every type of SNP testing has the possibility of such anomalous results. The U106 Project has seen cases where a positive SNP result sometimes does not show up (in the bed/vcf file) but does show up in the BAM file. In addition, even Sanger-sequencing is not fool-proof (L128 had to be removed from ISOGG as Sanger-sequencing has been found to be unreliable for this SNP).

corner
07-29-2015, 12:56 PM
It looks pretty good to me, although I do agree it is a pity that DF27 couldn't be squeezed in somehow. Guess that one is a tougher nut to crack than the other major branch SNPs.YSEQ.net don't appear to have any trouble with DF27. Their 'YSEQ R1b Orientation Panel' includes it.

Mikewww
07-29-2015, 01:21 PM
YSEQ.net don't appear to have any trouble with DF27. Their 'YSEQ R1b Orientation Panel' includes it.
You can buy DF27 separately under Sanger Sequencing/Advanced Tests from FTDNA.

This needs to be double checked, but I think all of these early branching SNPs within DF27 are there.

A4670
CTS10429
CTS11567
DF81
DF83
F2691
FGC20761
L617
L881
Y5058
Z225
Z2573
Z195
Z296
DF17
Z209
Z198
Z262
SRY2627

Particularly, since Z195 is included, the only concern is true DF27* people, which may be a very small group. However, even this isn't much of a concern relative to everybody else in R1b. Here's why:

If a person comes out of this test P312+ L21- U152- L238- DF19- DF99- and negative for the DF27 subclade SNPS above they are actually home free. I'm not DF27, but if I were to take this M343 Backbone test, I'd come out with positives for the backbone leading down to P312 and L21 and then have my L513+. I'm not done either. I have to go buy an L513 pack or panel as the final step.

In the case of the M343 Backbone true DF27* person, they'd be P312+ L21- U152- L238- DF19- DF99- and have one additional step too, but their step would be cheaper. The only thing they can do is buy an individual DF27 test at FTDNA or wherever you want, but it would be cheaper than any pack/panel.

Mikewww
07-29-2015, 01:30 PM
Gauging from the other SNP packs which FTDNA has released, we have to expect some of the SNPs included will not work properly....
They have both an algorithm/on paper review step on SNPs to be included and then some kind of lab test run before they decide an SNP can be included. I expect that FTDNA is getting better on this as they've been doing packs for almost a year now, but I would agree there is likely some kind of fall-out and adjustments needed.

lgmayka
07-29-2015, 02:21 PM
Particularly, since Z195 is included, the only concern is true DF27* people, which may be a very small group.
...
If a person comes out of this test P312+ L21- U152- L238- DF19- DF99- and negative for the DF27 subclade SNPS above they are actually home free.
The DF27 clade is a continuously expanding target. Your list does not include the ancient and mysterious BY653 clade (http://yfull.com/tree/R-BY653/), found so far only in Ukraine and the British Isles.

Dubhthach
07-29-2015, 02:36 PM
Tús maith leath na hOibre (Good start is half the work) as the old proverb goes. Good to see DF41 been finally added to their tree, it was only available to test 6 months or so before CTS2501 ;) apart from that I'm assuming they'll upgrade their tree once the first batch of results start coming in?

razyn
07-29-2015, 03:49 PM
Particularly, since Z195 is included, the only concern is true DF27* people, which may be a very small group.

I disagree. To me, it looks pretty useless for DF27. About half of the DF27 project members are Z195+, or subclades thereof that are tested (and have been for some years, so the people in those subclades tend already to know that). But DF27 itself isn't (as usual); and most of the newly discovered subclades of DF27 that are Z195- aren't.

Actually the latter aren't especially well covered by the YSEQ panel for DF27, either. Thomas at least tried, and I was trying to help him. But he wanted to launch it in March, and we have still been discovering big branching points through July. I wouldn't be surprised if we could come up with a pretty effective DF27 panel test within the next few months, but even then we'll still be discovering things that it has omitted. Being thorough and being quick aren't 100% compatible goals.

The new M343 Backbone test wasn't designed to cater to specific haplogroups downstream of L11, and I concur with the opinions already expressed by U106 and U152 admins (at least), that our respective project members needn't bother with it.

Mikewww
07-29-2015, 04:24 PM
I disagree. To me, it looks pretty useless for DF27. About half of the DF27 project members are Z195+, or subclades thereof that are tested (and have been for some years, so the people in those subclades tend already to know that). But DF27 itself isn't (as usual); and most of the newly discovered subclades of DF27 that are Z195- aren't.

Actually the latter aren't especially well covered by the YSEQ panel for DF27, either. Thomas at least tried, and I was trying to help him. But he wanted to launch it in March, and we have still been discovering big branching points through July. I wouldn't be surprised if we could come up with a pretty effective DF27 panel test within the next few months, but even then we'll still be discovering things that it has omitted. Being thorough and being quick aren't 100% compatible goals.

The new M343 Backbone test wasn't designed to cater to specific haplogroups downstream of L11, and I concur with the opinions already expressed by U106 and U152 admins (at least), that our respective project members needn't bother with it.
I am not communicating clearly. Obviously, the intent of this M343 Backbone test is not to be an all encompassing test for all of R1b. It is only the top layers and is exactly as you say, intended for the vast array of unawashed R1b-M269, P25 types out there. It's a "starter" pack for them. I'm L513+ on one side, Z255+ on another and Z209+ (under DF27) on a third. There is no way I'd order this pack for any of those three lineages. I'm already too far down the pike.

What I was trying to say is that if a newbie or unawashed R-M269 guy comes in and takes this test and is truly DF27+, then he will probably be picked up by a Z195+ or one of the other SNPs so all is not lost. If they look (falsely in a true DF27* case) like P312* then they need to do the stand-alone DF27 and then they will know and effectively be done, but my point was most of us (if we were predicted R-M269 newbies) would then go on to a buy a whole other pack.

The premise of my response is based on an R-M269 type newbie coming in. The DF27 subclade is still nicely represented in the Backbone pack.

Richard H, what are the missing Z195- SNPs that are immediately under DF27? Lawrence has one, BY653. What else?


The DF27 clade is a continuously expanding target. Yes, absolutely and so is L21, U152, etc., etc. That is partially why I've been so aggressive in promoting NGS testing. NGS is the right answer, but we have take a dose of reality to recognize most people are not going to spend that kind of money. The never ending one at a time SNP wild goose chase is also not the answer for most people (separating leaders from the masses.)

Maybe I should be clearer. When someone asks me to be confidential I try to adhere to the request, but I think it should be clear by now that there will be more SNP Packs for R1b, focused at more youthful subclades. I like to call those "subclade" SNP packs to differentiate them from this kind of "backbone" SNP pack. The "subclade" SNP packs should be terminal haplogroup finders.

corner
07-29-2015, 04:53 PM
A newbie might be less confused if DF27 was in the test, like L21 and U152. Those DF27 who are DF27+ and Z195- are not a small group of DF27*, it's potentially a large section of all DF27, an ancient but apparently invisible 'brother' of Z195 (ZZ12). At a quick glance (I'm not at my computer) it looks like few known early downstream DF27+ Z195- (ZZ12) subclades have been included in this FTDNA pack. Of the ones I am familiar with, there is no Z2571, for example.

NGS testing is constantly highlighting these many new 'missing' DF27 subclades, they can be seen at the DF27 part of Alex Williamson's ever growing Big Tree:

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=31

And at the YFull tree: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/o

Mikewww
07-29-2015, 06:07 PM
A newbie might be less confused if DF27 was in the test, like L21 and U152....
Agreed, but let me suggest a newbie will be confused about a lot of this stuff. That is exactly why we have an R1b "gateway" project. Send the your R-M269 over. When their results come in, Gail or I will automatically put them in the right subgrouping and even transfer them over to the DF27 project where the capable hands of Razyn will provide excellent guidance. Please read the R1b project background screen to see how we operate. This might quell your fears.

haleaton
07-29-2015, 07:01 PM
Looks like something with good pluses depending on individual situation.

For people that have never been tested, I assume FTDNA still requires a previous STR test which adds to the total cost. I only saw the Y-37 test still for sale online.

evon
07-29-2015, 07:13 PM
I think I will order it for myself, as it seems cheaper than getting individual SNP's tested one by one..

razyn
07-29-2015, 07:23 PM
Richard H, what are the missing Z195- SNPs that are immediately under DF27? Lawrence has one, BY653. What else?


If I knew in fine detail, we could just design the DF27 panel and get on with it. But a list might include:

ZZ12
ZZ19/ZZ20
FGC20747 upstream of tested FGC20761
Z2552 upstream of tested L617 and DF81, untested (large) YP4295, probably unknown others
Y6951
CTS5885
FGC23066
Z31644 with many important subclades including A431, A641, Z37492, A2146 and others
Z34609 parent of missing Z2571, the parent of tested DF84 and others
DF79
Misc. small, known clades, some with SNPs not yet named

And that's just from looking at the Big Tree, not YFull (which has some more). The project also has several under Z195+ that haven't been named yet.

dp
07-29-2015, 08:15 PM
Looks like something with good pluses depending on individual situation.

For people that have never been tested, I assume FTDNA still requires a previous STR test which adds to the total cost. I only saw the Y-37 test still for sale online.
I can't speak to this first part. For the tests available through projects, you can click here:
Project_Pending (https://www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Project_Pending)
I've been using it so I can wait on results before joining (haplogroup) projects, some of which have join requests.
dp :-)

dp
07-29-2015, 08:39 PM
I think I will order it for myself, as it seems cheaper than getting individual SNP's tested one by one..
Backbone does seem a good way to start. My own Y-12 kit was predicted M-269. I only had 100 matches. That seemed odd. Two years later I upgraded to Y-67. I think that cut my matches down to maybe 10 at the Y-37 level.
At that time P312 (S116) & U106 were known to have geographic dependance in distribution. Based on some of my STRs I took the P312 test. That came back positive.
Then I looked at my Y-25 matches and noticed southern Ireland, Wales and England seemed to be an ancestral locus. The same paper (I think it was the cautionary tale of M269 paper) & another emphasized the geographic distribution of its downstream clades L21 (M529) & M222. I took L21 and had made another correct guess.
I noticed some of the Irish STR haplotypes clustered in Northern Ireland (the Gaelic hegemony paper). I decided to be more cautious and tested for an upstream marker of M222, DF23 (at the time I had been reading Rocca's 1000 Genome paper). It came back positive, but my M222 test came back negative [I kind of was hoping I was a Clan Colla DF21]. That's when I started following the genetic blogs and in particular posts of many of the R1b haplogroup 'old pros' (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=11018.0;wap2). This led me to read about DF13 (the big Kahuna), DF49, and Z2961. The traffic moved here, so here I be.
My point is some people are not curious enough to follow the scientific papers (even with a citizen science approach). You have to tempt them with a carrot (What's up doc?!) . Prior to father's day I emailed kits in my project that had STRs modal for U106 & P312, and mentioned specific SNP testing. At least one of the kits has now ordered Big-Y. You have to have something to pique interest.
dp :-)

Kwheaton
07-29-2015, 08:58 PM
This reminds me of other past static offerings.....the answer if wether this is a goid vlaue "Depends" on your placment which isn't often know a head if time. Fir instance Geno 2.0 was a complete bust for our branch if L2....your mileage may vary.


Gauging from the other SNP packs which FTDNA has released, we have to expect some of the SNPs included will not work properly. My understanding is even FTDNA cannot know in advance which SNPs will work, and which SNPs will not

Indeed although I am nit sure why they cannot figure most of these out ahead of time. FGC22501 is included but it is in a highly unstable X region of the Y. Including it was at first exciting to me until I realized it may only add more confusion with false negatives and positives....

How the SNPS make it into these Backbone or other test panels seems less than ideal.

I think like so much avaialble today the uninformed will waste money on things that may be inappropraite....but if it brings a few more into the fold...

Kwheaton
07-29-2015, 09:00 PM
One of the ways to get a deep clade no matter what Haplogroup you are in is by using Britains DNA or 23andme which gives a broad Haplogroup assignment....and some SNPS can be looked up individually....don't know what is retained in v4

VinceT
07-29-2015, 10:00 PM
For a 'backbone' test it is very important that DF27 itself is included.

I agree, but the technology used prohibits testing DF27 due to where it is situated. These SNP packs do not use oglionucleotides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide) and PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction)) amplification used by Sanger's primer-extension method. The Sanger method is capable of sequencing contiguous sub-regions on both complimentary strands where the variant base-pair exists.

Rather, this tech behaves more like the probes used on bead-chip products that can only determine a particular state (ancestral or derived) of a nucleotide base. If a probe that terminates with the ancestral state binds to the sample DNA, the sensor detects the ancestral state. If a probe that terminate with the expected derived state binds to the sample DNA, the sensor detects the derived state. It does not matter whether the probe binds to the forward or reverse strand. As with bead-chips, it is unknowable if a probe erroneously binds to the wrong position. It is also unknowable if manufacturing flaws resulted in bad probes that fail to bind to any target.

DF27 is situated in a position on the Y-chromosome that requires dual sets of primers to isolate and amplify the desired target via the Sanger method. That isolation stage is not possible with genotyping chips nor the the tech that FTDNA uses for these SNP packs.

VinceT
07-29-2015, 10:12 PM
Please do not ask for any SNPs to be removed. It only diminishes the value of the test which means value to the project members. The price will not be lowered by removing SNPs. I have asked for Z326 to be added even though it is down a couple of layers and it isn't as early in its branching.

I was surprised to see that any SNPS downstream of R-U106 were included. That both Z381 and Z301 are included seems overkill, never mind L48 and Z9 which are also tucked between U106 and Z326.

The R1b-U106 Project administrators are in process of designing a U106-specific SNP pack with FTDNA, so realistically, only U106 itself ought to be included with the R1b-M343 pack. But having its immediate down-stream SNPs will certainly help in regards to redundancy and diagnostics if the U106 probe fails to work.

Mikewww
07-29-2015, 11:52 PM
I think I will order it for myself, as it seems cheaper than getting individual SNP's tested one by one..
Evon, your signature on the left says you are DF13*, right? This R1b Backbone has a set of L21 major SNPs but there surely will be an L21 specific subclade SNP pack so I'd say that is the one for you.

Wing Genealogist
07-29-2015, 11:56 PM
I was surprised to see that any SNPS downstream of R-U106 were included. That both Z381 and Z301 are included seems overkill, never mind L48 and Z9 which are also tucked between U106 and Z326.

The R1b-U106 Project administrators are in process of designing a U106-specific SNP pack with FTDNA, so realistically, only U106 itself ought to be included with the R1b-M343 pack. But having its immediate down-stream SNPs will certainly help in regards to redundancy and diagnostics if the U106 probe fails to work.

The U106 Project had requested some subclades of U106 be placed on the backbone test because we already know we will need several panels to cover all of U106. It is believed the 140 SNPs included in the backbone test is at or near the limit for the number of SNPs which can be included in one pack. The U106 tree (https://app.box.com/s/afqsrrnvv2d51msqcz2o) currently has about 400 clades, and we are certain to discover more in the future. In fact, one of the difficulties the U106 Project is having is to decide exactly where to break down the various packs.

At the time we requested additional U106 SNPs be included in the backbone test, we were considering dividing the tree into a "upper level" U106 pack, Z18 (which already has a SNP pack), Z156, and "somehow" divide up the L48 portion. We still have not reached decisions on this final arrangement.

We certainly did not want folks to have to take multiple SNP pack tests. For instance, if someone belongs to a subclade of Z1, but has never done any SNP testing, they would need to first take the Backbone test. Without the other U106 SNPs on the backbone test, they would then need to take the "upper level" U106 pack, then they would need to take at least one (and quite possibly two or more) SNP pack tests to reach their "terminal" level. This would potentially cost them more than what it would have cost to simply take a Big Y test.

Mikewww
07-30-2015, 12:00 AM
I was surprised to see that any SNPS downstream of R-U106 were included. That both Z381 and Z301 are included seems overkill, never mind L48 and Z9 which are also tucked between U106 and Z326.

The R1b-U106 Project administrators are in process of designing a U106-specific SNP pack with FTDNA, so realistically, only U106 itself ought to be included with the R1b-M343 pack. But having its immediate down-stream SNPs will certainly help in regards to redundancy and diagnostics if the U106 probe fails to work.
I've received feedback on about four or five different approaches from U106 admins and specialists, and that doesn't include some of the "other" U106 projects. That's okay as this is all works in progress.

I just try to proceed the best I can and see if we can get the most member/customer value out of all of this. Essentially these SNPs are there at no cost to us so worst case is they are cross-validating and there could definitely be a few surprises. This is the best way to find surprises, people who are not necessarily pigeon-holed by our STR predictions, come in and change things on occasion.

Mikewww
07-30-2015, 12:05 AM
... We certainly did not want folks to have to take multiple SNP pack tests. For instance, if someone belongs to a subclade of Z1, but has never done any SNP testing, they would need to first take the Backbone test. Without the other U106 SNPs on the backbone test, they would then need to take the "upper level" U106 pack, then they would need to take at least one (and quite possibly two or more) SNP pack tests to reach their "terminal" level. This would potentially cost them more than what it would have cost to simply take a Big Y test.
I agree with this entirely. I have two overall goals for R1b.
1) Complete coverage of all public SNPs within packs.
2) No more than two Packs to find your terminal public haplogroup.

I think you are saying that #2 could be a particular challenge but I can see how we can do this right now at least through L21 and DF27.

This will evolve as the portfolio of public SNPs grow and packs will have to be adjusted, split, etc., etc. There is nothing wrong with that.

I'll reiterate that I'm not against the alternative. I'm totally on board with everyone doing NGS so that's fine, finer in fact. It's just that most won't.

Mikewww
07-30-2015, 12:19 AM
... How the SNPS make it into these Backbone or other test panels seems less than ideal..
The price of the packs do not go down by removing SNPs.
Inclusion of an SNP does not force a position on the formal haplotree.
Packs can include SNPs "under investigation."
Both packs and haplotrees can be adjusted, albeit like "molasses" it seems.

I know the FTDNA filters included an X identity check but I don't what their criteria is. Apparently it is different. They may be wrong... but nothing ventured is nothing gained and any individual SNP is free so it's not much of a risk to us as project members/customers.

I guess there is still the concern about confusion and gnashing of teeth, but again, let us venture and see what we learn.

R.Rocca
07-30-2015, 12:48 AM
Does anyone know if positive reads from testing via these packs also update a person's FTDNA haplogroup assignment? I'm assuming they do. The reason why I ask is because we have a couple of problem assignments that this pack may or may not fix.

Mikewww
07-30-2015, 02:21 AM
Does anyone know if positive reads from testing via these packs also update a person's FTDNA haplogroup assignment? I'm assuming they do. The reason why I ask is because we have a couple of problem assignments that this pack may or may not fix.
Yes, these Pack SNP results flow directly into haplogroup assignments and individual SNP (Sanger Sequenced) results. It is my understanding it is the same database.

For whatever reason, these subclade SNP packs spur FTDNA to update that part of the tree covered by each new pack, respectively.

The problem area is the Big Y SNP results because they've been stored separately. Flowing in through the "known" SNP filters and then to haplogroup assignments is not working, at least not working effectively. I think that is one of the things that is changing this fall. The Big Y results will be fully integrated.

BalkanKiwi
07-30-2015, 02:51 AM
I've gone and ordered this however I wonder what the wait time is going to be like. I assume they are going to be able to meet demand otherwise they wouldn't have made it so cheap.

Cofgene
07-30-2015, 11:42 AM
I have sent out project e-mails in to a number of specific sub-groups in my projects requesting that they consider ordering this panel to get rid of the R-M269 designation. So if I see >10% compliance that is progress!

haleaton
07-30-2015, 12:23 PM
I was surprised to see that any SNPS downstream of R-U106 were included. That both Z381 and Z301 are included seems overkill, never mind L48 and Z9 which are also tucked between U106 and Z326.

The R1b-U106 Project administrators are in process of designing a U106-specific SNP pack with FTDNA, so realistically, only U106 itself ought to be included with the R1b-M343 pack. But having its immediate down-stream SNPs will certainly help in regards to redundancy and diagnostics if the U106 probe fails to work.

My recollection was with the old Deep Clade if they had a no call or ambiguous result, they would repeat the measurement until they did on a terminal SNP (of the tree at that time). I wonder if with the Backbone test they will do the same. I wonder if they will report no calls or ambiguous results here, or, as with individual SNP tests, they repeat until they get a result (in most cases).

Cofgene
07-30-2015, 12:43 PM
My recollection was with the old Deep Clade if they had a no call or ambiguous result, they would repeat the measurement until they did on a terminal SNP (of the tree at that time). I wonder if with the Backbone test they will do the same. I wonder if they will report no calls or ambiguous results here, or, as with individual SNP tests, they repeat until they get a result (in most cases).

No. The technology used is different. The composition of the BackBone may change over time. The reliability of a call has a dependency on the composition of the test. Adding/Removing items may break or fix others.

haleaton
07-30-2015, 01:31 PM
The SNPs for the new R1b-M343 SNP Pack from FTDNA.


5336

P25 SNP PACK

Includes 61 SNPs on the Haplotree:

M343, L278, P297, M269, L23, L51, P310, P311, P312, L21, DF21, M222, Z255, Z253, L513, L371, CTS3386, CTS4466, CTS1751, Z195, SRY2627, Z295, U152, L2, Z49, Z367, PF6610, CTS5689, Z36, Z225, DF19, CTS11567, F2691, CTS10429, U106, Z381, L48, Z9, L47, Z156, Z18, CTS4528, PF6714, PF7589, PF3252, CTS7763, Z1862, CTS6937, F2863, M73, V88, L238, DF99, L389, M335, DF13, DF63, DF95, DF49, S11601, Z17

Includes 79 SNPs not on the Haplotree:

BY2895, A6454, BY2896, A1773, A2150, A274, A4670, A517, BY2823, BY2868, BY575, CTS11994, CTS5330, DF110, DF17, DF41, DF81, DF83, DF88, DF90, FGC10516, FGC11134, FGC13620, FGC13780, FGC20761, FGC22501, FGC396, FGC5301, FGC5336, FGC5338, FGC5344, FGC5345, FGC5351, FGC5354, FGC5356, FGC5367, FGC5373, FGC5494, FGC5798, L1335, L277, L408, L584, L617, L881, M1994, MC14, PF331, PF6658, PF7562, PF7600, S1026, S1051, S11493, S12025, S1567, S16264, S1688, S18632, S18827, S7721, Y5058, Z16500, Z198, Z209, Z2103, Z2106, Z2109, Z251, Z2542, Z2573, Z262, Z296, Z301, Z302, Z56, Z8056, DF103, Z17300

Does anyone have SNP definitions and tree locations of BY2895 & BY2896 which would have been found in Big Y data and named by FTDNA?

Webb
07-30-2015, 01:58 PM
Mike, I think that so far this appears as a good start. I completely understand what is trying to be accomplished. The goal is to offer a very good test for people who are either R1b or M269. A test that will eliminate a large amount of guesswork. I am a little disappointed about DF27, however, sanger sequencing is the only way to test for this right now through FTDNA. So all of the main branches, and for the larger clades maybe several defining branches just below the main clade is a good idea. After that, hopefully, the testees will join the appropriate projects, and be guided by admins. futher down their repsective branches. I think Razyn brings up a valid point as well. If DF27 is unable to be tested for, then this branch might need a few extra branch defining snps. I think that if someone who is unkowingly DF27 positive, yet Z196 negative, uses this product, they might feel it was a waste of time and money, because if they come back just P312, they will have to turn around and spend more money on a DF27 snp test. Just my two cents.

ArmandoR1b
07-30-2015, 02:37 PM
Mike, thank you so much for creating this panel. I have been waiting a very long time for it. I am really hoping a lot of people take advantage of it including Iberians and Latin Americans who will mostly be DF27. Even if they end up P312+ and negative for L21, U152, DF19, DF99, L238, Z195, Z225, DF83, L617, DF81, CTS11567, Y5058, Z2573, A4670, L881, CTS10429, F2691, and FGC20761 they will at least know that much. Then hopefully they join the P312 group where they can be informed that they are probably positive for DF27 and they need to order that test individually.

Joe B
07-30-2015, 03:32 PM
Does anyone know if positive reads from testing via these packs also update a person's FTDNA haplogroup assignment? I'm assuming they do. The reason why I ask is because we have a couple of problem assignments that this pack may or may not fix.

Yes, these Pack SNP results flow directly into haplogroup assignments and individual SNP (Sanger Sequenced) results. It is my understanding it is the same database.

For whatever reason, these subclade SNP packs spur FTDNA to update that part of the tree covered by each new pack, respectively.

The problem area is the Big Y SNP results because they've been stored separately. Flowing in through the "known" SNP filters and then to haplogroup assignments is not working, at least not working effectively. I think that is one of the things that is changing this fall. The Big Y results will be fully integrated.One problem that needs to be addressed is the incorrect FTDNA haplotree. If a person tests L23+, which is included in the R1b-M343 SNP pack, they will be blocked from ordering downstream SNPs CTS7822, CTS9219 and M64. That is a major issue for the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project.
There are probably similar examples in the FTDNA R-haplotree.5353

R.Rocca
07-30-2015, 03:48 PM
When I log into GAP and check the myFTDNA homepages of other users, the banner to order the R1b backbone test only seems to show up for users that have not tested Big-Y. This makes sense because it protects less knowledgeable members from getting back mostly redundant data. However, it would seem to me that some SNP pack SNPs may be in positions not read by Big-Y. In this case, can users still order via some other way (e.g. phone)?

Also, do we know how long this product will remain in "beta" for and what the price will be afterwards? Perhaps there is precedence with the G-pack, M222-pack, etc.?

Mikewww
07-30-2015, 04:05 PM
No. The technology used is different. The composition of the BackBone may change over time. The reliability of a call has a dependency on the composition of the test. Adding/Removing items may break or fix others.
I checked with FTDNA on this. It is true that the composition of the pack is important, but it is not an issue unless we are "at the limit" on adding SNPs to a pack. They do have both computer algorithms and actual lab test runs to confirm the reliability of the SNPs and flag problems for every set of SNPs. If the addition of a new SNP causes a problem, they should catch it and then have to make a decision on which SNP falls off the wagon, etc. I use the word "should" not them. They use the word "will" but I'm sure there are risks.

Mikewww
07-30-2015, 04:11 PM
When I log into GAP and check the myFTDNA homepages of other users, the banner to order the R1b backbone test only seems to show up for users that have not tested Big-Y. This makes sense because it protects less knowledgeable members from getting back mostly redundant data. However, it would seem to me that some SNP pack SNPs may be in positions not read by Big-Y. In this case, can users still order via some other way (e.g. phone)?

Also, do we know how long this product will remain in "beta" for and what the price will be afterwards? Perhaps there is precedence with the G-pack, M222-pack, etc.?
I think their whole banner-ad and email broadcast thing has bugs. It's working correctly for a lot of people but not for others.

I believe the initial price on all of the others was $99 and then they fell back (up) to $119 after the initial run. This $79 price was a surprise to me and I'm sure it will go up. I hope not to $119 but that is the standard price for a pack.

I don't know about "exception" orders where FTDNA is trying not to allow an order but you want one anyway. I should ask though. It's not a decision I have anything to do with, but I personally want to see all of the true red letter M269 and P25 folks order under this good price. My intent is to shake the big R1b tree and get these people closer to home. Who knows what will fall out?

Mikewww
07-30-2015, 04:13 PM
One problem that needs to be addressed is the incorrect FTDNA haplotree. If a person tests L23+, which is included in the R1b-M343 SNP pack, they will be blocked from ordering downstream SNPs CTS7822, CTS9219 and M64. That is a major issue for the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project.
There are probably similar examples in the FTDNA R-haplotree.5353
What SNPs are needed for L23XL51 to make this a decent test for them?
I guess I'm asking if they need their own SNP pack?

dp
07-30-2015, 05:21 PM
Couldn't they still order the downstream markers by using the advanced (SNP/STR) order form. They class me as DF23 but I am similarly Sanger certified (by them) for its downstream SNPs: Z2961+, ZP106+, and ZP69-.
I would think that only if a Sanger test had already been performed for a particular SNP that it be blocked, until they were notified that they needed to retest it.
dp :-)

One problem that needs to be addressed is the incorrect FTDNA haplotree. If a person tests L23+, which is included in the R1b-M343 SNP pack, they will be blocked from ordering downstream SNPs CTS7822, CTS9219 and M64. That is a major issue for the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project.
There are probably similar examples in the FTDNA R-haplotree.5353

Wing Genealogist
07-30-2015, 05:25 PM
I think their whole banner-ad and email broadcast thing has bugs. It's working correctly for a lot of people but not for others.

I believe the initial price on all of the others was $99 and then they fell back (up) to $119 after the initial run. This $79 price was a surprise to me and I'm sure it will go up. I hope not to $119 but that is the standard price for a pack.

I don't know about "exception" orders where FTDNA is trying not to allow an order but you want one anyway. I should ask though. It's not a decision I have anything to do with, but I personally want to see all of the true red letter M269 and P25 folks order under this good price. My intent is to shake the big R1b tree and get these people closer to home. Who knows what will fall out?

IMHO, FTDNA realizes that most folks who order this backbone test ideally would need to order another SNP pack to reach their "terminal" haplogroup. I believe this is their motivation for offering this backbone pack for less than other SNP packs (as in the end they should make more profit over two tests at a reduced price than one test at a higher price).

Mikewww
07-30-2015, 05:55 PM
IMHO, FTDNA realizes that most folks who order this backbone test ideally would need to order another SNP pack to reach their "terminal" haplogroup. I believe this is their motivation for offering this backbone pack for less than other SNP packs (as in the end they should make more profit over two tests at a reduced price than one test at a higher price).
It could be. The other consideration you have is just sheer volume for a particular type of test. The more volume you expect, the lower your profit margin can be per unit. There is something in micro-economics called the demand curve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve

Another consideration could be competitive strategies.

I'm not a mind reader. This is a bit of speculation. I don't necessarily see the need to assign motives. We get what we get.

I think everyone agrees that lower prices are good for the consumer, right?

Joe B
07-30-2015, 06:06 PM
Useful test, Its such a shame that the 4 main SNP's under CTS4528 were not included in this new R1b backbone panel, this would have made a massive difference to the expansion of my project if the following could have been added - S11481, S14328, S1211, S6868You're not alone about feeling left out. smal, byrgian and myself were left out with CTS7822, CTS9219 and M64. That said, CTS4528 is there along with P310, P311, P312 and U106 which is pretty good first round phylogenetic bracketing for your haplogroup. You know that we will fight tooth and nail to get your branch well represented in the next round.

Joe B
07-30-2015, 07:45 PM
What SNPs are needed for L23XL51 to make this a decent test for them?
I guess I'm asking if they need their own SNP pack?
This is a decent test for the first round from the R1b-M343 (P312- U106-) point of view. Mostly since we have been the poor step child of R1b for so long. The inclusion of SNPs M269, L23, L51, P310, P311, P312, U106, CTS4528, PF7589, CTS7763, L277, L584, PF331, PF7562, S7721, Z2103, Z2106 and Z2109 is a big deal for us.

If it's just a matter of adding SNPs to the current R1b-M343 SNP pack, adding SNPs CTS7822, CTS9219, M64 and PF7563 would help a lot. These four SNP are already on the FTDNA haplotree and reliably test by SNP array, Sanger sequencing and Big Y covers them with NGS testing. smal or byrgian may want to comment on the value of SNPs PF6714, PF3252, Z1862, CTS6937 and F2863.

Adding CTS6889, CTS11824 for the PF7589 branch and S14328, S11481 for the CTS4528 branch would be nice too.

Mike, we are taking this new test seriously. There is a good chance that four dozen or more very interesting R1b haplotypes will be taking the R1b-M343 SNP pack test. Please contact the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) crew directly if there are to be any changes to this SNP pack.

smal
07-30-2015, 08:11 PM
We very need SNP Pack for the M343xM269 samples. 98% of R1b-M343 Backbone SNP pack will be useless for the M343xM269 branches.

Joe B
07-30-2015, 08:20 PM
We very need SNP Pack for the M343xM269 samples. 98% of R1b-M343 Backbone SNP pack will be useless for the M343xM269 branches.
Here is an updated version of the R1b early subclades tree based on recently published data:
Hallast et al. 2014,
Lippold et al. 2014,
Karmin et al. 2015,
sequences from 1000 Genomes Project
and few FTDNA samples.

Link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j04q5ivx7iah9h4/R1b%20Y-DNA%20tree.pdf?dl=0)smal, Does this R1b Y-DNA tree (root). March 19, 2015 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j04q5ivx7iah9h4/R1b%20Y-DNA%20tree.pdf?dl=0) have the SNPs we need for a SNP Pack for M343xM269 samples? I'm seeing M343, L278, P297 and V88. Any other SNPs included in the pack?

miiser
07-30-2015, 08:28 PM
IMHO, FTDNA realizes that most folks who order this backbone test ideally would need to order another SNP pack to reach their "terminal" haplogroup. I believe this is their motivation for offering this backbone pack for less than other SNP packs (as in the end they should make more profit over two tests at a reduced price than one test at a higher price).

...Especially in light of the fact that there are quite a few cases in which customers previously had haplogroups assigned based on their STRs, but those assignments were revoked some months back due to "quality issues", and now there is a product available for purchase to regain that haplogroup assignment. One of my M222 project members might have ordered the M222 pack. But now he is no longer identified as M222, so he is unable to order the M222 pack until after ordering M222 as a single SNP or the new backbone panel. I suspect it was a deliberate decision by FTDNA to keep any terminal SNPs out of the backbone pack, and to require the backbone panel before subgroup panels, in order to ensure that there will always need to be at least two purchases to get to the terminal SNP.

I'm not making any kind of a moral judgment or complaint regarding FTDNA's strategy. This is just an acknowledgment of reality. It's important for people to always keep in mind that this is a business corporation. Their primary reason for existence (sole reason?), as with all business corporations, is to generate profit for the owners. It is safe to assume that the encouraged or mandated testing sequence is not the one that will be most cost efficient for the customer, but the one which will generate the most profit for FTDNA.

(I do understand that there were indeed some legitimate quality issues with some of the previous haplogroup assignments based on STR signatures. But most of those assignments that got revoked did not fall into this category.)

VinceT
07-30-2015, 08:38 PM
One problem that needs to be addressed is the incorrect FTDNA haplotree. If a person tests L23+, which is included in the R1b-M343 SNP pack, they will be blocked from ordering downstream SNPs CTS7822, CTS9219 and M64. That is a major issue for the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project.
There are probably similar examples in the FTDNA R-haplotree.http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5353&stc=1

It should still be possible to order any greyed-out SNP on the tree by ordering a Sanger test from the Advanced SNP screen: http://www.familytreedna.com/upgrades.aspx?ot=ADV&category=SNP [after logging in]. M64 is not yet listed, but may be requested via the GAP since primers exist (http://ybrowse.org/gb2/gbrowse_details/chrY?ref=ChrY;name=M64).

smal
07-30-2015, 08:45 PM
smal, Does this R1b Y-DNA tree (root). March 19, 2015 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j04q5ivx7iah9h4/R1b%20Y-DNA%20tree.pdf?dl=0) have the SNPs we need for a SNP Pack for M343xM269 samples? I'm seeing M343, L278, P297 and V88. Any other SNPs included in the pack?

Additionally, there is CTS 5330. But this is nothing. We need many other SNPs. My tree can help but now I have more information and can build more detailed tree for V88 and L389 branches. We need also several SNPs for M73 subclades.

corner
07-30-2015, 09:48 PM
I agree, but the technology used prohibits testing DF27 due to where it is situated. These SNP packs do not use oglionucleotides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide) and PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction)) amplification used by Sanger's primer-extension method. The Sanger method is capable of sequencing contiguous sub-regions on both complimentary strands where the variant base-pair exists.

Rather, this tech behaves more like the probes used on bead-chip products that can only determine a particular state (ancestral or derived) of a nucleotide base. If a probe that terminates with the ancestral state binds to the sample DNA, the sensor detects the ancestral state. If a probe that terminate with the expected derived state binds to the sample DNA, the sensor detects the derived state. It does not matter whether the probe binds to the forward or reverse strand. As with bead-chips, it is unknowable if a probe erroneously binds to the wrong position. It is also unknowable if manufacturing flaws resulted in bad probes that fail to bind to any target.

DF27 is situated in a position on the Y-chromosome that requires dual sets of primers to isolate and amplify the desired target via the Sanger method. That isolation stage is not possible with genotyping chips nor the the tech that FTDNA uses for these SNP packs.Thanks, good to read the details of this old issue with DF27 and chip-based tests. One can test DF27 at FTDNA as a single test, it costs $49. YSEQ include DF27 in their own similarly priced (to the new FTDNA R1b-M343 SNP Pack) 'YSEQ R1b Orientation Panel' test or it can be ordered as a single test there for $17.50. Also, BritainsDNA test DF27 (their name for it is S250) when all else turns up negative under P312 in their chip-based test, Chromo2.

ArmandoR1b
07-31-2015, 02:24 AM
You can buy DF27 separately under Sanger Sequencing/Advanced Tests from FTDNA.

This needs to be double checked, but I think all of these early branching SNPs within DF27 are there.

A4670
CTS10429
CTS11567
DF81
DF83
F2691
FGC20761
L617
L881
Y5058
Z225
Z2573
Z195
Z296
DF17
Z209
Z198
Z262
SRY2627

Particularly, since Z195 is included, the only concern is true DF27* people, which may be a very small group. However, even this isn't much of a concern relative to everybody else in R1b. Here's why:

If a person comes out of this test P312+ L21- U152- L238- DF19- DF99- and negative for the DF27 subclade SNPS above they are actually home free. I'm not DF27, but if I were to take this M343 Backbone test, I'd come out with positives for the backbone leading down to P312 and L21 and then have my L513+. I'm not done either. I have to go buy an L513 pack or panel as the final step.

In the case of the M343 Backbone true DF27* person, they'd be P312+ L21- U152- L238- DF19- DF99- and have one additional step too, but their step would be cheaper. The only thing they can do is buy an individual DF27 test at FTDNA or wherever you want, but it would be cheaper than any pack/panel.

I haven't had enough time to look up CTS10429, F2691, and FGC20761 to see which branch they are part of so they might be part of the 8 YFull branches that I can't find represented in the above list of DF27 SNPs. I used the search function at YFull which is at http://www.yfull.com/search-snp-in-tree/ and I used CTRL-F at http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=29 to cross reference placement of the SNPs in the list. The following don't seem to be represented in the R1b Backbone Panel except for maybe CTS10429, F2691, and FGC20761. I omitted anything that has an SNP within each branch at YFull such as BY653 which has A4670. Of course, a tester they could be negative for the downstream SNP but positive for the SNP directly downstream from DF27.

R-Y11849 CTS6578 * CTS7356 * FGC20210/Y11851
R-Y13142 FGC13135/Y13796 * FGC13147/Y13801 * FGC13122/Y13146
R-Y13607 Y14084 * Y14081 * Y14080
R-Y14529 FGC31017/A2146/Y14531 * FGC30990/Y14529 * FGC30997/Y14530
R-DF79 Z2547 * Z2549 * Y14471
R-Y6951 Y6953 * FGC20533/Y6951 * FGC20540/Y6950
R-Y3267 A431/Y3267 * A432
R-Z1899 Z1899 * Z1897

The SNPs that are downstream SNPs are A4670 below A4670, Y5058 below R-BY2285 BY2285/FGC31188, and CTS11567 below R-Z2571 Z2571

The following are downstream of Z195 - DF17, Z198, Z262, Z296, and Z209

So does anyone know where CTS10429, F2691, and FGC20761 fit?

paulgill
07-31-2015, 05:26 AM
Agreed, VinceT. This is where we need to use some smarts as far an SNP pack coverage strategy. FTDNA apparently doesn't like my choice of wording but I say there are two types of SNP packs. One is a "backbone" or "top-layer" super SNP set while as the others are the "subclade" SNP packs.

I think the "subclade" SNP probably require a certain population size and penetration of NGS testing to
1) justify a dedicated SNP pack offering from FTDNA
2) have enough SNPs discovered to provide good value

I would consider the "subclade" SNP packs as "terminal haplogroup finders" and potentially "phylogenetic blockblusters".

The "back-bone" SNP packs traverse the top-layers or older layers of the tree putting people in the right major subclades.... but there is another potential use too.

STRs have their place too. They are always good for matching in the database because everyone gets measured at the same locations and the matching database is large. However, distinctive STR signatures like the NW Irish, Irish II, Irish III, Z326 null425, N-S cluster, etc., etc. can skip "backbone" testing altogether and go right to the home "subclade" pack.

... assuming the can't afford Big Y.

But the SNP packs are MUCH CHEAPER than STR packs.

paulgill
07-31-2015, 05:49 AM
One of the ways to get a deep clade no matter what Haplogroup you are in is by using Britains DNA or 23andme which gives a broad Haplogroup assignment....and some SNPS can be looked up individually....don't know what is retained in v4

23andMe is useless for J1 and so is Geno 2.0, and FTDNA J1 SNP Pack is also useless for me as it does not test even a SINGLE SNP beyond what I already know.

lgmayka
07-31-2015, 03:20 PM
I assume that the new SNP pack would be essentially useless for #109663, who has already tested
P312+, M269+, L21-, M153-, M65-, SRY2627-, U106-, U152-, Z196-, DF27-, DF19-, DF99-

?

Huntergatherer1066
07-31-2015, 03:31 PM
The only big one missing from his testing that's on the panel is L238 but he could just as easily individually test that

ballardgen
07-31-2015, 08:02 PM
You're not alone about feeling left out. smal, byrgian and myself were left out with CTS7822, CTS9219 and M64. That said, CTS4528 is there along with P310, P311, P312 and U106 which is pretty good first round phylogenetic bracketing for your haplogroup. You know that we will fight tooth and nail to get your branch well represented in the next round.

Thanks Joe,

I have about 60 potential testers that need to know what one of the 4 main SNP branches they belong in - Those that can have invested in BIGY now we are stuck BDNA is the only option left - if the 4 main SNP's under CTS4528 were also added ( S11481, S14328*, S1211, S6868) this would make a big difference for our project, In many ways that would benefit all concerned.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-s14328-genealogy/about/background

MacUalraig
08-02-2015, 08:23 AM
Unfortunately the only kit I have at that lab that I have no SNP data for, I believe to be DF27...and I'm not convinced I would risk this test even at its sale price in case I end up with nothing*.

*P312+ is included in my definition of 'nothing' ;-)

R.Rocca
08-02-2015, 11:42 AM
A big thank you to Mike for helping put this backbone test together. I think sometimes we are so focused on looking at the details (e.g. is my SNP covered?), that we (me included) forget the importance of what this will accomplish, which again, it to get as many of those M269-predicted people into some high level branching.

haleaton
08-02-2015, 03:10 PM
It appears now, in my sample, that on the FTDNA Big Y Matches, Shared Novel Variants pulldown menu that the R1b Backbone test SNP, FGC5031, now appears under that name instead of a location. It also appears in the Known SNPs list, however I do not see others who match, in this list and vice versa.

This may be a way to find the definition of the two non-publicly defined SNPs in the test, BY2895 & BY2896, by users or project admins.

Mikewww
08-02-2015, 07:39 PM
Unfortunately the only kit I have at that lab that I have no SNP data for, I believe to be DF27...and I'm not convinced I would risk this test even at its sale price in case I end up with nothing*.

*P312+ is included in my definition of 'nothing' ;-)
What is the reason that that you would not take a $79 risk?

Do you have a concern about P312? It's not a big deal, but to P312 people, we think P312/S116 means something.

If you give me the kit # and it is at 67 STRs I can do a quick analysis and tell if you if matches nicely with DF27 people or not. Perhaps your fears can be quelled.

By the way, for the M222 and U106 people who are concerned about DF27 candidate people, as well as the DF27 people (like myself or Razyn), there is good news on the final SNP list for this R1b-M343 SNP Backbone test.

Joe B
08-02-2015, 07:57 PM
A big thank you to Mike for helping put this backbone test together. I think sometimes we are so focused on looking at the details (e.g. is my SNP covered?), that we (me included) forget the importance of what this will accomplish, which again, it to get as many of those M269-predicted people into some high level branching.I want to second Richard's thank you to Mike. From a big picture stand point this will move a lot kits off the R1b-M259 predicted list. Even some people who took a Deep Clade test years ago are and are listed R1b-L23 or R1b-L150 can benefit from this SNP pack. In addition, not as many "take this SNP test" subgroups are needed. That makes project administration just a bit easier.

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need

Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want

Mikewww
08-02-2015, 08:20 PM
A big thank you to Mike for helping put this backbone test together. I think sometimes we are so focused on looking at the details (e.g. is my SNP covered?), that we (me included) forget the importance of what this will accomplish, which again, it to get as many of those M269-predicted people into some high level branching.
Richard, Joe and all, you are welcome. It is my pleasure. I started on the R1b project in late 2012 when I saw it was a little stale. There are so many M269 undifferentiated people that I decided to try to help them by simplifying the project and shaking the big R1b tree a bit by getting them to test more deeply. Of course, selfishly I am hoping for more L21 and DF27 people to be among those who fall out.

A big focus is to get people to 67 STRs so they can hopefully jump into SNP testing plans that focus on youthful haplogroups and just generally support a better matching database.

However, by mid 2014 I was swamped in the NGS tsunami and it took until January of this year to be more disciplined on R1b. A huge blessing came when Janine Cloud recruited Gail Riddell to help. She is a gem, a truly reliable and knowledgable administrator. This allowed me to put my head down trying to pull together a list of SNPs for FTDNA. They do have the data, but they are generally just so swamped on everything that they need help on priorities and focus.

I think some are concerned that this will hurt YSEQ. I don't think so. These early branches in the R1b tree are so all over the place that a low priced shotgun type FTDNA Pack approach and the public display of results makes sense for backbone/top layer testing. I want to make sure we don't leave people behind, like V88, or some of the ht35 types, etc. so I felt like we needed to go all the way back to M343. You never know what surprises you will find, but these people need homes too.

My personal opinion is terminal haplogroup finding subclade based fixed SNP packs and panels from YSEQ, and also from FTDNA, along with some one at a time testing can pick it up below the backbone results. Both NGS (for SNPs) and this Backbone Pack (for individuals who won't do NGS) provide the feeder system for the more youthful subclade packs and panels. .. but we needed to shake the main trunk!

haleaton
08-02-2015, 10:06 PM
It appears now, in my sample, that on the FTDNA Big Y Matches, Shared Novel Variants pulldown menu that the R1b Backbone test SNP, FGC5031, now appears under that name instead of a location. It also appears in the Known SNPs list, however I do not see others who match, in this list and vice versa.

This may be a way to find the definition of the two non-publicly defined SNPs in the test, BY2895 & BY2896, by users or project admins.

I did notice that some of the R1B Backbone SNP statuses, usually positive but some negative, probably from Big Y tests now appear on the various FTDNA Group Projects SNPs - Confirmed SNPs public pages. Mine does along with my match.

razyn
08-02-2015, 11:38 PM
I agree, but the technology used prohibits testing DF27 due to where it is situated...

DF27 is situated in a position on the Y-chromosome that requires dual sets of primers to isolate and amplify the desired target via the Sanger method. That isolation stage is not possible with genotyping chips nor the the tech that FTDNA uses for these SNP packs.

Thanks for a rather more detailed discussion of the DF27 testing problem than I have seen elsewhere.

Have you addressed the testing possibilities, or lack thereof, for Alex Williamson's ZZ12 SNP? It occurs to me that if a non-Sanger test (on a chip, or whatever else this FTDNA "SNP pack" uses) could identify the state of Z195 and ZZ12, that would de facto cover almost everybody who is DF27+. The only "exception" we have found, so far, is one Plant family that differs from its fellow L617 members in having had a RecLOH at that site on the P5 palindrome, and thereby -- recently, in evolutionary terms -- lost all evidence of ZZ12. That lone exception could be covered by adding a test for L617 to the panel, chip or pack. (However, that approach is rather case-specific; and there might well be more such RecLOH cases in other DF27 subclades, of which we are still unaware.)

My basic query, however, is whether ZZ12 and Z195 in combination might be a useful work-around, to get DF27 tested by inference -- without Sanger sequencing, nested primers, and two runs on the same sample. I realize that testing for ZZ12 is also problematic, but it's not precisely the same problem, and one might hope it could be addressed with simpler technology.

Edit -- forgot to link to an earlier discussion of ZZ12, which in turn has a link to the Yahoo message in which Alex described this series of SNPs.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3270-P312-gt-ZZ11-gt-DF27-gt-ZZ12-gt-ZZ19-ZZ20-%28x-L195%29-gt

VinceT
08-03-2015, 01:12 AM
Thanks for a rather more detailed discussion of the DF27 testing problem than I have seen elsewhere.

Have you addressed the testing possibilities, or lack thereof, for Alex Williamson's ZZ12 SNP? It occurs to me that if a non-Sanger test (on a chip, or whatever else this FTDNA "SNP pack" uses) could identify the state of Z195 and ZZ12, that would de facto cover almost everybody who is DF27+. The only "exception" we have found, so far, is one Plant family that differs from its fellow L617 members in having had a RecLOH at that site on the P5 palindrome, and thereby -- recently, in evolutionary terms -- lost all evidence of ZZ12. That lone exception could be covered by adding a test for L617 to the panel, chip or pack. (However, that approach is rather case-specific; and there might well be more such RecLOH cases in other DF27 subclades, of which we are still unaware.)

My basic query, however, is whether ZZ12 and Z195 in combination might be a useful work-around, to get DF27 tested by inference -- without Sanger sequencing, nested primers, and two runs on the same sample. I realize that testing for ZZ12 is also problematic, but it's not precisely the same problem, and one might hope it could be addressed with simpler technology.

Edit -- forgot to link to an earlier discussion of ZZ12, which in turn has a link to the Yahoo message in which Alex described this series of SNPs.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3270-P312-gt-ZZ11-gt-DF27-gt-ZZ12-gt-ZZ19-ZZ20-%28x-L195%29-gt

ZZ12 exists within the P5 palindrome, located at either ChrY:19736631 (T>C?) or ChrY:20442843 (A>G?). The regions surrounding and including each position are exact reverse compliments of the other, meaning that the forward strand of the first position has exactly the same sequence as the reverse strand of the second sequence, and the reverse strand of the first position has exactly the same sequence as the forward strand of the second position. It is impossible to know, even with NGS sequencing, which position is the actual one.

Any Sanger test design will inevitably amplify and sequence both locations, simultaneously. Samples with the ZZ12 variant will only produce an inconclusive heterozygous signal at best. I seriously doubt that the tech used for the SNP pack will do any better.

Kwheaton
08-03-2015, 04:16 AM
Mikewww,

Do you have any additional insight into what platform and process is being used with the Bakbone and SNP packs? If they are nit using Snager sequencing what are they using? And can this overcome the X area if the Y issues?

MacUalraig
08-03-2015, 08:41 AM
What is the reason that that you would not take a $79 risk?

Its a lot of money (I live on disability benefits).


Do you have a concern about P312? It's not a big deal, but to P312 people, we think P312/S116 means something.
Its not informative enough for the money.


If you give me the kit # and it is at 67 STRs I can do a quick analysis and tell if you if matches nicely with DF27 people or not. Perhaps your fears can be quelled.


It isn't at 67 no. There is some specific info within his matches that points to DF27 but having just looked in the project the guys aren't in there so I won't post it.

Mikewww
08-03-2015, 12:13 PM
Mikewww,

Do you have any additional insight into what platform and process is being used with the Bakbone and SNP packs? If they are nit using Snager sequencing what are they using? And can this overcome the X area if the Y issues?
I really don't know, but it's not Sanger Sequencing. They do use an X identity check, because I had a number of submissions I made in L513 that they threw out and the most frequent problem was this X similarity. This check is not using the same method as YSEQ's, but it probably shouldn't. They threw several out for this M343 Backbone submission, but other than DF27 (for a different reason per Vince T) I don't remember which they were. They do NOT just accept a project admin's analysis. This is part of the reason they are "slow as molasses." That's both good and bad.

This is a more generalized comment, but I have seen differences between testing platforms on reading various individual SNPs. Sanger Sequencing is not always the best. There should be discrimination between what is a true problem with instability for a particular region of the Y chromosome and what is just the feasibility of a particular testing platform to reliably read a particular region. I actually think Next Generation Sequencing is more powerful than people realize and advancements to do greater depth in coverage reads is good.

I know of a situation under L513 where Thomas first rejected the SNP for Sanger Sequencing and then later accepted it. ScotlandsDNA always thought it was good (they discovered it) even when pressured. I was concerned FTDNA would not accept it for Sanger Sequencing but after an exceptionally long time (compared to the rest in the same submission batch from me) they did add it to their Advanced Tests. I was concerned about it on the proposed L513 SNP Pack but they accepted it there too and it has always worked perfectly in Big Y across about 130 L513 tests. It is ancestral as it should be across about a thousand L513- L21+ people. Finally, Ray Banks has accepted it for ISOGG. He's actually been the toughest reviewer so far, so kudos to ISOGG for their conservatism.

I've posted about this elsewhere but my issue with the lab scientists and their methods is they are not doing a good job of applying their Y chromosome regional assessments. Every region of the Y chromosome has an expected mutation rate. It's almost by definition of the fact we are homo sapiens sapiens. Every SNP is a change of at least one time to that location. Every technical or underlying concern for instability should be assigned a mutation rate impact. For application to genetic genealogy and population genetics we need the mutation rate and confidence interval estimated by Probability Theory methods. Then we can put any variant in context of other variants and a time range or duration for validity based on whatever our accepted confidence intervals are. I've gone around and around about this with Thomas. He can't provide a valid mutation rate, but no one really can that is probably sufficient. These things need to be developed one scientific paper at a time. The Pozniak Bustamante Lab (Stanford) 2013 paper was an attempt that resulted in something called "gold" regions. The Yfull guys have published something that results in "CombBed" regions. I wish they would publish in a reputable international journal so that others will respond with their rebuttals or reference their paper as a base. Still these papers are looking at a very superficial level of assessment and just doing "weeding" that amounts to "we don't think this can be a UEP". This (UEP) is a bit of a fictitious concept in the first place. The reality is not black and white based on arbitrary technical standards. I have word for that (used in I/T) but I won't say it. There are shades of gray and their scopes of applicability to genetic genealogy. We need more true scientific studies with sound statistics.

Mikewww
08-03-2015, 12:30 PM
Its a lot of money.
$79 is $79 and what is "a lot" is relative to the situation. Did you buy an FGC Elite test? I'm not demanding answer and I don't want to pressure you into an answer but it is just an interesting question. I only bring it up because you are personalizing this discussion.


.. Its not informative enough for the money.
Thats a relative statement. Perceived value can be like beauty - it's in the eye of the beholder. If you believe there is no value in P312/S116, that's okay. Others might. I don't see it as a carte blanche statement that it is either extremely valuable or of no value. It depends on the individual, their goals and their perspectives.


...It isn't at 67 no. There is some specific info within his matches that points to DF27 but having just looked in the project the guys aren't in there so I won't post it.
It can be very hard to predict haplogroups within R1b, or I should say within M269 to be specific. It's almost always beneficial to get to at least 67 STRs.

If you don't want to share information, that's okay, but I am willing to look at the STRs and give you an assessment. I can also look at the matches. You know I have access to the DF27 and P312 project data too, right? If you join the R1b project and give me your kit # I will help. If not, it's difficult to converse on your concerns without any background.

I'll re-emphasize, an R1b Backbone type test is not likely to be an item that YSEQ can easily execute across the audience needed, anyway. This R1b-M343 Backbone test will give them more qualified opportunities as people advance to more youthful levels of the tree. I think you all know that the "gateway" function of the R1b project allows me to move people to the next major subclade downstream of R1b as SNP results warrant.

razyn
08-03-2015, 03:07 PM
ZZ12 exists within the P5 palindrome, located at either ChrY:19736631 (T>C?) or ChrY:20442843 (A>G?). The regions surrounding and including each position are exact reverse compliments of the other, meaning that the forward strand of the first position has exactly the same sequence as the reverse strand of the second sequence, and the reverse strand of the first position has exactly the same sequence as the forward strand of the second position. It is impossible to know, even with NGS sequencing, which position is the actual one.

Any Sanger test design will inevitably amplify and sequence both locations, simultaneously. Samples with the ZZ12 variant will only produce an inconclusive heterozygous signal at best. I seriously doubt that the tech used for the SNP pack will do any better.

From the little discussion I've seen on the subject, an "inconclusive heterozygous signal" is evidence of the derived state on one strand, thus ZZ12_1+. The Z195+ people [which is to say, anybody else who is DF27+] will have that result (in a chip test that queries the Z195 locus); so we don't need a ZZ12 call for them (though it would be unambiguously "ancestral"). The rest -- the non-DF27+ crowd -- will (a) already have some other haplogroup called, and (b) have unambiguous ancestral calls at the several possible sites of a ZZ12 mutation on the P5 arm.

I'll paste in a little discussion of this from another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4938-The-Great-Divide-below-DF27&p=98255&viewfull=1#post98255


If you use the chromosome browser on the DF-27 group at Yfull you see that all the people that are under Z195+ get the ancestral state T for ZZ12_1 with high confidence. The people that are Z195- seem to get a 50/50 mix of ancestral and derived. It's a very clean cut between the two groups and so the ZZ12_1 sort of acts like a SNP despite the low confidence in what the state really is. ZZ12_2 seems to be the ancestral value (with a low number of reads) across the whole of DF27. Use the positions 19736631, 20442843, 17922066 if you want to try it yourself.

Whether it's worth the effort of trying to get the FTDNA lab to test these potential loci for evidence of ZZ12, I wouldn't know. I suspect it's technically simpler than the nested primers trick Thomas devised to find DF27 by Sanger sequencing; but it's somewhat a matter of persuading tech people to believe that the result matters. I have several hundred project members who are DF27+ and Z195-. This makes a major difference as to what downstream SNPs they need to test, and to them, it matters.

Mikewww
08-03-2015, 03:42 PM
... I have several hundred project members who are DF27+ and Z195-. This makes a major difference as to what downstream SNPs they need to test, and to them, it matters.
I recognize that, Razyn, as an admin with you on the DF27 project.
That is why I posted as clearly as I could in the topic-appropriate DF27 project yahoo group on July 30th,

I want to be clear on this as there still seems to be some confusion.

I definitely do NOT recommend this new R1b-M343 Backbone SNP for anyone who is DF27+ confirmed or for any SNP downstream of DF27. There are some cases where there could be perceived value, but I think we can expect a DF27 pack soon so that would be the better choice.

Of course, if you have Big Y, you also don't need this R-M343 Backbone Pack.

The R1b-M343 Backbone Pack is designed for people with haplogroup assignments of R-M269, R-P25 and R-M343 who have done very little SNP testing.

Mike

The R1b-M343 Backbone is intended for candidates who may be DF27, not for DF27+ known people. It's not perfect, but a good run through a 140 early branching SNPs for $79 is not a bad value for someone in undifferentiated R1b land. It's actually a moot point anyway. It's fait accompli in terms of undifferentiated R1b people and their engagement AND response.

... but you are right, any improvements that can be made to packs should be made and those are well communicated.

... and a DF27 pack should be designed as best as possible just as a DF27 panel should be updated. Do you want to jump over to the divide of DF27 topic and we can discuss SNP pack/panel development over there?

razyn
08-03-2015, 07:02 PM
Do you want to jump over to the divide of DF27 topic and we can discuss SNP pack/panel development over there?

Not really. I want you guys to take seriously the possibility of a simple way to finesse the difficulty of testing DF27; and if there is one, add it to the M343 test this thread is about. Otherwise, maybe 20% of P312 guys (potentially, millions of guys) won't get their basic, high level, 5,000 years ago haplogroup (DF27) identified -- by design. And that's not a very good bet at $79, let alone whatever they raise it to once the Beta test is over.

I realize I already more or less said that, in post #20 on this thread.

corner
08-03-2015, 08:04 PM
Not really. I want you guys to take seriously the possibility of a simple way to finesse the difficulty of testing DF27; and if there is one, add it to the M343 test this thread is about. Otherwise, maybe 20% of P312 guys (potentially, millions of guys) won't get their basic, high level, 5,000 years ago haplogroup (DF27) identified -- by design. And that's not a very good bet at $79, let alone whatever they raise it to once the Beta test is over.

I realize I already more or less said that, in post #20 on this thread.Quite, it's not just a few DF27* we're talking about. To catch the large numbers of 'missing' Z195- DF27+ that will get a P312* result as things stand maybe they could have just added Sanger/'advanced' DF27 testing to the R1b-M343 SNP pack - like YSEQ (YSEQ R1b Orientation Panel) and BritainsDNA (Chromo2) already do with their tests to get a DF27 result. It's disappointing after years of poor coverage of DF27 (in Geno 2.0) that the new 'backbone' test still does not identify a large section of DF27.

Mikewww
08-03-2015, 08:05 PM
Not really. I want you guys to take seriously the possibility of a simple way to finesse the difficulty of testing DF27; and if there is one, add it to the M343 test this thread is about.
"You guys", pray tell who is "you guys"? I've never gotten anything free out of FTDNA and I've never met an FTDNA employee that I know of.
Do you really not think I don't take this seriously? Good gosh, I have a DF27 line. Do you know how many hours I've put into this stuff and most of the results will be send people to subclade projects I have nothing to do with?


Otherwise, maybe 20% of P312 guys (potentially, millions of guys) won't get their basic, high level, 5,000 years ago haplogroup (DF27) identified.. That's a tad overstated or at least overly dramatic. Given that Z195 and a good series of DF27+ Z195- SNPs are present in the pack, this has been dramatically mitigated. ... unless you don't believe in the tree itself.

Let me think about this.
- Some critics think not including DF27 is catastrophic, even if it is really just an upstream confirmation for the vast majority of DF27 subclade people.
- Some critics, or at least one, think P312 is of "no value" and it is upstream for many folks.
- Thomas himself has said on the R1b group that this large batch of backbone SNPs is "useless".

Thomas may be quite wrong on that. Every individual is different so it all depends. This is why we test. We don't know until we do it.


And that's not a very good bet at $79, let alone whatever they raise it to once the Beta test is over... The $79 is a huge risk, for sure.

This may go back to your seriousness concern. FTDNA is likely to be conservative about updates depending on the processes they have in place. They have a Ph.D in this stuff working on this. Of course Thomas has said on other forums (L21 TMRCA group) that a PhD doesn't mean anything and I believe the rest was a pretty good slam on the poor guy.

miiser
08-03-2015, 08:29 PM
I've posted about this elsewhere but my issue with the lab scientists and their methods is they are not doing a good job of applying their Y chromosome regional assessments. Every region of the Y chromosome has an expected mutation rate. It's almost by definition of the fact we are homo sapiens sapiens. Every SNP is a change of at least one time to that location. Every technical or underlying concern for instability should be assigned a mutation rate impact. For application to genetic genealogy and population genetics we need the mutation rate and confidence interval estimated by Probability Theory methods. Then we can put any variant in context of other variants and a time range or duration for validity based on whatever our accepted confidence intervals are. I've gone around and around about this with Thomas. He can't provide a valid mutation rate, but no one really can that is probably sufficient. These things need to be developed one scientific paper at a time. The Pozniak Bustamante Lab (Stanford) 2013 paper was an attempt that resulted in something called "gold" regions. The Yfull guys have published something that results in "CombBed" regions. I wish they would publish in a reputable international journal so that others will respond with their rebuttals or reference their paper as a base. Still these papers are looking at a very superficial level of assessment and just doing "weeding" that amounts to "we don't think this can be a UEP". This (UEP) is a bit of a fictitious concept in the first place. The reality is not black and white based on arbitrary technical standards. I have word for that (used in I/T) but I won't say it. There are shades of gray and their scopes of applicability to genetic genealogy. We need more true scientific studies with sound statistics.

What you suggest is not possible. Mutation rate varies, not only from region to region, but for each specific location. It is not mathematically possible to accurately calculate the probability of an event which has been observed to occur only once, as is the case for most SNPs. Every SNP which has mutated only once has the exact same calculated probability of 1 out of LARGE_NUMBER. You need at least a couple events to even begin to reasonably estimate probability. And if an SNP has mutated more than once or twice, then it's probably not a very useful signpost for haplogroups, as you generally want a unique SNP for haplogroup identification. We are able to estimate mutation rates for STRs because there have been many mutation events. But mutations such as SNPs which have been observed only once do not have sufficient data to calculate the probability.

I think there are technically ways for FTDNA to get a meaningful reading for DF27. Razyn has suggested some possible approaches. I don't think the issue is whether it can be done, but whether FTDNA gives enough damns to put in the effort. As far as I can gather, FTDNA's priority is to generate additional revenues for the owners, not to create value for the customer.

I don't buy into the story that there is some kind of technical or cost limitation of 100 SNPs per panel. This SNP panel is almost certainly some kind of custom chip test, and the cost of adding additional SNPs to such tests is miniscule. The reason chip processes are used, in general, is that everything is automated and microscopic, so the handling, fabrication, and supply cost is virtually constant rather than scaling with the number of test spots. For example, a chip which tests 100,000 alleles does not cost 1000 times as much as a chip which tests 100 alleles. The most cost effective approach for getting to the terminal SNP would be to take all the haplogroup defining SNPs, or at very least all the R1b-M343 SNPs, and put them on a single custom chip.

The limit of 100 is almost certainly a marketing imposed limit designed to drive revenues by encouraging multiple incremental SNP panel tests, in accordance with the recent decision to erase predicted haplogroup assignments and kick customers back to the top of the tree, and demonstrated by the mass mailer encouraging customers to purchase a product that provides no benefit to many them.

haleaton
08-03-2015, 09:31 PM
"Thank you for your email. I talked with our Y-Tree team to help me answer this question for you and I will provide you with the answer from what I have found.

For the Big Y SNP BY2895 its numerical position is 6182427 and C is the Ancestral State and if it is positive the Derived State is G.
BY2895 - 6182427 - C to G

For the Big Y SNP BY2896 its numerical position is 6891147 and G is the Ancestral State and it is positive the Derived State is A.
BY2896 - 6891147 - G to A

These SNP's however are not placed on the tree as of yet.

Sincerely,

Richard C.
Information Specialist II
Family Tree DNA"


BY2895 < L2 < U152 was found the Big Ys of FTDNA-184305, FTDNA-202156.

BY2896 is not under U152 in the U152 & Subclades Group Tree. I could not find it in the YFULL U152 Group. So congratulations to some other clade are likely in order.

Perhaps because it is not "on the tree", which I think means an internal one that the Big Y uses, BY2895 is not called out for the public samples FTDNA-184305, FTDNA-202156. Whereas my SNP FGC5301 is statused as positive and listed as "on the tree" in Big Y. Or they could be just doing these by hand and it takes time.

Thank you to FTDNA for providing this so quickly! :)

Mikewww
08-03-2015, 09:34 PM
What you suggest is not possible. Mutation rate varies, not only from region to region, but for each specific location. It is not mathematically possible to accurately calculate the probability of an event which has been observed to occur only once, as is the case for most SNPs. Every SNP which has mutated only once has the exact same calculated probability of 1 out of LARGE_NUMBER. You need at least a couple events to even begin to reasonably estimate probability. .
I guess some of this depends on your agreement or disagreement with evolution, but the difficulty of a calculation does not make the requirement any less important.
Another way to look at this is the number of males in the world. There are around 3.5 billion (with a "B") living males. That means there is ample possibility to find recurrency in SNP mutations amongst the 59 million base pair locations. That's what blows up the UEP concept as there are 3.5 billion known father-son transmissions with SNPs occurring every 3 or so father-son transmissions. That's not even counting father-son transmissions among the deceased.
Another approach is to just observe phylogenetic consistency. If something works for the application, genetic genealogy, it works. Of course, all things of this nature are temporal. Something works until it is discovered not to work. Hence, once again we come back to a need for a time or duration consideration. We need mutation rates. If we don't have them, I don't recommend arbitrary discarding of data. I recommend more advanced pattern analysis.


.. I don't buy into the story that there is some kind of technical or cost limitation of 100 SNPs per panel. I think you are wrong on this one. They have a true constraint and it is not a hard line but dependent on the composition of the pack, as has been noted earlier. It is true they are not sharing a true range for that constraint, but think of this. Haplogroup G has all of their SNPs in one Pack. That actually makes it nice and neat from lab production standpoint. Less products to support means less overhead cost. Everyone can think what they want, but I think really you are wrong on this one.


..As far as I can gather, FTDNA's priority is to generate additional revenues for the owners, not to create value for the customer. Is that why they lowered their price on this one? I know there are some who don't like free enterprise but it has served the world well, IMHO. I don't think it is a dirty word. I agree more competition is always better, though. Monopolies are bad.

miiser
08-03-2015, 10:00 PM
I guess some of this depends on your agreement or disagreement with evolution, but the difficulty of a calculation does not make the requirement any less important.
Another way to look at this the number of males in the world. There are around 3.5 billion (with "B") living males. That means there is ample possibility to find recurrency in SNP mutations amongst the 59 million base pair locations. That's what blows up the UEP concept as there are 3.5 billion known father-son transmissions with SNPs occurring every 3 or so father-son transmissions. That's not even counting father-son transmissions among the deceased.
Another approach is to just observe phylogenetic consistency. If something works for the application, genetic genealogy, it works. Of course, all things of this nature are temporal. Something works until it is discovered not to work. Hence, once again we come back to a need for a time or duration consideration. We need mutation rates. If we don't have them, I don't recommend arbitrary discarding of data. I recommend more advanced pattern analysis.

I don't follow your argument. This has nothing to do with belief in evolution. It's just statistics. Determining the probability with only a single observed occurrence is not just difficult, but impossible. Let's say there are 3.5 billion father-son transmissions as you suggest. Do we have SNP data for each of those transmissions? We do not. Are you suggesting that we do NGS on each of those 3.5 billion? I don't think this is a practical solution.


I think you are wrong on this one. They have a true constraint and it is not a hard line but dependent on the composition of the pack, as has been noted earlier. It is true they are not sharing a true range for that constraint, but think of this. Haplogroup G has all of their SNPs in one Pack. That actually makes it nice and neat from lab production standpoint. Less products to support means less overhead cost. Everyone can think what they want, but I think really you are wrong on this one.

Can you propose any known sequencing technology that would have a limit on the order of one hundred? I'm not aware of any. I think it's unlikely that FTDNA has developed an entirely novel sequencing technology. If they have, we should have heard about it in the news by now, and it would hopefully be applied to science beyond just genetic genealogy.


Is that why they lowered their price on this one? I know there are some who don't like free enterprise but has served the world well, IMHO. I don't think it is a dirty word. I agree more competition is always better, though. Monopolies are bad.

Promotional pricing is a common ploy in marketing. It's not done out of love for the customer, but as a sales gimmick to encourage spending. I support free enterprise and FTDNA's right to pursue profit. The curious question, though, is why a volunteer project admin, who does not share in the profit as far as we know, would support a profiteering behavior which does not benefit the members of their project.

Mikewww
08-03-2015, 10:20 PM
... It's just statistics. Determining the probability with only a single observed occurrence is not just difficult, but impossible. Let's say there are 3.5 billion father-son transmissions as you suggest. Do we have SNP data for each of those transmissions? We do not. Are you suggesting that we do NGS on each of those 3.5 billion? I don't think this is a practical solution.
Therefore, there is not a statistically sound way to discard data that might be meaningful and there is not a statistically sound way to apply arbitrary technical standards to the application of genetic genealogy.


... Can you propose any known sequencing technology that would have a limit on the order of one hundred? I'm not aware of any. I think it's unlikely that FTDNA has developed an entirely novel sequencing technology. If they have, we should have heard about it in the news by now, and it would hopefully be applied to science beyond just genetic genealogy. I'm not a DNA Sequencing systems engineer so I have no idea, but I would suggest that most high tech products that I know of have constraints. I have not seen the infinite machine yet.


.. The curious question, though, is why a volunteer project admin, who does not share in the profit as far as we know, would support a profiteering behavior which does not benefit the members of their project.
I thought I tried to explain earlier what I saw as the purpose. We have a disagreement over what's beneficial or not, but think what you will. I love history, genealogy and so I do enjoy the hobby. I think intellectual exercise is a good thing.

Does gene by gene even have public stock?

R.Rocca
08-03-2015, 10:56 PM
Promotional pricing is a common ploy in marketing. It's not done out of love for the customer, but as a sales gimmick to encourage spending. I support free enterprise and FTDNA's right to pursue profit. The curious question, though, is why a volunteer project admin, who does not share in the profit as far as we know, would support a profiteering behavior which does not benefit the members of their project.

If it helps even one M269 predicted person, it was worth Mike's effort. Obviously it will help hundreds who are unwilling to start the one-by-one ordering of SNPs or those that can't afford Big-Y.

GoldenHind
08-03-2015, 11:41 PM
If it helps even one M269 predicted person, it was worth Mike's effort. Obviously it will help hundreds who are unwilling to start the one-by-one ordering of SNPs or those that can't afford Big-Y.

I think we need to keep in mind that this test was designed as an inexpensive introductory SNP test for the vast number of people who are in the predicted M269 category, and not as a replacement for the Big Y. A replacement for the very popular old R1b deep clade test was sorely needed to prod this group to begin testing toward finding their terminal R1b SNP, and while this test may not be perfect, I suspect it will go some distance toward that goal. It is truly unfortunate that FTDNA wasn't able to find some way to include DF27, which I suspect may well turn out to be the most numerous P312 subclade, but those who get nothing below P312 can be advised it is highly probable they are DF27+ Z196-, and then order an a la carte test for DF27.

MacUalraig
08-04-2015, 07:32 AM
"You guys", pray tell who is "you guys"? I've never gotten anything free out of FTDNA and I've never met an FTDNA employee that I know of.
Do you really not think I don't take this seriously? Good gosh, I have a DF27 line. Do you know how many hours I've put into this stuff and most of the results will be send people to subclade projects I have nothing to do with?

That's a tad overstated or at least overly dramatic. Given that Z195 and a good series of DF27+ Z195- SNPs are present in the pack, this has been dramatically mitigated. ... unless you don't believe in the tree itself.

Let me think about this.
- Some critics think not including DF27 is catastrophic, even if it is really just an upstream confirmation for the vast majority of DF27 subclade people.
- Some critics, or at least one, think P312 is of "no value" and it is upstream for many folks.


That's double counting. I know for a fact that Jim Wilson does 'manual' SNP testing after the main run of Chromo2 to make up for one or two key gaps. Greenspan should do that for DF27. Then I'll buy it. End of story.

Mikewww
08-04-2015, 11:55 AM
That's double counting. I know for a fact that Jim Wilson does 'manual' SNP testing after the main run of Chromo2 to make up for one or two key gaps. Greenspan should do that for DF27. Then I'll buy it. End of story.
That's a good idea.
If you think you have a DF27 haplotype, I'd wait for a specialized but robust DF27 Pack. My offer to help is still there. It works best to join the R1b project and we'll make sure you get to the right haplogroup whatever it is and I do have the R1b_Haplotypes 67 STR spreadsheet available in the project that shows SNPs and STRs side by side in several formats, allows sorting and selection by GDs and off-modal marker analysis. Sometimes the answer becomes very apparent and you can skip all the way to a particular SNP.

Cofgene
08-04-2015, 12:06 PM
If it helps even one M269 predicted person, it was worth Mike's effort. Obviously it will help hundreds who are unwilling to start the one-by-one ordering of SNPs or those that can't afford Big-Y.

AGREED!!! We need to get more individuals down closer to their major haplogroup region to help the process of identifying additional lineages for some of the analysis work underway. Right now there so many, many individuals spread out across the projects that could provide some crucial geographic or variance information if they would just get confirmed down to P312, U106, .....

Mikewww
08-04-2015, 01:10 PM
AGREED!!! We need to get more individuals down closer to their major haplogroup region to help the process of identifying additional lineages for some of the analysis work underway. Right now there so many, many individuals spread out across the projects that could provide some crucial geographic or variance information if they would just get confirmed down to P312, U106, .....
Has the U106 Galactic Empire met with FTDNA yet? Do we know how they will divide the subclades up into Packs? This is important as I will try to get any lead with SNP for a terminal haplogroup finding Pack into the R1b-M343 Backbone Pack so that a goal I have recommended can be realized. The goal is that everyone in R1b can get to their terminal public haplogroup in no more than two SNP Packs.
That means the Backbone has to have what I call "bridge" SNPs that point to the appropriate downstream Pack.

razyn
08-04-2015, 02:28 PM
The DF27 Rebel Alliance might settle for a coupon for the extra DF27 test -- preferably free, but at least $10 off (to make it cost the same as any normal SNP) for failed Backbone testers. So far, twelve DF27 project members have orders in for the M343 pack. That doesn't include any who don't yet know they are DF27+ (or Z195-), and thus haven't joined the DF27 project (so I can't count them, in the project's Results Pending list).

Mikewww
08-04-2015, 02:38 PM
The DF27 Rebel Alliance might settle for a coupon for the extra DF27 test -- preferably free, but at least $10 off (to make it cost the same as any normal SNP) for failed Backbone testers. So far, twelve DF27 project members have orders in for the M343 pack. That doesn't include any who don't yet know they are DF27+ (or Z195-).
I knew this was all about the Alliance and the Evil Empire going back to Thomas' marketing campaign of a summer or two ago.
I've posted elsewhere on this - I'm not Darth Vader, I'm Hans Solo, who played the middle somewhat tentatively. I like him because he gets the girl although he sometimes has to face the wrath of Krahn (wait a minute, that's William Shatner, not Harrison Ford.) :)
Actually Darth Vader turned out to be a good guy in the end.

I have already made the big argument on how important DF27 is, playing off its frequency in Iberia and the growing Hispanic population in the U.S. I actually do think it is possibly a bigger clade (extant) than U106 or L21 or U152. Anyway, these things take time. Sometimes you have ask three or four times.

R.Rocca
08-04-2015, 03:21 PM
I knew this was all about the Alliance and the Evil Empire going back to Thomas' marketing campaign of a summer or two ago.
I've posted elsewhere on this - I'm not Darth Vader, I'm Hans Solo, who played the middle somewhat tentatively. I like him because he get's the girl although he sometimes has to face the wrath of Krahn (wait a minute, that's William Shatner, not Harrison Ford.) :)
Actually Darth Vader turned out to be a good guy in the end.

I have already made the big argument on how important DF27 is, playing off its frequency in Iberia and the growing Hispanic population in the U.S. I actually do think it is possibly a bigger clade (extant) than U106 or L21 or U152. Anyway, these things take time. Sometimes you have ask three or four times.

As long as U152 isn't relegated to a JarJar Binks type role in all of this, I'm good. :)

MitchellSince1893
08-04-2015, 04:02 PM
As long as U152 isn't relegated to a JarJar Binks type role in all of this, I'm good. :)Dude never compare U152 to Jar Jar Binks! That's just wrong.

U152 is more akin to Darth Maul (I refuse to put any smilies in this post...waiting to see if anyone takes it seriously...asking me to elaborate on how U152 is like Darth Maul)

In reality U152 was like the storm troopers, expanding the Roman/Galactic empire's territory and enforcing law and order within the empire (Now I've geeked out and given this too much thought)

Joe B
08-04-2015, 05:20 PM
The R1b-M343 (P312- U106-) folks are the one's hanging out at the Chalmun's Cantina in Mos Eisley.
What SNPs are needed for L23XL51 to make this a decent test for them?
I guess I'm asking if they need their own SNP pack?
Yes! And we need special care when it comes to a second tier SNP pack or packs for the early clades. Hopefully the early R1b clades will be able to get a very refined haplogroup assignment with a next tier SNP pack test. In the future there may be more testing of people from central and southwest Asia that will need deep phlologenetic bracketing of the R-M73, M343, P25, V88, PF6289, L389 and M269 haplogroups. If it covers enough SNPs and is inexpensive enough, the SNP pack could be useful for researchers testing R1b populations outside of Europe.
What is the time frame for submitting SNPs for second tier R1b SNP packs?
Have we decided what technology is being used for the SNP pack? Published studies usually includes lab methodology because it adds creditbility to the results. We should know what the methodology is for our own credibility.

lgmayka
08-04-2015, 07:34 PM
If you think you have a DF27 haplotype, I'd wait for a specialized but robust DF27 Pack.
In this case also I must ask: How long a wait? If a DF27 administrator has already been working with FTDNA on such a pack, we might see it by the end of the year. Otherwise, we're looking at 2016 and beyond.

Mikewww
08-04-2015, 07:47 PM
In this case also I must ask: How long a wait? If a DF27 administrator has already been working with FTDNA on such a pack, we might see it by the end of the year. Otherwise, we're looking at 2016 and beyond.
That's a little pessimistic. You don't know how long I've been working with them and neither of us knows their priorities. I really do think DF27 should be a high priority. It's confidential so I couldn't say if I knew when they are timing things and they really are "slow as molasses", but unless one likes to exercise their budget needlessly, the wait will be worth it.

As Razyn and I both agree, NGS is always a good thing and a good investment. That's an excellent alternative, but this whole Pack/Panel discussion is based on the assumption there are people who won't pay for NGS. .... and for Miiser's sake, yes, I should be clear that testing is a "team sport" which is why I've always said we need at least two NGS per surname per cluster. I'm now extending that to we need one NGS per genealogically known family. That's the Lewis and Clark Expedition analogy.

R.Rocca
08-04-2015, 08:18 PM
That's a little pessimistic. You don't know how long I've been working with them and neither of us knows their priorities. I really do think DF27 should be a high priority. It's confidential so I couldn't say if I knew when they are timing things and they really are "slow as molasses", but unless one likes to exercise their budget needlessly, the wait will be worth it.

As Razyn and I both agree, NGS is always a good thing and a good investment. That's an excellent alternative, but this whole Pack/Panel discussion is based on the assumption there are people who won't pay for NGS. .... and for Miiser's sake, yes, I should be clear that testing is a "team sport" which is why I've always said we need at least two NGS per surname per cluster. I'm now extending that to we need one NGS per genealogically known family. That's the Lewis and Clark Expedition analogy.

I've heard you mention that before, but I think that desire is only realistic in the case of the UK and Ireland. Surname matches are rare on the continent, even in the relatively better represented areas like the middle Rhine, southern Italy, etc.

miiser
08-04-2015, 08:35 PM
That's a little pessimistic. You don't know how long I've been working with them and neither of us knows their priorities. I really do think DF27 should be a high priority. It's confidential so I couldn't say if I knew when they are timing things and they really are "slow as molasses", but unless one likes to exercise their budget needlessly, the wait will be worth it.

As Razyn and I both agree, NGS is always a good thing and a good investment. That's an excellent alternative, but this whole Pack/Panel discussion is based on the assumption there are people who won't pay for NGS. .... and for Miiser's sake, yes, I should be clear that testing is a "team sport" which is why I've always said we need at least two NGS per surname per cluster. I'm now extending that to we need one NGS per genealogically known family. That's the Lewis and Clark Expedition analogy.

Just to make it clear, Mike, I want to go on record that I do appreciate the work you've done for R1b, especially with regard to development of the SNP packs. While I don't always agree with all your testing advice, you've undoubtedly done a lot to forward the interests of the group. And it's definitely better to have you providing advice for the content of the packs then to have FTDNA develop the packs on their own with no input from the community. My primary concern, and the reason for my sometimes contrarian comments, is that the most expensive testing sequence is often recommended to customers who are relatively uninformed and typically don't understand what's to be gained or not gained by the tests. And the customers purchasing those tests are not always interested in the minutia of SNPs and branch discovery (as the admins often are) but often just want to know basic genealogically relevant information, such as where their ancestor lived.

FTNDA undoubtedly has an agenda to acquire as much of the customer's money as they possibly can. While I don't have any concern that you are an "insider" in that agenda, I think we need to take care to recognize the existence of this agenda and not unwittingly contribute to their biased agenda in the capacity of our administrator roles. Haplogroup and surname projects' relationship with FTDNA is a sort of "dance with the devil". The community projects wouldn't exist without them. But FTDNA's goal as a business corporation, by definition, is to get as much of our money as possible while spending as little of their own money as possible. It is important for project administrators to be always mindful of this.

Playing the Han Solo role is complicated and messy and difficult, and I thank you for stepping up to play that role. May the force be with you.

Mikewww
08-04-2015, 08:41 PM
I've heard you mention that before, but I think that desire is only realistic in the case of the UK and Ireland. Surname matches are rare on the continent, even in the relatively better represented areas like the middle Rhine, southern Italy, etc.
I understand. The hardest thing about this is the "team sport" requirement for recruitment, cajoling, funding, etc. This challenge applies directly to my DF27 (Swiss-German) lineage and was not as difficult for my L513 lineage.
However, as has been mentioned, the "chicken and egg" concept applies and someone has to go first or no one gets anywhere. That's the Lewis and Clark leadership thing. I'm moving to the recommendation "we need one NGS per genealogically known family." That's simpler but the "team sport" requirement never diminishes in importance.

Mikewww
08-04-2015, 08:57 PM
My primary concern, and the reason for my sometimes contrarian comments, is that the most expensive testing sequence is often recommended to customers who are relatively uninformed and typically don't understand what's to be gained or not gained by the tests.I can give you examples of some things but I usually get in deeper trouble because I'm not assumptive about who does or doesn't have discretionary budget. I think I'll stop right there before I dig any holes.
I can assure you I do everything I can setup forums and encourage open discussion for advice rather than behind the scenes private emails.


FTNDA undoubtedly has an agenda to acquire as much of the customer's money as they possibly can. While I don't have any concern that you are an "insider" in that agenda, I think we need to take care to recognize the existence of this agenda and not unwittingly contribute to their biased agenda in the capacity of our administrator roles. Haplogroup and surname projects' relationship with FTDNA is a sort of "dance with the devil". The community projects wouldn't exist without them. But FTDNA's goal as a business corporation, by definition, is to get as much of our money as possible while spending as little of their own money as possible. It is important for project administrators to be always mindful of this.We differ here on our world views and that's okay, but I don't necessarily equate the profit motive with evil. I ascribe to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" although I clearly think regulations are needed and monopolies need to be legally broken up.

I do want to be absolutely clear I receive no financial or property benefit/gift of any kind out of all of this. I only receive enjoyment for progress, insights discovered, debate, and intellectual exercise.


Just to make it clear, Mike, I want to go on record that I do appreciate the work....
Playing the Han Solo role is complicated and messy and difficult, and I thank you for stepping up to play that role. May the force be with you.
Thank you. That's means a lot to me. It really does. May the force be with you too!

lgmayka
08-04-2015, 11:22 PM
It's confidential so I couldn't say if I knew when they are timing things and they really are "slow as molasses", but unless one likes to exercise their budget needlessly, the wait will be worth it.
Pessimism is generally another word for realism. :)

I must again recount my own experience with the Z280 SNP Pack:
- Comprehensive proposal in November 2014
- Absolutely no movement until I re-inquired in April 2015
- SNP pack designed ("ready for validation") in May 2015
- Nothing since then.

There are many good reasons why a SNP pack might take this long, but the fact is that it apparently does.

My primary concern is that with every passing year, more testees die and more account custodians become unreachable or simply disinterested. Delay has its own cost--in knowledge lost.

R.Rocca
08-04-2015, 11:33 PM
My primary concern is that with every passing year, more testees die and more account custodians become unreachable or simply disinterested. Delay has its own cost--in knowledge lost.

Deep, sad, and unfortunately true.

GoldenHind
08-05-2015, 12:08 AM
My primary concern is that with every passing year, more testees die and more account custodians become unreachable or simply disinterested. Delay has its own cost--in knowledge lost.

Absolutely true. Many of the people I contact haven't logged into their FTDNA pages for over a year. Frequently I get no response, sometimes even from people I have previously been in contact with. In a few cases I have learned they have passed away, and the rest of the family isn't interested. Some may have just lost interest.

haleaton
08-05-2015, 12:37 AM
My primary concern is that with every passing year, more testees die and more account custodians become unreachable or simply disinterested. Delay has its own cost--in knowledge lost.


Deep, sad, and unfortunately true.

I believe you can establish a beneficiary for your sample stored by FTDNA. You should probably also be able to will it to a Project or a future one like the FGC5301 & Subclades Project administrator.

haleaton
08-05-2015, 02:26 AM
I am a little concerned about what I just read about the FTNDNA Z18 SNP Pack Beta effort that I guess got some data last month that R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack may have some of the same issues. Anybody, have quick read without a lot of clade specific details? Did all the problems get resolved in the last few weeks? Looks like true Beta still and maybe for some time into the future that really needs courageous volunteers rather ordinary recruits.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 03:41 AM
Can you be more specific? Is this about the recurrent or mis-positioned SNP?

haleaton
08-05-2015, 04:12 AM
Can you be more specific? Is this about the recurrent or mis-positioned SNP?

Significant number of no calls, usually but not always systemic, so they cannot just repeat test. Got a large number of dedicated volunteers (62 @ $99 apiece) with a smart highly focused group. Tested them all instead of testing a few and then modifying the design and test the next group which means they could not modify what ever the method used or that they tested them all at the same time. Delays looked minor. Worry is results in last few weeks so probably currently early in under learning curve.

In initial report data from other tests was added, not certain how much, to recover. Nothing about FTDNA making up for no calls with Sanger which should cost them about $10 bucks a shot. Looks like truly a Beta release with little pretesting.

Probably not a bad thing for those involved, but not something you do want to sell to the larger world as an "entry level" test for beginners without a lot more risk reduction by volunteers.

I hope to be wrong.

http://l257.groenebeverbv.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=118

haleaton
08-05-2015, 05:44 PM
What I can't tell from reading Z18 SNP Pack Beta results was if they started out with 143 SNP, similar to the 141 in the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack. Then found they could use only 102 of those, then tested 62 people and found (?) 6 were bad. Sorry if my numbers are wrong. It is 6% failure versus 33% failure?

Sorry to be annoying, just trying to get caught up. I do think this is a really good thing and a lot of hard work and money was put into it by dedicated citizen scientists.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-05-2015, 06:06 PM
Okay, so are they including stuff below DF27? If so, I'm signing up.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 06:09 PM
What I can't tell from reading Z18 SNP Pack Beta results was if they started out with 143 SNP, similar to the 141 in the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack. Then found they could use only 102 of those, then tested 62 people and found (?) 6 were bad. Sorry if my numbers are wrong. It is 6% failure versus 33% failure?

Sorry to be annoying, just trying to get caught up. I do think this is a really good thing and a lot of hard work and money was put into it by dedicated citizen scientists.
Peter is the right guy to ask and he is on this forum from time to time.

I don't know how many he originally submitted, but I can tell you that FTDNA will do their own validation, just as YSEQ does. From what I've seen FTDNA throws out submissions with what they consider problems with X identity, region instability/difficulty, recurrency and SNPs imbedded in STRs. They may have other things they throw out too but I've heard those reasons specified. I'll call that phase I filtering. That would be no different than YSEQ although the differences in technologies and probably in lab opinions vary. I that sense, I don't think the original number of SNPs submitted by Peter is important be it 102 or 143 or whatever.

I was told by FTDNA that the limit was around 100. I kept adding to the list and I'd figured I wouldn't complain or point out I was exceeding their limit. My purposes were oriented towards delivering value to project members so I didn't care if I was stretching them. Post the phase I filtering "on paper" there is some filtering step related to a lab run specific to the technology (which threw DF27 out the R1b pack case). I would have guess Peter was shooting for around 100 after phases I and II. I don't know. That's just a guess.

From what I'm reading on the link that you sent me on Peter's web site, it looks like there were a couple to a few SNPs (at least as of July 10) that were found to be unreliable. I think he means those SNPs just aren't consistent or have some underlying instability issue. For those cases, the test is working as it should and we are learning we should weed those SNPs out. That's truly a beta program learning thing with justifies a lower price.

There are a couple of SNPs that Peter says "don't work". I think those are the keys to what you are going for. The test technology just can't read them and I would consider those a technology limitation or failure.

We are speculating. I think it would be wise to hear directly from Peter.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 06:50 PM
Okay, so are they including stuff below DF27? If so, I'm signing up.
No, but I think both ZZ12_1 and ZZ12_2 as well as nearly all of the Z195- early branching are there. I've not seen the final list, though. However, since you are DF27+ unless you just want to exercise the test, I'd wait for the DF27 Pack. YSEQ as a panel too and I'm sure they are updating it. They are truly not apples to apples though. Maybe we should say there are green apples and red apples.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 07:10 PM
Pessimism is generally another word for realism. :)

I must again recount my own experience with the Z280 SNP Pack:
- Comprehensive proposal in November 2014
- Absolutely no movement until I re-inquired in April 2015
- SNP pack designed ("ready for validation") in May 2015
- Nothing since then.

There are many good reasons why a SNP pack might take this long, but the fact is that it apparently does.

My primary concern is that with every passing year, more testees die and more account custodians become unreachable or simply disinterested. Delay has its own cost--in knowledge lost.
This is not aimed at anyone but since we are talking about attitudes, I do think of myself as having a positive attitude but that's just a way of looking at things. You might notice that I am not generally negative on anyone unless someone starts throwing out negativity. It's like mudslinging, rumour and negative inuendo in politics. It actually works but discourages voter turn-out in general. I don't like it and often respond when I shouldn't.

Now, as far as timing goes here are some speculations. This is not insider information. I don't really have that other than related to the R1b Backbone test. However, I pay attention. It is my opinion that there were a number of things that FTDNA has been slow on the during the 1st half of 2015. They are always slow, but this has been slower than normal. The SNP Pack thing comes to mind. In one of my requests I was told by a low level person that they would accept the request and agreed the idea was good but that a large distributor customer had priority. I could only think one situation that would fit but it was just speculation on my part so I didn't say anything. Geno 2 definitely needed to be replaced and I think we are seeing that.

lgmayka
08-05-2015, 07:39 PM
This is not aimed at anyone but since we are talking about attitudes, I do think of myself as having a positive attitude but that's just a way of looking at things. You might notice that I am not generally negative on anyone unless someone starts throwing out negativity. It's like mudslinging, rumour and negative inuendo in politics. It actually works but discourages voter turn-out in general. I don't like it and often respond when I shouldn't.
Ironically, in my old field (when I actually made money!), a very common problem was the opposite tendency. We called it Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), but the legal antitrust term is market overhang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_overhang). This is the practice of hinting at, or otherwise pre-announcing, a product that may be months or even years away from release (or may never be released at all). The purpose and effect is simply to "freeze" customers, preventing them from actually purchasing anything while they wait, perhaps forever, for the perfect solution to arrive.

Countering this is the folk proverb that "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."


In one of my requests I was told by a low level person that they would accept the request and agreed the idea was good but that a large distributor customer had priority. I could only think one situation that would fit but it was just speculation on my part so I didn't say anything. Geno 2 definitely needed to be replaced and I think we are seeing that.
That occurred to me also. Until recently, Geno 2 Next Generation was advertised to ship at the end of October, suggesting that both NG and FTDNA will have their hands full with it until the end of the year.

However, I now see that NG has pulled forward its schedule. Geno 2 Next Gen is now promised to ship by September 1 (http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/browse/productDetail.jsp?productId=2003825&gsk&code=MR21280).

lgmayka
08-05-2015, 07:42 PM
I must now also point out that the price of the R1b SNP Pack has risen to $99. The increase is not exorbitant, but in my opinion significantly changes the calculation for some customers. At this higher price point, I can no longer recommend this SNP pack for those already known to be U106+ , U152+ , DF27+ , etc.

R.Rocca
08-05-2015, 08:16 PM
I must now also point out that the price of the R1b SNP Pack has risen to $99. The increase is not exorbitant, but in my opinion significantly changes the calculation for some customers. At this higher price point, I can no longer recommend this SNP pack for those already known to be U106+ , U152+ , DF27+ , etc.

A little shocked that the introductory price was dropped so soon. Still a good deal for those that are M269 predicted and within U152* and L2*.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 08:20 PM
Ironically, in my old field (when I actually made money!), a very common problem was the opposite tendency. We called it Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), but the legal antitrust term is market overhang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_overhang). This is the practice of hinting at, or otherwise pre-announcing, a product that may be months or even years away from release (or may never be released at all). The purpose and effect is simply to "freeze" customers, preventing them from actually purchasing anything while they wait, perhaps forever, for the perfect solution to arrive.
I think FUD is different than Market overhang or "freezing" the market. Market overhang adds uncertainty to the market. FUD is a much broader term and the general negative campaigning does touch on that that although I think negative selling has a meaning of its own.

Mudslinging is mudslinging. We don't need to cloud it with FUD or other terminology.

If a consumer knows or has read in some magazine that the car model body will change in the next model year, of course they should use that information in their car buying plans, and every right to share that with family and friends. That's not the same thing as a business intentionally attempting to freeze the market with pre-announcement of a product that has no intention of being delivered. Companies pre-announce stuff all of the time, though. You don't have to believe it.

A dilemma can occur if someone is asked to keep something confidential and that information can aid others, i.e. fellow consumers. That's hard one. I've decided to disclose what I submit to FTDNA in a very general way as something I've submitted, but not give details so the timing etc. do not damage the purpose of the confidentiality request, at least generally.


That occurred to me also. Until recently, Geno 2 Next Generation was advertised to ship at the end of October, suggesting that both NG and FTDNA will have their hands full with it until the end of the year.

However, I now see that NG has pulled forward its schedule. Geno 2 Next Gen is now promised to ship by September 1 (http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/browse/productDetail.jsp?productId=2003825&gsk&code=MR21280).
Consider the resources used in marketing and support versus design. The designers of Geno 2 Next Gen might not have much to do any more.


Countering this is the folk proverb that "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."Agreed. The proof is always in the pudding. If we see a DF27 pack this year and an L21 pack then you can say I'm credible. If you don't see one, you can say I'm not. If so, I'll eat crow. I have no "insider" agenda or motive. I just say what I think. They can screw it up, that's for sure.

Back on the positive thing, when I submit proposals I try multiple times and modify my strategies between efforts to adapt. I look for the benefits to my target so they will want to execute my proposals. BTW, this is the general advice Peter gave. I think he is right. I smile.

Huntergatherer1066
08-05-2015, 08:26 PM
I wonder if the 15% coupons work on the order. It could help take the edge off at least for the people hoping to get it for 79 but hadn't ordered yet.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 08:44 PM
A little shocked that the introductory price was dropped so soon. Still a good deal for those that are M269 predicted and within U152* and L2*.
This probably goes back to Kelly's point. It really is a version 1.0 or beta or whatever you want to call it so it deserves a lower price. I was trying to say this several posts ago, "fait accompli". It had to be close to being sold out from what I see in the R1b project. I guess it is. I just hope we got on board as many of the true R-M269 undifferentiated as we could.

EDIT/P.S. - Hasn't it been said? - "Promotional pricing is a common ploy in marketing. It's not done out of love for the customer, but as a sales gimmick to encourage spending." Maybe there are other justifications too but gimmickry is probably like beauty, in the eye beholder.

haleaton
08-05-2015, 09:20 PM
A little shocked that the introductory price was dropped so soon. Still a good deal for those that are M269 predicted and within U152* and L2*.


This probably goes back to Kelly's point. It really is a version 1.0 or beta or whatever you want to call it so it deserves a lower price. I was trying to say this several posts ago, "fait accompli". It had to be close to being sold out from what I see in the R1b project. I guess it is. I just hope we got on board as many of the true R-M269 undifferentiated as we could.

It was $79 on July 29th. "Dropped" in the sense of raised. I don't get banners or admin e-mails. I heard it no longer said "Beta Release."

If they guarantee they will find the most recent SNP on the list they provide, and the list does not change without opportunity for a refund, then it will not longer be a Beta.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 09:32 PM
No, but I think both ZZ12_1 and ZZ12_2 as well as nearly all of the Z195- early branching are there. I've not seen the final list, though. However, since you are DF27+ unless you just want to exercise the test, I'd wait for the DF27 Pack. YSEQ as a panel too and I'm sure they are updating it. They are truly not apples to apples though. Maybe we should say there are green apples and red apples.
Yes, I see both ZZ12_1 and ZZ12_2, also BY653. I sure hope ZZ12 works well.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 09:34 PM
I wonder at the wisdom of putting some of the minor U106 upper level twigs on this panel and not targeting the R-Z326 null region. ... :P
This is from me, not FTDNA, but I see Z326 (I helped) on the SNP list I now have and also Z8. It looks like the U106 Galactic Empire has made their points, at least on Z8. No U198, though, so it looks like the U198 guy on Facebook will continue to be sad and full of gloom.

lgmayka
08-05-2015, 09:35 PM
If a consumer knows or has read in some magazine that the car model body will change in the next model year, of course they should use that information in their car buying plans, and every right to share that with family and friends.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with our discussion. We are not discussing a specific product to which the company has already publicly committed, but rather rumors from outside the company regarding alleged products that may or may not see the light of day any time soon.


A dilemma can occur if someone is asked to keep something confidential and that information can aid others, i.e. fellow consumers. That's hard one. I've decided to disclose what I submit to FTDNA in a very general way as something I've submitted, but not give details so the timing etc. do not damage the purpose of the confidentiality request, at least generally.
Readers need to understand, though, the reason for such confidentiality: It is because designs and schedules may change drastically between now and public product announcement.


Consider the resources used in marketing and support versus design. The designers of Geno 2 Next Gen might not have much to do any more.
That was not what we saw for Geno 2.0. You may recall that Geno 2.0 was officially in beta for many months after release, precisely because so many technical details needed fixing.

lgmayka
08-05-2015, 09:46 PM
I wonder if the 15% coupons work on the order. It could help take the edge off at least for the people hoping to get it for 79 but hadn't ordered yet.
Yes, the CJS2015 coupon code does apply! So the price with coupon is $84.15.

R.Rocca
08-05-2015, 09:54 PM
It was $79 on July 29th. "Dropped" in the sense of raised. I don't get banners or admin e-mails. I heard it no longer said "Beta Release."

If they guarantee they will find the most recent SNP on the list they provide, and the list does not change without opportunity for a refund, then it will not longer be a Beta.

Sorry, I meant "dropped" regarding the $79 banner.

lgmayka
08-05-2015, 09:58 PM
If we see a DF27 pack this year and an L21 pack then you can say I'm credible.
Please understand that your credibility (in the sense of general trustworthiness) is not at issue. The question for customers is how heavily to weight a totally unannounced product alleged by a non-employee who describes himself as an optimist.

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 10:04 PM
Please understand that your credibility (in the sense of general trustworthiness) is not at issue. The question for customers is how heavily to weight a totally unannounced product alleged by a non-employee who describes himself as an optimist.
I don't work for or receive anything from FTDNA except the same frustrations and occasional test results that all of you do. I guess I'm the non-employee. I don't look on all of you as customers but as project members and fellow hobbyists. My credibility (includes both trust and knowledge) is an issue as maybe I'm too optimistic or not knowledgeable or a bad judge. I'm just trying to do the best I can. That means good advice. I'm just trying to give the best advice I can. You may disagree with the advice, but its an honest attempt.

If we see an L21 Pack and a DF27 Pack this year, I want you to admit my advice is pretty good. If not, I will say Lawrence is absolutely right and I'm wrong. I'm not going to use any time-lines, like end of year, in any other public discussions or when someone is directly asking me about their situation, but for you, Lawrence, I'm willing to put a stake in the ground on this year.

I hope FTDNA doesn't screw me up on this, but I think we are wasting on cycles by this point.:)

haleaton
08-05-2015, 10:05 PM
Is there a different list of SNPs in the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack than what was in the July 29th e-mail (shown below)?

A1773, A2150, A274, A4670, A517, A6454, BY2823, BY2868, BY2895, BY2896, BY575, CTS10429, CTS11567, CTS11994, CTS1751, CTS3386, CTS4466, CTS4528, CTS5330, CTS5689, CTS6937, CTS7763, DF103, DF110, DF13, DF17, DF19, DF21, DF41, DF49, DF63, DF81, DF83, DF88, DF90, DF95, DF99, F2691, F2863, FGC10516, FGC11134, FGC13620, FGC13780, FGC20761, FGC22501, FGC396, FGC5301, FGC5336, FGC5338, FGC5344, FGC5345, FGC5351, FGC5354, FGC5356, FGC5367, FGC5373, FGC5494, FGC5798, L1335, L2, L21, L23, L238, L277, L278, L371, L389, L408, L47, L48, L51, L513, L584, L617, L881, M1994, M222, M269, M335, M343, M73, MC14, P297, P310, P311, P312, PF3252, PF331, PF6610, PF6658, PF6714, PF7562, PF7589, PF7600, S1026, S1051, S11493, S11601, S12025, S1567, S16264, S1688, S18632, S18827, S6317, S7721, SRY2627, U106, U152, V88, Y5058, Z156, Z16500, Z17, Z17300, Z18, Z1862, Z195, Z198, Z209, Z2103, Z2106, Z2109, Z225, Z251, Z253, Z2542, Z255, Z2573, Z262, Z295, Z296, Z301, Z302, Z36, Z367, Z381, Z49, Z56, Z8056, Z9

Mikewww
08-05-2015, 10:32 PM
Is there a different list of SNPs in the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack than what was in the July 29th e-mail (shown below)?
I think I should be quiet and should forward you to Lawrence.

Readers need to understand, though, the reason for such confidentiality: It is because designs and schedules may change drastically between now and public product announcement.
We might want to wait for something formal from FTDNA. At this point, we may be deferred because they have no reason to announce any additional SNPs until the beta runs are done and the SNP list is validated across hundreds of individuals.

haleaton
08-05-2015, 11:02 PM
I think I should be quiet and should forward you to Lawrence.

We might want to wait for something formal from FTDNA. At this point, we may be deferred because they have no reason to announce any additional SNPs until the beta runs are done and the SNP list is validated across hundreds of individuals.

Oh added SNPs is great added to the good (for U152) list for the 141. I am really just an observer in this but I want to know about a product to recommend and to promote anything that gets more data and participants honestly. You mean hundreds of individuals that $79 to validate each SNP for the July 29th list? I thought the bulk e-mails go out next week. It might be nice for people to know what exactly they are buying for $99. Not certain what you mean. But that is okay, I know you are working hard and have already done a lot of good stuff and continue to do so. Sometimes, maybe I get the impression reading this FTDNA does a lot of risk reduction on their on own R&D money like, sorry to mention, Thomas Krahn did. I hope this is the case as they could get a lot of money by being smart. But this is hope, without evidence at this point.

I really wish for for a good and cheap R1b test to attract folks that have tested Geno 2.0, 23andMe, and others to learn a bit more about their paternal ancestry and the some will be interested get enough to pay to get NGS sequenced where the big payoff is. Also that could interest folks lving in Europe who are not that interested now in Y DNA, but might leveraged off of things like Geno 2.0 to learn about the history of how they got there and where they went.

Cofgene
08-06-2015, 12:36 AM
Mike has gotten the backbone pack out there let's put our energy into getting 1000 orders in for it. Let's get some movement on the purchases as that will identify new members for the downstream haplogroup projects and support any panels coming on-line for them.

Some of the U106 admins met with Bennett at FTDNA today and we have a path forward for R-U106 region specific panels in addition to the existing Z18 panel. That is all I can say until the panels and their contents are officially announced as being available for purchase. I have a busy weekend coming up finalizing the proposed contents for two of the X U106 region panels.

Cofgene
08-06-2015, 12:40 AM
This is from me, not FTDNA, but I see Z326 (I helped) on the SNP list I now have and also Z8. It looks like the U106 Galactic Empire has made their points, at least on Z8. No U198, though, so it looks like the U198 guy on Facebook will continue to be sad and full of gloom.

The force was strong in Charles & Mike ...... :amen: U198 and L1 will be covered by the U106 panels.

MacUalraig
08-06-2015, 08:05 AM
I must now also point out that the price of the R1b SNP Pack has risen to $99. The increase is not exorbitant, but in my opinion significantly changes the calculation for some customers. At this higher price point, I can no longer recommend this SNP pack for those already known to be U106+ , U152+ , DF27+ , etc.

In that case I may as well just single test L21 and DF27 (total cost USD78) since either way I would have to do a follow up panel. I have just saved USD21. :-)

lgmayka
08-06-2015, 08:41 AM
In that case I may as well just single test L21 and DF27 (total cost USD78) since either way I would have to do a follow up panel. I have just saved USD21. :-)
But the CJS2015 coupon code would reduce the price to $84.15, so the difference is only $6.15. :)

Actually, FTDNA charges $49 for the DF27 SNP test, so the R1b SNP Pack + coupon is actually cheaper than L21 + DF27 individual tests.

paulgill
08-06-2015, 08:41 AM
In that case I may as well just single test L21 and DF27 (total cost USD78) since either way I would have to do a follow up panel. I have just saved USD21. :-)


Test at YSEQ $17.50 per SNP, SNP Pack Panels also available there.

Mikewww
08-06-2015, 11:54 AM
The force was strong in Charles & Mike ...... :amen: U198 and L1 will be covered by the U106 panels.
This gives me an opportunity to define a new term. I'm going to call an SNP in a Backbone or Top-Layer type of Pack that points to another Pack that is more subclade specific a "bridge" SNP. A bridge SNP derived result would imply that the project member should consider a second SNP Pack, one that is specialized and a better "terminal haplogroup finding" Pack.

The doom and gloom from the lost brothers of the Galactic Empire, U198 and L1, is because they are not bridge SNPs in the M343 Backbone Pack. Z18 is a bit of lost brother too, but was smart and put a stake in the ground early and we have a Z18 Pack, hence we have Z18 as a bridge SNP in the M343 Backbone.

I don't know what FTDNA's goals are but I've recommended a strategy of no more than two Packs (wthin the realm of R1b) for an individual to get to their terminal public haplogroup.

Mikewww
08-06-2015, 12:06 PM
Mike has gotten the backbone pack out there let's put our energy into getting 1000 orders in for it. Let's get some movement on the purchases as that will identify new members for the downstream haplogroup projects and support any panels coming on-line for them.
I have no goals of any such for the R1b project other than the below:
1. Encourage as many genealogically known families to buy Big Y as is feasible of their budgeting (because NGS really is the way to go. Refer to Lewis and Clark).
2. Encourage as many people as possible to at least 67 STRs (to enhance matching and further test guidance.)
3. Encourage people who can't do Big Y to go to the M343 Backbone Pack or directly to Subclade Packs as their STRs (why 67 is important) or prior SNP testing warrants.
4. Help people find their genetic genealogy homeland (refer to Lewis and Clark) and share info and advance knowledge about R1b (which means getting them to the right subclade projects is important.)

This is not to say people shouldn't work with project administrators and do one at a time SNP testing or whatever they fancy. In respect to the R1b project, I'm just trying to shake the R1b tree trunk and get these apples out and into the right baskets.


Some of the U106 admins met with Bennett at FTDNA today and we have a path forward for R-U106 region specific panels in addition to the existing Z18 panel. That is all I can say until the panels and their contents are officially announced as being available for purchase. I have a busy weekend coming up finalizing the proposed contents for two of the X U106 region panels.
It looks like Mike M and Charles M have the good fortune of living in the Houston area, but even from across the ocean Peter has had his impact. BTW, I really like Peter. He reminds of my father who gets his points across precisely and firmly in five words or less. :)

Mac von Frankfurt
08-06-2015, 12:22 PM
Would Y Elite 2.0 accomplish the same as 1 and 2 below? Do we know what the STR coverage is on 2.0? I read the previous version was 100 of 111.


I have no goals of any such for the R1b project other than the below:
1. Encourage as many genealogically known families to buy Big Y as is feasible of their budgeting (because NGS really is the way to go. Refer to Lewis and Clark).
2. Encourage as many people as possible to at least 67 STRs (to enhance matching and further test guidance.)
3. Encourage people who can't do Big Y to go to the M343 Backbone Pack or directly to Subclade Packs as their STRs (why 67 is important) or prior SNP testing warrants.
4. Help people find their genetic genealogy homeland (refer to Lewis and Clark) and share info and advance knowledge about R1b (which means getting them to the right subclade projects is important.)

Mikewww
08-06-2015, 12:37 PM
Would Y Elite 2.0 accomplish the same as 1 and 2 below? ...
Unfortunately, that does not populate the matching database with STRs and SNP results. It's still a great test from everything I hear. Please note that I prefaced the goals with "for the R1b project." The R1b project is an FTDNA project and that is in the title of this thread.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about

Mac von Frankfurt
08-06-2015, 12:47 PM
I did the join thing at FTDNA for R L21 but have not heard back from an administrator. 23andMe transfer FTDNA kit B68484.


Unfortunately, that does not populate the matching database with STRs and SNP results. It's still a great test from everything I hear. Please note that I prefaced the goals with "for the R1b project." The R1b project is an FTDNA project and that is in the title of this thread.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about

Mikewww
08-06-2015, 12:54 PM
I did the join thing at FTDNA for R L21 but have not heard back from an administrator. 23andMe transfer FTDNA kit B68484.
I am only co-admin and helper on the R-L21 project. The guy who runs that is RMS2. He's one of pro's at this stuff. There is an L21 category (multiple in fact). I suggest emailing him or posting over there. There is an R1b-L21-Project yahoo group as well.

haleaton
08-06-2015, 01:12 PM
Would Y Elite 2.0 accomplish the same as 1 and 2 below? Do we know what the STR coverage is on 2.0? I read the previous version was 100 of 111.

I don't know about FGC Y Elite 2.0 Omega Bioservices lab instead of BGI lab, though I should have another data set soon on somebody else.
The earlier version though did determine and match all 111 FTDNA STRs and provide an additional 330 STRs. Of course you cannot transfer these to FTDNA and join the group projects based on it, though they let the admins group you by it even if you just have a 11-STR test.

Though FTDNA does not provide STRs, the Big Y data BAM files provided a similar number of STRs based on analysis both by FGC and YFull which costs around fifty bucks. FTDNA may consider the BAM data for STRs not as reliable or maybe not as profitable as their STR test. I think they also began stripping out the non-Y data from Big Y BAMs for a similar reason. FGC Y Elite also gives you mitochondrial DNA data.

I am sort of an outlier as many of my SNPs are outside of the coverage of Big Y and (I guess) the demographics SNP testing, which (I speculate)makes it harder for me to find matches. So independent of cost issues, FGC NGS testing is always better. Big Y is a little cheaper, but still too much for many. It will be good though when there is a non-beta R1b test available for less than one hundred bucks, unless NGS testing drops a lot more soon. This test gets up more data from others to compare sooner.

rms2
08-06-2015, 01:16 PM
I did the join thing at FTDNA for R L21 but have not heard back from an administrator. 23andMe transfer FTDNA kit B68484.

These days, I respond by either accepting a request to join or asking for more info, if the prospective member does not list an L21+ or L21+ downstream SNP test result in his join request. Membership used to be wide open, but I was getting literally hundreds of new members without any kind of SNP test results.

Somehow I missed yours (FTDNA does not always send the emails it should), but I have corrected that.

Mikewww
08-06-2015, 05:26 PM
A little shocked that the introductory price was dropped so soon. Still a good deal for those that are M269 predicted and within U152* and L2*.

The FTDNA project admin coordinator just posted this as confirmation. It looks like there quite a number of people with the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack in the works.
Just letting y'all know that the R1b Backbone pack has gone up to $99, if you didn't already notice. We got way more than a standard first run of samples within a day or two, but Bennett left the special price for a week anyway.

Joe B
08-06-2015, 05:40 PM
The FTDNA haplotree has been updated to show the SNPs covered by the R1b Backbone pack for those that can order it. Unfortunately and perhaps predictably, they screwed up the haplogroup prediction for many people. R-L175 is showing up frequently, myself included. Isn't L175 R1a? Anybody else seeing any other problems?

Huntergatherer1066
08-06-2015, 05:53 PM
L175 is known to be in R1a and R1b but it looks like many BigY folks are showing positive for it, such as my U106 uncle.

MacUalraig
08-06-2015, 05:55 PM
But the CJS2015 coupon code would reduce the price to $84.15, so the difference is only $6.15. :)

Actually, FTDNA charges $49 for the DF27 SNP test, so the R1b SNP Pack + coupon is actually cheaper than L21 + DF27 individual tests.

I'm learning something new every day here ;-) I see Paul beat me to it but at this news me and my kit holder are off to Thomas Krahn at YSEQ whose DF27 is the same low price as everything else.

Huntergatherer1066
08-06-2015, 06:00 PM
L175 is known to be in R1a and R1b but it looks like many BigY folks are showing positive for it, such as my U106 uncle.

Nevermind, I was thinking of L176 being in both. L175 is showing up positive though. It is an indel, maybe the BigY reporting for it is buggy.

haleaton
08-06-2015, 06:07 PM
The FTDNA haplotree has been updated to show the SNPs covered by the R1b Backbone pack for those that can order it. Unfortunately and perhaps predictably, they screwed up the haplogroup prediction for many people. R-L175 is showing up frequently, myself included. Isn't L175 R1a? Anybody else seeing any other problems?

Just to add it seems they only update the portion of the tree relevant to the subject able to order or not all lines are updated, yet.

Checked my deceased L21+ cousin's account saw the new L21 part of the tree, but U152 portion was same old one. Put in application for L21 group. Since the donor of this sample is dead, I wonder how much gets used up by the R1 Backbone Test?

Didn't let me cheat, but maybe I should feel cheated as I tested positive for the the new SNP which is on the tree in my Big Y according to the matches page . . .

Mikewww
08-06-2015, 08:05 PM
Just to add it seems they only update the portion of the tree relevant to the subject able to order or not all lines are updated, yet.

Checked my deceased L21+ cousin's account saw the new L21 part of the tree, but U152 portion was same old one. Put in application for L21 group. Since the donor of this sample is dead, I wonder how much gets used up by the R1 Backbone Test?

Didn't let me cheat, but maybe I should feel cheated as I tested positive for the the new SNP which is on the tree in my Big Y according to the matches page . . .
The M343 Backbone is the first Pack I've been with from start to finish, but I observed several others and it is apparent that when they produce a new Pack they update that section of the tree. They have some new tool called the "haplotree editor" so they can actually change the haplotree fairly quickly with haplogroup labels, etc. being affected. However, they go through a series of pulls of their database to check for phylogenetic fidelity. They do look at ISOGG's tree too. The database queries is what takes the time, but they still typically take a step back for every two steps forward.

GoldenHind
08-06-2015, 09:18 PM
L175 is known to be in R1a and R1b but it looks like many BigY folks are showing positive for it, such as my U106 uncle.

FTDNA has just changed someone who was P312>DF99 in the Big Y to L175+, which it appears they have listed under P312>L21>DF13. No doubt one more bug in their system.

BalkanKiwi
08-07-2015, 12:06 AM
The FTDNA project admin coordinator just posted this as confirmation. It looks like there quite a number of people with the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack in the works.

I'm glad I got in quickly.

razyn
08-08-2015, 11:09 PM
ZZ12 exists within the P5 palindrome, located at either ChrY:19736631 (T>C?) or ChrY:20442843 (A>G?). The regions surrounding and including each position are exact reverse compliments of the other, meaning that the forward strand of the first position has exactly the same sequence as the reverse strand of the second sequence, and the reverse strand of the first position has exactly the same sequence as the forward strand of the second position. It is impossible to know, even with NGS sequencing, which position is the actual one.

Interestingly -- to me, anyway -- a BigY test that posted in my DF27 project last night has eleven "shared novel variant" matches at position 19736631, T-C -- one of the ambiguous or unknowable ZZ12 positions. All but one are already members of the DF27 project, so I can see their previously known mutations. Five are in that Ashkenazi cluster that we already knew had a RecLOH that makes it unambiguously positive -- either at that position or its palindromic partner. The rest include examples from six other DF27 subclades, all of them on the Z195- side (which is to say, the ZZ12+ side): FGC11395 (Rox2), YP4295 (under Z2552), A2145, Y6951, Z31644*, and the new (unnamed) SNP represented by the DF27+ sample in which I noticed this. I don't know whether the latter group represents additional, previously undetected (perhaps more recent or "private") RecLOH events. Maybe they just got lucky, and the FTDNA analysis didn't happen to see any "ancestral" calls from the other side of the palindrome. Either way, I suggest that they confirm the reliability of a ZZ12 call as an alternative DF27+ indicator for Z195- persons. And the call has been made, in these instances, by the BigY test.

VinceT
08-09-2015, 01:01 AM
Interestingly -- to me, anyway -- a BigY test that posted in my DF27 project last night has eleven "shared novel variant" matches at position 19736631, T-C -- one of the ambiguous or unknowable ZZ12 positions. All but one are already members of the DF27 project, so I can see their previously known mutations. Five are in that Ashkenazi cluster that we already knew had a RecLOH that makes it unambiguously positive -- either at that position or its palindromic partner. The rest include examples from six other DF27 subclades, all of them on the Z195- side (which is to say, the ZZ12+ side): FGC11395 (Rox2), YP4295 (under Z2552), A2145, Y6951, Z31644*, and the new (unnamed) SNP represented by the DF27+ sample in which I noticed this. I don't know whether the latter group represents additional, previously undetected (perhaps more recent or "private") RecLOH events. Maybe they just got lucky, and the FTDNA analysis didn't happen to see any "ancestral" calls from the other side of the palindrome. Either way, I suggest that they confirm the reliability of a ZZ12 call as an alternative DF27+ indicator for Z195- persons. And the call has been made, in these instances, by the BigY test.

The thing about the Big Y reports is that FTDNA's Arpeggi map/align algorithm has shown a preferential bias for the forward strand used by the reference sequence, rather the rather than the reverse strand. The reality of the situation is that ZZ12 could just as well represent 20442843 (A>G). One might never know without single reads spanning longer than half of the length of the P5 palindrome, at worst case - i.e. about 261,150 bases.

At best case, one would need to conduct a careful study of structural variations within the P5 palindrome to see if they could differentiate one half of the palindrome from the other. Reads less than half of the length of P5 may be possible if they are anchored at those locations. This is still far outside the capability of both Sanger and NGS, but whole-molecule sequencing such as nano-pore tech might have the feasibility to do this in the future.

Until then, ZZ12 exists, but we don't know where. But also, the very real risk of a RecLOH event counts against depending on it for reliable phylogenetic assignment. If ZZ12 was overwritten via RecLOH, it could potentially create phantom branches in the phylogeny. The better strategy is to assign higher reliability to the down-stream SNP clusters you mentioned.

Mikewww
08-10-2015, 03:27 AM
FTDNA has just changed someone who was P312>DF99 in the Big Y to L175+, which it appears they have listed under P312>L21>DF13. No doubt one more bug in their system.
I sent a request to FTDNA on Friday to fix this. I think they have. I went to the R1b project and couldn't find R-L175 so may be the update has been made.

Mikewww
08-10-2015, 03:35 AM
Mike has gotten the backbone pack out there let's put our energy into getting 1000 orders in for it. Let's get some movement on the purchases as that will identify new members for the downstream haplogroup projects and support any panels coming on-line for them.


I have no goals of any such for the R1b project other than the below:
1. Encourage as many genealogically known families to buy Big Y as is feasible of their budgeting (because NGS really is the way to go. Refer to Lewis and Clark).
2. Encourage as many people as possible to at least 67 STRs (to enhance matching and further test guidance.)
3. Encourage people who can't do Big Y to go to the M343 Backbone Pack or directly to Subclade Packs as their STRs (why 67 is important) or prior SNP testing warrants.
4. Help people find their genetic genealogy homeland (refer to Lewis and Clark) and share info and advance knowledge about R1b (which means getting them to the right subclade projects is important.)

This is not to say people shouldn't work with project administrators and do one at a time SNP testing or whatever they fancy. In respect to the R1b project, I'm just trying to shake the R1b tree trunk and get these apples out and into the right baskets.

I was thinking a couple hundred to a few might be what could see out of this but Cofgene is much closer to being right than I was. It looks like Gail and I will be very busy moving people to the right subgroupings and haplogroup projects. Hopefully, we'll see some surprise people appearing for the various projects.

lgmayka
08-10-2015, 10:48 AM
I sent a request to FTDNA on Friday to fix this. I think they have. I went to the R1b project and couldn't find R-L175 so may be the update has been made.
No such luck. Dozens of R1a men are still erroneously listed as R-L175. FTDNA knows about the problem.

Mikewww
08-10-2015, 11:47 AM
No such luck. Dozens of R1a men are still erroneously listed as R-L175. FTDNA knows about the problem.
Ouch, sorry. :( I just told them I saw this problem in R1b people. I didn't know enough to say R1a people were having the same problem. I thought R-L176.1 appears in R1a and I assumed L175 must have as well. That's a mistake on my part - assuming that is.

Please post a kit # that has the erroneous label and I'll shoot that to them as quickly as I can.

L175 is not in the R1b Backbone Pack nor in anything I know of so I'm not sure who submitted L175 and what that caused this or if it was just plain fingercheck by an FTDNA employee.

Mikewww
08-10-2015, 12:14 PM
Ouch, sorry. :( I just told them I saw this problem in R1b people. I didn't know enough to say R1a people were having the same problem. I thought R-L176.1 appears in R1a and I assumed L175 must have as well. That's a mistake on my part - assuming that is.

Please post a kit # that has the erroneous label and I'll shoot that to them as quickly as I can.

L175 is not in the R1b Backbone Pack nor in anything I know of so I'm not sure who submitted L175 and what that caused this or if it was just plain fingercheck by an FTDNA employee.
Lawrence, a quote from FTDNA, "mopping up the last of the messy ones in R1a." Hopefully they will complete that today.

lgmayka
08-10-2015, 02:40 PM
Please post a kit # that has the erroneous label and I'll shoot that to them as quickly as I can.
I already sent Rebekah a long list of affected kit numbers on Friday.

evon
08-12-2015, 02:53 PM
anybody know when these will be in? I am listed as:


Tests: R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack
Lab Procedure: SMS-M343
Batch: 633

Helgenes50
08-12-2015, 02:57 PM
anybody know when these will be in? I am listed as:

I am in the same batch for I-P109

Expected 09/09/2015 - 09/23/2015

R.Rocca
08-14-2015, 02:31 PM
I was thinking a couple hundred to a few might be what could see out of this but Cofgene is much closer to being right than I was. It looks like Gail and I will be very busy moving people to the right subgroupings and haplogroup projects. Hopefully, we'll see some surprise people appearing for the various projects.

Mike, can you tell us how many R1b project members have ordered the backbone test?

Mikewww
08-14-2015, 03:26 PM
Mike, can you tell us how many R1b project members have ordered the backbone test?
More orders are still coming in but there have been some people who are going to wait for a future test (i.e. U106) but I would say that Cofgenes is closer to being right than I would have thought. See reply 163.

R.Rocca
08-14-2015, 05:07 PM
More orders are still coming in but there have been some people who are going to wait for a future test (i.e. U106) but I would say that Cofgenes is closer to being right than I would have thought. See reply 163.

Cogenes' comment was "...let's put our energy into getting 1000 orders in for it". Are you saying it is closer to 1000 than to a couple of hundred?

Mikewww
08-14-2015, 05:17 PM
Cogenes' comment was "...let's put our energy into getting 1000 orders in for it". Are you saying it is closer to 1000 than to a couple of hundred?
Much. That was a week or so ago but a general statement, not necessarily project specific.

R.Rocca
08-14-2015, 05:25 PM
Much. That was a week or so ago but a general statement, not necessarily project specific.

You are killing me with the suspense Mike :D

"Much" as in "Much more", or as in "Much Less"

razyn
08-14-2015, 07:12 PM
Much closer to 1000 than to 200? I'd think. And, not project-specific. Only a bit over a dozen from the Alliance, which is OK -- it will save me writing a lot of condolence letters.

Mikewww
08-14-2015, 09:54 PM
Much closer to 1000 than to 200? I'd think. And, not project-specific. Only a bit over a dozen from the Alliance, which is OK -- it will save me writing a lot of condolence letters.

Yes, Razyn is right, although by now who knows? I apologize for the coyness but....
1) I don't think it matters. I don't care if the vendors are doing well on anybody's side. I guess I'm feeling like Hans Solo again. I wish them well but that's it. There are no targets for me. I just want to see the R1b tree shake and people fall out into baskets where further advancements can happen.
2) I feel some responsibility for confidentiality if someone tells me something in a conversation and I don't get their permission to publicize. I push that too much as it is.
3) The Alliance makes me nervous. They may use specific data in a way to make things look bad if they can. FTDNA screws up enough on their own. There is no need to come up with extrapolations and innuendo.
4) I might get accused of some "market overhang" conspiracy or what not.
5) I've got plenty of other things to do.

Gadzooks! I'm a little slow, but I just got it. :) Hans is surnamed Solo because he runs alone (and is self-centered although I try not to claim that.) I can't believe that surname meaning has completely passed by me all of these years.

razyn
08-14-2015, 10:42 PM
Gadzooks! I'm a little slow, but I just got it. :) Hans is surnamed Solo because he runs alone

Also, he is forenamed Han (not Hans). One obscure theory is that "Han" is the capitalized pronoun "He" in several northern languages, notably Swedish, and stands for the Messiah (or by extension, a savior figure swooping in from elsewhere, in his case in the Millennium Falcon). There was a well-thought-of theological treatise, "Han som kommer" (He that cometh), in the early 1960s... This is of course lunatic fringe theory for the elderly, by now. I don't have any particular reason to think George Lucas went to Divinity School.

Dubhthach
08-18-2015, 05:05 PM
So I see some M343 backbone tests have come in. For some weird reason FTDNA has put DF41 as been equivalent to DF13 on their "updated" haplogroup tree! Who do I contact in FTDNA to get them to edit their haplogroup tree and put it equivalent to CTS2501?

-Paul

Mikewww
08-18-2015, 06:45 PM
Paul. I sent your request in but I'm not sure how best to proceed on these. I've gotten my feedback into ISOGG on L513 and finally got most of that implemented so it is time for me to work on FTDNA.
I created a thread to talk about haplotree updating.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5195-Getting-FTDNA-to-update-their-Haplotree

Cofgene
08-18-2015, 11:33 PM
I see 4 results returned. 3 of which were known Z326+, and one who had a distant cousin tested Z326+. The SNPs upstream from Z326 are giving positive reads. So some appropriate negatives will show they are operating correctly.

Huntergatherer1066
08-18-2015, 11:40 PM
I see 4 results returned. 3 of which were known Z326+, and one who had a distant cousin tested Z326+. The SNPs upstream from Z326 are giving positive reads. So some appropriate negatives will show they are operating correctly.

Are the negatives not showing up yet? Neither of the M343 backbones ordered in the projects I administer are back yet though they were ordered in the first day or two so they may be soon. One I am fairly convinced will be DF41 and the other some flavor of DF27, curious to see if their results are reliable as well.

Dubhthach
08-19-2015, 09:19 AM
Paul. I sent your request in but I'm not sure how best to proceed on these. I've gotten my feedback into ISOGG on L513 and finally got most of that implemented so it is time for me to work on FTDNA.
I created a thread to talk about haplotree updating.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5195-Getting-FTDNA-to-update-their-Haplotree

Mike,

Thanks I've replied on your email, sending on details of my ISOGG submission of DF41 back in 2012 to Morgan. Hopefully they'll sort that out soon enough.

-Paul

[[[ EDIT from MikeW. I'll reply to general haplotree updating issues over on the new thread. I think we are seeing progress. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5195-Getting-FTDNA-to-update-their-Haplotree ]]]

Mikewww
08-19-2015, 03:02 PM
Are the negatives not showing up yet? Neither of the M343 backbones ordered in the projects I administer are back yet though they were ordered in the first day or two so they may be soon. One I am fairly convinced will be DF41 and the other some flavor of DF27, curious to see if their results are reliable as well.
I recommend patience. My experience is that some results will be redone and some haplotree updates will need fixing.

Huntergatherer1066
08-20-2015, 09:29 PM
So I see some M343 backbone tests have come in. For some weird reason FTDNA has put DF41 as been equivalent to DF13 on their "updated" haplogroup tree! Who do I contact in FTDNA to get them to edit their haplogroup tree and put it equivalent to CTS2501?

-Paul

It looks like this has been corrected now, also Z251 is now on the tree at last.

R.Rocca
08-20-2015, 11:37 PM
Looks like Z2103 is coming up positive on most (all?) tests, regardless of haplogroup. Hopefully it can be swapped out with an equivalent SNP like Z2105.

Huntergatherer1066
08-20-2015, 11:55 PM
Neither of the M343 backbones ordered in the projects I administer are back yet though they were ordered in the first day or two so they may be soon. One I am fairly convinced will be DF41 and the other some flavor of DF27, curious to see if their results are reliable as well.

They're both back as of this evening, one was confirmed DF41, his negatives appear to make sense. It looks like DF13 is a no-call (possibly not working on test) but he is Z2542+ as you would expect a DF13+ individual to be. Z2542 may be working more reliably. The DF27 fellow has P311 and P310 showing as negative so those may be kinks needing worked out. He is negative for everything downstream of DF27 which is somewhat disappointing and somewhat exciting I suppose (He's already in the DF27 project). The DF27 fellow has the Z2103+ but not the DF41 guy. Since these results have just gone live it is likely there will be adjustments and tweaks as all the results are examined and patterns emerge. All in all pretty exciting, very much looking forward to seeing fewer empty terminal SNP boxes.

razyn
08-21-2015, 03:36 AM
Only a bit over a dozen from the Alliance, which is OK -- it will save me writing a lot of condolence letters.

So, we got the results today from the first 18 orders for the M343 Backbone test by members of the R1b-DF27 project. Three of them have results to make them think it was worth spending something to learn. Two were moved from group Ub (Ungrouped, but have STR markers suggesting the North/South cluster) to group Bab* (Z295+ and untested for its subclades). Two more were called as Z209+, but had already tested Z210+ (one of many equivalents), and were in the right group. All four of these had actually been called as Z209+. The test is right, but the placement wrong -- because the FTDNA haplotree currently shows Z209 four levels lower than it actually is (and in the Z216 or Iberian branch, below Z295 -- which it is not).

One other member was moved from group Ub to group X ("you are not DF27+"), having tested for one of the cool new subclades of L21 (S16264+). So, the three who were moved got something for their money. The fifteen who were not moved, IMO, did not. Most were in groups A or Aa, correctly; one was in group Cc, correctly. In all cases, based on tests they had taken prior to this Backbone. One guy tested P312 (which he already knew), and still has the blue button to request a DF27 test -- if he wants to spend another $49 that way. [He was a Geno2 transfer, and has tested no STRs, so he isn't visible in the project even if he did learn something that would get him moved.]

So, based on the present data, there is a one in six chance that this test is worth anything for a member of the DF27 project.

ArmandoR1b
08-21-2015, 12:42 PM
Although I doubt we would ever get this stat, but it sure would be nice to know what percent of the people that never previously had SNP testing, and got the R1b Backbone test, end up with which subclade and where their most distant European ancestor is most likely from, at least generally speaking as in Eastern, Southern, or Northern Europe.

corner
08-21-2015, 01:31 PM
On page one of this thread there were 140 SNP listed in the FTDNA R1b-M343 SNP Pack. The banner on my dashboard now says 'Get 144 SNPs'. What are the new SNPs? I gather DF27 is now included in the test? lgmayka reports just now a Polish DF27** (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5210-What-does-a-Polish-DF27**-do-now&p=103878#post103878) result from it.

haleaton
08-21-2015, 01:47 PM
On page one of this thread there were 140 SNP listed in the FTDNA R1b-M343 SNP Pack. The banner on my dashboard now says 'Get 144 SNPs'. What are the new SNPs? I gather DF27 is now included in the test? lgmayka reports just now a Polish DF27** (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5210-What-does-a-Polish-DF27**-do-now&p=103878#post103878) result from it.

I noticed, in looking at a couple of samples, BY653, Z326, Z8, & Z8052, which would make it 144 and then you get M343 upstream for 145 SNPs.

However I did notice 12 from the July 29 list that were not being reported and then Rich Rocca mentioned one that seems to only positives across haplogroups.

Maybe admins can look at a user Haplogroup SNP list download which shows where the SNP value in the list came from and verify.

[EDIT: Looks to me like A6454, BY2895, BY2896, FGC13780, FGC5338, L277, PF6658, S6317, Z262, Z56, DF90, DF13 are not being reported, but could be wrong on DF13]

Mikewww
08-21-2015, 01:59 PM
On page one of this thread there were 140 SNP listed in the FTDNA R1b-M343 SNP Pack. The banner on my dashboard now says 'Get 144 SNPs'. What are the new SNPs? I gather DF27 is now included in the test? lgmayka reports just now a Polish DF27** (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5210-What-does-a-Polish-DF27**-do-now&p=103878#post103878) result from it.
The U106 guys asked for and got a couple of SNPs added at the last minute. I don't have a final list. I have asked FTDNA to publish a list. I can understand that during the beta runs the list may not be finalized, but after that.. we need to know.

Everything I've heard on DF27 is it is NOT included.

gotten
08-21-2015, 02:02 PM
On page one of this thread there were 140 SNP listed in the FTDNA R1b-M343 SNP Pack. The banner on my dashboard now says 'Get 144 SNPs'. What are the new SNPs? I gather DF27 is now included in the test? lgmayka reports just now a Polish DF27** (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5210-What-does-a-Polish-DF27**-do-now&p=103878#post103878) result from it.

lgmayka mentioned in the other topic about the Polish DF27**:


Kit 196199 of Poland received his R1b SNP Pack results.
[...]
As you can see, he is negative for everything downstream from DF27. He previously tested DF27 individually, otherwise we wouldn't even know that.


The DF27+ was a previously known result and not due to the R1b pack.

Mikewww
08-21-2015, 02:08 PM
So, we got the results today from the first 18 orders for the M343 Backbone test by members of the R1b-DF27 project. Three of them have results to make them think it was worth spending something to learn. Two were moved from group Ub (Ungrouped, but have STR markers suggesting the North/South cluster) to group Bab* (Z295+ and untested for its subclades). Two more were called as Z209+, but had already tested Z210+ (one of many equivalents), and were in the right group. All four of these had actually been called as Z209+. The test is right, but the placement wrong -- because the FTDNA haplotree currently shows Z209 four levels lower than it actually is (and in the Z216 or Iberian branch, below Z295 -- which it is not).

One other member was moved from group Ub to group X ("you are not DF27+"), having tested for one of the cool new subclades of L21 (S16264+). So, the three who were moved got something for their money. The fifteen who were not moved, IMO, did not. Most were in groups A or Aa, correctly; one was in group Cc, correctly. In all cases, based on tests they had taken prior to this Backbone. One guy tested P312 (which he already knew), and still has the blue button to request a DF27 test -- if he wants to spend another $49 that way. [He was a Geno2 transfer, and has tested no STRs, so he isn't visible in the project even if he did learn something that would get him moved.]

So, based on the present data, there is a one in six chance that this test is worth anything for a member of the DF27 project.
I have made a request for special consideration for DF27 (follow-on coupon, something). I don't have an answer yet.
I still would maintain the position, like Charles M does for U106, that if you know or are pretty sure you are DF27 you should wait. I have submitted a DF27 Pack request and have told them I consider it as high as priority as the U106 Pack(s) but I have to admit I think I got bumped a bit. The solidarity of U106 administrators generally pays off for them.

Earl Davis
08-21-2015, 02:36 PM
On page one of this thread there were 140 SNP listed in the FTDNA R1b-M343 SNP Pack. The banner on my dashboard now says 'Get 144 SNPs'. What are the new SNPs? I gather DF27 is now included in the test? lgmayka reports just now a Polish DF27** (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5210-What-does-a-Polish-DF27**-do-now&p=103878#post103878) result from it.

Apparently that is not the case although it was not originally clear. The DF27 result was from a stand alone test.

Joe B
08-21-2015, 05:23 PM
Looks like Z2103 is coming up positive on most (all?) tests, regardless of haplogroup. Hopefully it can be swapped out with an equivalent SNP like Z2105.Richard, I have not seen that problem so far. I sure hope any problems with Z2103 are not universal and fixable. Z2105 would be a a good phylogenetic equivalent to Z2103.

Typical reported results:

R1b-CTS4528
CTS4528+, P297+, P310+, P311+, L23+, L278+, L389+, L51+, M269+, M343+, M73-, MC14-, M335-, L513-, L584-, L617-, L881-, M1994-, M222-, L408-, L47-, L48-, L371-, L238-, A1773-, A2150-, A274-, A4670-, A517-, BY2823-, BY2868-, BY575-, BY653-, CTS10429-, CTS11567-, CTS11994-, CTS1751-, CTS3386-, CTS4466-, P312-, PF3252-, PF331-, PF6610-, PF6714-, PF7562-, PF7589-, PF7600-, S1026-, S1051-, S11493-, S11601-, S12025-, S1567-, S16264-, S1688-, S18632-, S18827-, S7721-, SRY2627-, U106-, U152-, V88-, Y5058-, Z156-, Z16500-, Z17-, Z17300-, Z18-, Z1862-, Z195-, Z198-, Z209-, Z2103-, Z2109-, Z225-, Z251-, Z253-, Z2542-, Z255-, Z2573-, Z295-, Z296-, Z301-, Z302-, Z326-, Z36-, Z367-, Z381-, Z49-, Z8-, Z8052-, Z8056-, Z9-, CTS5330-, CTS5689-, CTS6937-, CTS7763-, DF103-, DF110-, DF17-, DF19-, DF21-, DF41-, DF49-, DF63-, DF81-, DF83-, DF88-, DF95-, DF99-, F2691-, F2863-, FGC10516-, FGC11134-, FGC13620-, FGC20761-, FGC22501-, FGC396-, FGC5301-, FGC5336-, FGC5344-, FGC5345-, FGC5351-, FGC5354-, FGC5356-, FGC5367-, FGC5373-, FGC5494-, FGC5798-, L1335-, L2-, L21-


R1b-Z2103 (predicted R1b-CTS7822/Z2110)
P297+, L389+, L23+, L278+, M269+, M343+, Z2103+, Z2109+, Z225-, Z251-, Z253-, Z2542-, Z255-, Z2573-, Z295-, Z296-, Z301-, Z302-, Z326-, Z36-, Z367-, Z381-, Z49-, Z8-, Z8052-, Z8056-, Z9-, M73-, MC14-, M335-, L371-, L238-, L408-, L47-, L48-, L51-, L513-, L584-, L617-, L881-, M1994-, M222-, P310-, PF3252-, PF331-, PF6610-, PF6714-, PF7562-, PF7589-, PF7600-, S1026-, S1051-, S11493-, S11601-, S12025-, S1567-, S16264-, S1688-, S18632-, S18827-, S7721-, SRY2627-, U106-, U152-, V88-, Y5058-, Z156-, Z16500-, Z17-, Z17300-, Z18-, Z1862-, Z195-, Z198-, Z209-, L21-, P312-, P311-, A1773-, A2150-, A274-, A4670-, A517-, BY2823-, BY2868-, BY575-, BY653-, CTS10429-, CTS11567-, CTS11994-, CTS1751-, CTS3386-, CTS4466-, CTS4528-, CTS5330-, CTS5689-, CTS6937-, CTS7763-, DF103-, DF110-, DF17-, DF19-, DF21-, DF41-, DF49-, DF63-, DF81-, DF83-, DF88-, DF95-, DF99-, F2691-, F2863-, FGC10516-, FGC11134-, FGC13620-, FGC20761-, FGC22501-, FGC396-, FGC5301-, FGC5336-, FGC5344-, FGC5345-, FGC5351-, FGC5354-, FGC5356-, FGC5367-, FGC5373-, FGC5494-, FGC5798-, L1335-, L2-

R.Rocca
08-21-2015, 05:51 PM
Richard, I have not seen that problem so far. I sure hope any problems with Z2103 are not universal and fixable. Z2105 would be a a good phylogenetic equivalent to Z2103.


As an example, in the Italy project, there is kit no. 265033, who is L11+CTS4528+ is also showing as Z2103+

Mikewww
08-21-2015, 09:58 PM
As an example, in the Italy project, there is kit no. 265033, who is L11+CTS4528+ is also showing as Z2103+
I've sent FTDNA a request to look at 265033 and Z2103. I also told them Z2105 was an equivalent if needed, but they must have picked Z2103 over Z2105 for some reason in the first place.

VinceT
08-22-2015, 01:17 AM
The U106 guys asked for and got a couple of SNPs added at the last minute. I don't have a final list. I have asked FTDNA to publish a list. I can understand that during the beta runs the list may not be finalized, but after that.. we need to know.

Everything I've heard on DF27 is it is NOT included.
I've taken a look at the R1b-M343 pack SNPs for a couple of R-FGC396 men [Yay, it's on FTDNA's tree, finally!], and only 132 SNPs of the alleged 144 are being reported:


A1773


A2150


A274


A4670


A517


BY2823


BY2868


BY575


BY653


CTS10429


CTS11567


CTS11994


CTS1751


CTS3386


CTS4466


CTS4528


CTS5330


CTS5689


CTS6937


CTS7763


DF103


DF110


DF17


DF19


DF21


DF41


DF49


DF63


DF81


DF83


DF88


DF95


DF99


F2691


F2863


FGC10516


FGC11134


FGC13620


FGC20761


FGC22501


FGC396


FGC5301


FGC5336


FGC5344


FGC5345


FGC5351


FGC5354


FGC5356


FGC5367


FGC5373


FGC5494


FGC5798


L1335


L2


L21


L23


L238


L278


L371


L389


L408


L47


L48


L51


L513


L584


L617


L881


M1994


M222


M269


M335


M343


M73


MC14


P297


P310


P311


P312


PF3252


PF331


PF6610


PF6714


PF7562


PF7589


PF7600


S1026


S1051


S11493


S11601


S12025


S1567


S16264


S1688


S18632


S18827


S7721


SRY2627


U106


U152


V88


Y5058


Z156


Z16500


Z17


Z17300


Z18


Z1862


Z195


Z198


Z209


Z2103


Z2109


Z225


Z251


Z253


Z2542


Z255


Z2573


Z295


Z296


Z301


Z302


Z326


Z36


Z367


Z381


Z49


Z8


Z8052


Z8056


Z9




Which 12 are missing?

Mikewww
08-22-2015, 03:37 AM
Which 12 are missing?
I posted this within the R1b project, but I think we still need to be patient. My experience from other packs is that that there were some re-runs they had to do and there were some SNPs that were 1) truly not good SNPs biologically from a UEP standpoint and some SNPs 2) not reliably read by their testing system.
It's a little early yet, but if someone spots any specifics I'll report the feedback to make sure they are evaluating it.

haleaton
08-22-2015, 07:48 AM
I posted this within the R1b project, but I think we still need to be patient. My experience from other packs is that that there were some re-runs they had to do and there were some SNPs that were 1) truly not good SNPs biologically from a UEP standpoint and some SNPs 2) not reliably read by their testing system.
It's a little early yet, but if someone spots any specifics I'll report the feedback to make sure they are evaluating it.

My posted list earlier seems to be right of the 144+1, though many are negatives and we probably need positives to be absolutely sure. Also don't know if more than 4 were added and also did not report. Based on 145 it is as 9% failure rate. I keep hearing about modifying the SNP packs, though this one is no longer advertised as "Betas" and promises now 144+1 SNPs. Do we know that updating and modifying the test is something that will actually happen? Still nobody has confirmed if the testing method is really a chip test or not, which would have a non-recurring development cost from the manufacturer I would think. For other tests FTNDA has a "SNP Assurance Policy" where they will do added tests at their own cost, but these are not betas. If a someone that paid for the test has a critical missing SNP that was promised then they should ask FTDNA what they are going to do about it. But btw, I think is R1b SNP Pack even with 9% failure is a great thing for many people and really take my hat off, if I had a hat, to FTDNA and the critical volunteers, such as yourself, for making this available.

evon
08-22-2015, 10:07 AM
still waiting for results, feeling very impatient ... :P

BalkanKiwi
08-22-2015, 10:31 AM
still waiting for results, feeling very impatient ... :P

Join the club :)

Mikewww
08-22-2015, 02:41 PM
Kelly, I don't agree with how you extrapolated your estimates but you may have reasons for your intensity. I still recommend a little patience to see how things turn out. I have inquiries into FTDNA on what's working or not, what's the final list, etc. I have no answers but I think that is good because they are still heads down working on this. They have not been afraid to rerun things in some of the earlier packs. Patience...

Kwheaton
08-22-2015, 10:09 PM
Mike---were your remarks directed at me? I haven't posted here lately? And I have not ordered the test so not impatient either. My main interest is whether the SNP FGC22501 will prove usable---

Joe B
08-23-2015, 08:17 PM
I've sent FTDNA a request to look at 265033 and Z2103. I also told them Z2105 was an equivalent if needed, but they must have picked Z2103 over Z2105 for some reason in the first place.Mike, Please have them take a look at N16937 R-Z195. He's in the R _R1b ALL Subclades project. P297+, L389+, L23+, L278+, M269+, M343+, Z2103+, Z195+, Z2109-, L51-, L584-, P310-, P311-, P312-, PF7562-, PF7589-, U106-, CTS4528-. His STRs don't look like Z2103. He is negative for L51 and all downstream SNPs except for Z195. Thanks

R.Rocca
08-24-2015, 12:43 AM
I've sent FTDNA a request to look at 265033 and Z2103. I also told them Z2105 was an equivalent if needed, but they must have picked Z2103 over Z2105 for some reason in the first place.

Mike, if you could also recommend a replacement for DF90. For some reason it looks to have been bumped from the list even though it is successfully offered at FTDNA as a stand-alone Sanger SNP. Here is the replacement information:

SNP Name: FGC14641
Position: 19283192
Ancestral Allele: A
Derived Allele: G

razyn
08-24-2015, 01:30 AM
Mike, Please have them take a look at N16937 R-Z195. He's in the R _R1b ALL Subclades project. P297+, L389+, L23+, L278+, M269+, M343+, Z2103+, Z195+

Z195 is the better-known (earlier defined) half, roughly, of DF27.

VinceT
08-24-2015, 04:37 AM
Z195 is the better-known (earlier defined) half, roughly, of DF27.
Yes, but since DF27 is below P312 (which is below P311, P310 etc.), Z195 would be expected to be negative (not positive) for an L23+ L51- Z2103+ man. Since his STRs don't look like they belong to R-Z2103, it belies to a potential lab error or sample mix-up. Hence Joe B's concern.

FTDNA needs to do a QC check on this kit, since his R-Z195 assignment appears to be wrong. I'd suggest Sanger tests for Z2105 and Z196. Z2105+ Z196- would suggest a recurrence of Z195 under R-Z2103.

razyn
08-24-2015, 12:27 PM
It really does look as if something was amiss, either with his sample or the chip. I haven't looked at the haplotype or anything, N16937 isn't in a project I administer.

Z195 replaced Z196 at FTDNA (since the Geno2 chip) because it is supposedly easy to test and reliable.

Mikewww
08-24-2015, 07:06 PM
Over the last couple of days, I've moved a series of R1b-M343 Backbone tested people over to their new subgroupings and joined them to their appropriate major haplogroup projects.

The graphic on "about" page for the R1b project shows you the projects I do "joins" to.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about

I don't remove anyone from the project for two reasons. First, FTDNA told me I couldn't. The second is we want people to also get to 67 or 111 STRs and be good "model" haplotypes for the newbies so they can compare their 67 STR haplotypes with others who've done deeper testing.

evon
09-02-2015, 01:11 AM
So my R1b-backbone test came in a few minutes ago, i am now:
DF13+, M173+, M269+, M343+, M207+, P25+, M269+, P312+, L21+, L23+, L278+, L389+, PF331+, Z2542+, L51+, P297+, P310+, P311+, PF3252-, L513-, L584-, L617-, L881-, M1994-, M335-, MC14-, Z255-, Z2573-, Z295-, Z296-, Z301-, Z302-, Z326-, Z36-, Z367-, Z381-, Z49-, Z8-, Z8052-, Z8056-, Z9-, PF6610-, PF6714-, PF7562-, PF7589-, PF7600-, S1026-, S1051-, S11493-, S11601-, S12025-, S1567-, S16264-, S1688-, S18632-, S18827-, S7721-, V88-, Y5058-, Z156-, Z16500-, Z17-, Z17300-, Z18-, Z1862-, Z195-, Z198-, Z209-, Z2103-, Z2109-, Z225-, Z251-, Z253-, L408-, L47-, L48-, L371-, L238-, L130-, L144-, L159-, L192-, L193-, L195-, L96-, L226-, DF21-, P107-, U106-, U152-, U198-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, A1773-, A2150-, A274-, A4670-, A517-, BY2823-, BY2868-, BY575-, BY653-, CTS10429-, CTS11567-, CTS11994-, CTS1751-, CTS3386-, CTS4466-, CTS4528-, CTS5330-, CTS5689-, CTS6937-, CTS7763-, DF103-, DF110-, DF17-, DF19-, DF41-, DF49-, DF63-, DF81-, DF83-, DF88-, DF95-, DF99-, F2691-, F2863-, FGC10516-, FGC11134-, FGC13620-, FGC20761-, FGC22501-, FGC396-, FGC5301-, FGC5336-, FGC5344-, FGC5345-, FGC5351-, FGC5354-, FGC5356-, FGC5367-, FGC5373-, FGC5494-, FGC5798-, L1335-, L2-

Whatever that means :P Will have to do some research..

MJost
09-02-2015, 01:46 AM
So my R1b-backbone test came in a few minutes ago, i am now:

Whatever that means :P Will have to do some research..

Here are the known DF13 Subclades to compare with and see if you match with the associated Walsh variety.

HG
DF49/S474
Z253
DF21/S192
L513/S215/DF1
FGC11134
L1335/S530
Z255
DF41/S524
Z251/S470
FGC5494
CTS1751
L371/S300
S1026
S1051
CTS3386
MC14
Z16500
S16264
BY575
CTS11994
FGC13780
A4556
Y14240
Z17300


MJost

lgmayka
09-02-2015, 02:20 AM
My project received some new R1b SNP Pack results. A mixed bag.
181806 of Poland: U152>L2>Z49+
335287 of Poland: U106>Z381>Z301>S1688+
133147 of Czech Rep.: U152>L2**
N46909 of Ukraine: U152>L2**

YFull estimates the TMRCA of L2 to be 4500 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L2/).

razyn
09-02-2015, 02:40 AM
So, we got the results today from the first 18 orders for the M343 Backbone test by members of the R1b-DF27 project. Three of them have results to make them think it was worth spending something to learn.
[snip]
So, based on the present data, there is a one in six chance that this test is worth anything for a member of the DF27 project.

I should moderate that a bit, the second batch has come in tonight (ten new tests) -- and another dozen just posted that have been sitting around somewhere (not in my project GAP results), but were returned 8/20 in the first batch. Those guys have been joining the DF27 project in the past couple of weeks because of some subclade of DF27 that shows up in their M343 Backbone test. So, yeah, it works for more like half of the DF27 guys who take it -- not 1/6, as indicated by the earliest returns.

However -- for a good few of them, it only works by confirming their Z195 status, plus or minus. That's the principal subdivision below DF27, and would only cost $39 to test (at FTDNA). Most of the Z195 plus guys have actually learned something else, below that. The Z195 minus ones (aka ZZ12+), not so much; but there were indeed some few of them who got lucky, and were positive for SNPs below ZZ12 that are on this panel. I'll give it about 2 stars, on a 5 star system. For a really old or sick DF27+ guy, with even less patience than I have, it probably beats waiting around for an affordable panel that's better. If you have an actuarial life expectancy greater than two years, I'd still recommend waiting a bit.

Mikewww
09-02-2015, 03:18 AM
Mike, if you could also recommend a replacement for DF90. For some reason it looks to have been bumped from the list even though it is successfully offered at FTDNA as a stand-alone Sanger SNP. Here is the replacement information:

SNP Name: FGC14641
Position: 19283192
Ancestral Allele: A
Derived Allele: G
Sorry, Richard. I just noticed this. I reported it to FTDNA with your recommendation. Have you seen it appearing in any results?

Mikewww
09-02-2015, 03:24 AM
I should moderate that a bit, the second batch has come in tonight (ten new tests) -- and another dozen just posted that have been sitting around somewhere (not in my project GAP results), but were returned 8/20 in the first batch. Those guys have been joining the DF27 project in the past couple of weeks because of some subclade of DF27 that shows up in their M343 Backbone test. So, yeah, it works for more like half of the DF27 guys who take it -- not 1/6, as indicated by the earliest returns.

However -- for a good few of them, it only works by confirming their Z195 status, plus or minus. That's the principal subdivision below DF27, and would only cost $39 to test (at FTDNA). Most of the Z195 plus guys have actually learned something else, below that. The Z195 minus ones (aka ZZ12+), not so much; but there were indeed some few of them who got lucky, and were positive for SNPs below ZZ12 that are on this panel. I'll give it about 2 stars, on a 5 star system. For a really old or sick DF27+ guy, with even less patience than I have, it probably beats waiting around for an affordable panel that's better. If you have an actuarial life expectancy greater than two years, I'd still recommend waiting a bit.
I'll keep working on this. I agree that DF27 and the subclade as a whole just seems to not catch a break too often. This is even worse than I thought. Over on the L21 forum your fearless alliance leader has said that L21 and U106 is the vast majority. I think he is talking about it in market terms not population terms. I actually think we'll end up with better luck from FTDNA on DF27 over the long run. They try to be all things to all people, which is not always good, but at least they try to cover the waterfront. Hence, I think they'll give DF27 a good shot. Look, they've already got a haplogroup N pack. I think I have made a case for the DF27 opportunity from Latin America and immigrants to the US.

I think you are still a little light on estimating the coverage of DF27 descendant branches in the Backbone test. If I look at Alex's Big Tree we have 146 Z195 NGS folks and 160 ZZ12. That means Z195 itself covers 48% DF27 just by itself. When you add close to a dozen SNPs downstream of ZZ12 that are in the Backbone test, I would think the percentage is higher than 50%, maybe significantly.

We need a DF27 specialized SNP pack to really cover this well and give value for DF27 folks. I see over in the DF27 category though some, maybe you, think we should not be rash and getting a DF27 Pack. Lawrence wants one right away and other think differently.

I noticed the DF27 thread about a DF27 pack because you posted about it and said it was a good post. Do you agree with Earl? or Lawrence?

It's okay, either way, I've been very reticent for some time on fixed SNP panels. In fact I still am. I just gave in that not everyone will do NGS and we've had a good almost 2 years of NGS testing so maybe its time.

Tolan
09-02-2015, 04:19 AM
So my R1b-backbone test came in a few minutes ago, i am now:

Whatever that means :P Will have to do some research..

Also, my results have just came...
And such, all negative below DF13 (Z2542)!:\
It remains three untested SNP: ZZ10, FGC13780 and Y14240



DF13+, PF331+, P312+, L21+, L459+, L23+, L389+, L51+, L278+, M269+, P297+, P310+, P311+, Z2542+, M343+, M73-, MC14-, Z2573-, Z295-, Z296-, Z301-, Z302-, Z326-, Z36-, Z367-, Z381-, Z49-, Z8-, Z8052-, Z8056-, Z9-, PF3252-, M335-, L371-, L513-, L584-, L617-, L881-, M1994-, M222-, L408-, L47-, L48-, L238-, DF21-, Z253-, P314-, L159-, PF6610-, PF6714-, PF7562-, PF7589-, PF7600-, S1026-, S1051-, S11493-, S11601-, S12025-, S1567-, S16264-, S1688-, S18632-, S18827-, S7721-, SRY2627-, U106-, U152-, V88-, Y5058-, Z156-, Z16500-, Z17-, Z17300-, Z18-, Z1862-, Z195-, Z198-, Z209-, Z2103-, Z2109-, Z225-, Z251-, DF41-, Z255-, FGC5496-, A1773-, A2150-, A274-, A4670-, A517-, BY2823-, BY2868-, BY575-, BY653-, CTS10429-, CTS11567-, CTS11994-, CTS1751-, CTS3386-, CTS4466-, CTS4528-, CTS5330-, CTS5689-, CTS6937-, CTS7763-, DF103-, DF110-, DF17-, DF19-, DF49-, DF63-, DF81-, DF83-, DF88-, DF95-, DF99-, F2691-, F2863-, FGC10516-, FGC11134-, FGC13620-, FGC20761-, FGC22501-, FGC396-, FGC5301-, FGC5336-, FGC5344-, FGC5345-, FGC5351-, FGC5354-, FGC5356-, FGC5367-, FGC5373-, FGC5494-, FGC5798-, L1335-, L2-

evon
09-02-2015, 10:35 AM
Also, my results have just came...
And such, all negative below DF13 (Z2542)!:\
It remains three untested SNP: ZZ10, FGC13780 and Y14240



DF13+, PF331+, P312+, L21+, L459+, L23+, L389+, L51+, L278+, M269+, P297+, P310+, P311+, Z2542+, M343+, M73-, MC14-, Z2573-, Z295-, Z296-, Z301-, Z302-, Z326-, Z36-, Z367-, Z381-, Z49-, Z8-, Z8052-, Z8056-, Z9-, PF3252-, M335-, L371-, L513-, L584-, L617-, L881-, M1994-, M222-, L408-, L47-, L48-, L238-, DF21-, Z253-, P314-, L159-, PF6610-, PF6714-, PF7562-, PF7589-, PF7600-, S1026-, S1051-, S11493-, S11601-, S12025-, S1567-, S16264-, S1688-, S18632-, S18827-, S7721-, SRY2627-, U106-, U152-, V88-, Y5058-, Z156-, Z16500-, Z17-, Z17300-, Z18-, Z1862-, Z195-, Z198-, Z209-, Z2103-, Z2109-, Z225-, Z251-, DF41-, Z255-, FGC5496-, A1773-, A2150-, A274-, A4670-, A517-, BY2823-, BY2868-, BY575-, BY653-, CTS10429-, CTS11567-, CTS11994-, CTS1751-, CTS3386-, CTS4466-, CTS4528-, CTS5330-, CTS5689-, CTS6937-, CTS7763-, DF103-, DF110-, DF17-, DF19-, DF49-, DF63-, DF81-, DF83-, DF88-, DF95-, DF99-, F2691-, F2863-, FGC10516-, FGC11134-, FGC13620-, FGC20761-, FGC22501-, FGC396-, FGC5301-, FGC5336-, FGC5344-, FGC5345-, FGC5351-, FGC5354-, FGC5356-, FGC5367-, FGC5373-, FGC5494-, FGC5798-, L1335-, L2-

I saw that only 15 people in the L21+ project have tested positive for PF331+, while 96 have tested positive for Z2542+. Seems we are DF13-Z2542+ and those who are positive for PF331 have also tested with the R1b-backbone test, so the final SNP is Z2542+ for us.

Mikewww
09-02-2015, 12:38 PM
Also, my results have just came...
And such, all negative below DF13 (Z2542)!:\
It remains three untested SNP: ZZ10, FGC13780 and Y14240
...
I had requested ZZ10_1 and ZZ10_2 but was turned down. However, at the same time, FTDNA has released them as Sanger Sequenced tests in the Advanced Tests menu. I checked YSEQ and they can't be found but I expect them to follow suit since they are aggressive.
I don't necessarily recommend testing for them. I would consider them experimental, but that is up to you.

Mikewww
09-02-2015, 12:41 PM
Here are the known DF13 Subclades to compare with and see if you match with the associated Walsh variety.

HG
DF49/S474
Z253
DF21/S192
L513/S215/DF1
FGC11134
L1335/S530
Z255
DF41/S524
Z251/S470
FGC5494
CTS1751
L371/S300
S1026
S1051
CTS3386
MC14
Z16500
S16264
BY575
CTS11994
FGC13780
A4556
Y14240
Z17300


MJost
FGC5494 pops up again today as a second major wave of R1b-M343 Backbone SNP results have shown up. I'm very proud of you, Mark, as an L21 leader and "founder" of FGC5494. Just to think.... there were months of arguing about whether FGC5494 could even be tested reliably.

FGC5494 may not be so minor after all.

Tolan
09-02-2015, 12:50 PM
I had requested ZZ10_1 and ZZ10_2 but was turned down. However, at the same time, FTDNA has released them as Sanger Sequenced tests in the Advanced Tests menu. I checked YSEQ and they can't be found but I expect them to follow suit since they are aggressive.
I don't necessarily recommend testing for them. I would consider them experimental, but that is up to you.

Should i test both (ZZ10_1 and ZZ10_2)? Or one is enough?

swid
09-02-2015, 01:27 PM
Should i test both (ZZ10_1 and ZZ10_2)? Or one is enough?

I asked FTDNA the same thing last week. :) The person there didn't know if one (and if only one, which one of the two) or both needed to be tested, but gave me a $39 coupon code for my trouble.

I haven't placed the order yet; I'd like to have one of my more distant Y-line relatives test it instead of using it on myself.

R.Rocca
09-02-2015, 01:58 PM
Sorry, Richard. I just noticed this. I reported it to FTDNA with your recommendation. Have you seen it appearing in any results?

Unfortunately it is not in the new batch of results. Thanks for escalating it though.

Tolan
09-02-2015, 02:06 PM
I saw that only 15 people in the L21+ project have tested positive for PF331+, while 96 have tested positive for Z2542+. Seems we are DF13-Z2542+ and those who are positive for PF331 have also tested with the R1b-backbone test, so the final SNP is Z2542+ for us.

Z2542 is equivalent to DF13.
We're both DF13+ Z2542+


PF331 is really unstable!
positive:
L21: 19% (14/74)
DF27: 29% (12/42)
U152: 55% (17/31)
U106: 51% (23/68)

MJost
09-02-2015, 02:46 PM
FGC5494 pops up again today as a second major wave of R1b-M343 Backbone SNP results have shown up. I'm very proud of you, Mark, as an L21 leader and "founder" of FGC5494. Just to think.... there were months of arguing about whether FGC5494 could even be tested reliably.

FGC5494 may not be so minor after all.

Thanks Mike. With the insistence from Gregory Magoon, the FGC analysis guru, that FGC5494 was a solid SNP not found in any other DF13 subclade, and YSeq's Thomas, who expressed concern that since FGC5494 has a 99.5% identity with ChrX. and may pose later mutation issues, he said that FGC5494 "sequencing trace will show a mixed base (heterozygote) at the SNP position if a sample is derived."

Additional work was then done, proving it with some extended Sanger sequencing testing confirming that it wasn't found in a female, Thomas and Astrid went the extra mile testing and reported: "we didn't observe a derived allele. Therefore there is a realistic chance that the derived allele is in deed observed on the Y chromosome." He then started offering the FGC5494 SNP along with FtDNA joining in an making it an offering back in early part of 2014.

From my notes, FGC5494 now has about 60 total positive results from both NGS and Single and group panel SNP testing placing it at 10th highest DF13 subclade in total positive numbers since being discovered Nov 2013. Our Subclade has been very aggressive in also Sanger sequencing testing NGS SNPs found thus further allowing future Single SNP testing for individual family testing. Here is the NGS based tree to date:

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=18

Its been an exciting ride that also was key in confirming my own Irish based FGC5494>FGC5561>FGC5496 branch and my specific 500+ year old paternal lineage branch on the Isle of Man.

MJost

GoldenHind
09-03-2015, 12:20 AM
A R1b backbone test came in today for someone who was previously classified P312**. His results are U106- L48+. He has previously tested P312+. Presumably an error somewhere, unless L48 turns up independently in P312.Anyone have any suggestions? Contacting FTDNA for a re-run of the test or at least of L48?

Also someone came in R1b DF83+. This appears to be an SNP which neither FTDNA or ISOGG has placed on the R1b tree. Anyone know anything about it?

Cofgene
09-03-2015, 01:26 AM
Z2542 is equivalent to DF13.
We're both DF13+ Z2542+


PF331 is really unstable!
positive:
L21: 19% (14/74)
DF27: 29% (12/42)
U152: 55% (17/31)
U106: 51% (23/68)

I would NOT say that it is unstable. The issue is a technical one with the contents of the SNP pack. I might be able to explain more after the FTDNA conference and we see what individuals observe during the FTDNA lab tour. That really is all that I can say on this at this time. :angel:

VinceT
09-03-2015, 05:00 AM
A R1b backbone test came in today for someone who was previously classified P312**. His results are U106- L48+. He has previously tested P312+. Presumably an error somewhere, unless L48 turns up independently in P312.Anyone have any suggestions? Contacting FTDNA for a re-run of the test or at least of L48?

Also someone came in R1b DF83+. This appears to be an SNP which neither FTDNA or ISOGG has placed on the R1b tree. Anyone know anything about it?

It's entirely possible that L48 will turn up positive under R-P312 as a recurrent mutation, just very rare. A re-run of L48 would not be a bad thing, but perhaps a re-test at YSEQ would be preferable. If he is still categorized as P312* (negative for everything else underneath), an NGS test wouldn't hurt either.


DF83 is located downstream of R-DF27, originally identified in 1KGP samples NA20770, HG00739, HG01247, and HG01917. It likely won't be included on the ISOGG tree anytime soon since it is an indel (AT->del).
See http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF83/

grouza31
09-03-2015, 09:15 AM
My R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack test results came with an SNP PF331+. My haplogroup is R-PF6289 a subclass of R-V88. PF6289 is in a different branch from that of L21, DF27, U152 and U106. How is it possible to have the same mutation PF331+. Does anyone have any information on this SNP PF331? What Can be the position of this SNP on Y phylotree?

lgmayka
09-03-2015, 09:58 AM
133147 of Czech Rep.: U152>L2**
N46909 of Ukraine: U152>L2**
These two kits, and N114738 of England who is also L2**, have 9 at DYS455. No one else in the U152 Project has this unusual marker value. I therefore suspect that the three of them form a new subclade of L2; but to prove that, two of them must order the Big Y or its competitor. I have no access to N114738, but perhaps an administrator can suggest that to him.

Mikewww
09-04-2015, 01:37 AM
...
I must again recount my own experience with the Z280 SNP Pack:
- Comprehensive proposal in November 2014
- Absolutely no movement until I re-inquired in April 2015
- SNP pack designed ("ready for validation") in May 2015
- Nothing since then.
....
I don't understand the R1a tree but is this new news?

I just went to myFTDNA dashboard log in and clicked the blue "Upgrades" at the top. On the "Order Additional Tests" screen I clicked on "Buy now" in the "Advanced Tests" box. Next the "Select a product" screen comes up and when I hit the "Test type" drop down I saw something I've never seen before.

"SNP Pack" shows up. I selected that.

I saw R-Z283 on the list. I thought Z283 was upstream of Z280. Is this the SNP Pack you wanted? or some other subset? Is this brand new?

I think this list of SNP packs will grow quickly.

Dubhthach
09-04-2015, 08:45 AM
Mike,

That's a new one by me and quite significant, it means people who are predicted say M222 but don't have M222 test done could technically order the snp bundle without needing to have order M222 first:

Here's a list of available "SNP Packs" going through the "Advanced order" menu

Test Type Marker Price
SNP Pack R-CTS4466 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack J-FGC4302 $99.00 Add
SNP Pack J-FGC8712 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack G-M201 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack R-M222 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack N-M231 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack J-M267 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack R-M343 $99.00 Add
SNP Pack I-S12289 $109.00 Add
SNP Pack R-Z18 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack R-Z253 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack R-Z255 $119.00 Add
SNP Pack R-Z283 $119.00 Add

lgmayka
09-04-2015, 10:17 AM
I just went to myFTDNA dashboard log in and clicked the blue "Upgrades" at the top. On the "Order Additional Tests" screen I clicked on "Buy now" in the "Advanced Tests" box. Next the "Select a product" screen comes up and when I hit the "Test type" drop down I saw something I've never seen before.

"SNP Pack" shows up. I selected that.
Here is what's new: The ability to order a SNP pack even when it is not advertised on the Y-DNA Haplotree & SNPs page. This is a good thing. It means that if FTDNA ever does offer the Z280 SNP Pack that they promised, our project members will be able to order it even if FTDNA doesn't know that they are Z280+ .


I saw R-Z283 on the list. I thought Z283 was upstream of Z280. Is this the SNP Pack you wanted? or some other subset? Is this brand new?
No, that is not the SNP pack we wanted, and it is not new. The so-called Z283 SNP Pack is primarily intended for the Z284 branch, which is primarily Scandinavian/British Isles. It was designed and deployed without any input from R1a Project administrators.


I think this list of SNP packs will grow quickly.
Good luck with that. :)

Cofgene
09-04-2015, 12:01 PM
5792

This is a simplified view by one of the U106 project members to show how the U106 region is broken into individual panels. "Leader SNPs" from the backbone panel will drop an individual into one of these regions. At that point they can consider either the full y sequencing or order the U106 region specific panel to refine their haplogroup. Note that Charles Moore has color coded the groupings in the U106 to correspond to the panels. Of course with this in place we will still have people ordering the wrong panel. :P

The royal Wettin lineage region - purple - is part of the Z156 panel but wanted to highlight that for political reasons.

Mikewww
09-04-2015, 12:46 PM
5792

This is a simplified view by one of the U106 project members to show how the U106 region is broken into individual panels. "Leader SNPs" from the backbone panel will drop an individual into one of these regions. At that point they can consider either the full y sequencing or order the U106 region specific panel to refine their haplogroup. Note that Charles Moore has color coded the groupings in the U106 to correspond to the panels. Of course with this in place we will still have people ordering the wrong panel. :P

The royal Wettin lineage region - purple - is part of the Z156 panel but wanted to highlight that for political reasons.
Very good. You guys are very good!

I don't know if you are aware but when I initiated the R1b-M343 Backbone Pack request I recommended a full R1b coverage strategy. That's the first of the principles of the strategy I recommended. I also drew up some powerpoints about how coverage might work. Of course, I couldn't do U106 other than guesswork. Obviously the U106 team needed to be engaged and you've all executed well. Of course, you'd already done the work anyway.

I see you are using the term "Leader" SNP but I used the term "Bridge" SNP to signify an SNP in the Backbone pack or any pack for that matter) that will point to, bridge to, or lead to another pack. Testers should be able to get to their terminal public haplogroup with no more than two packs. That's the second principle of the strategy I proposed. This is why the R1b-M343 Backbone had to reach down a layer or two under U106, DF27, L21, etc.... plus that just provides more value to the R1b testing community. I don't care if we stretch FTDNA and I honestly think are intent on delivering value - just my humble opinion.

The Boy Scouts (and Girls Scouts) would be proud of your preparation.:)

Mikewww
09-18-2015, 12:16 PM
Another set of R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack results have come in the last few days.

I have to admit, I'm surprised at the number of some of the perceived lesser subclades of the big haplogroups (i.e. L21, U106, etc.) are turning up. Subclades like FGC11134, FGC5494, Z251, etc. are examples in L21 which may have just been more johnny-come-lately's in the discovery process and not really minor.

I am pleased that we are cutting to the chase on a large number of people and ratcheting them down into more youthful subclades. In that regards, the test has been very successful in shaking the big R1b tree.

Kwheaton
09-18-2015, 01:25 PM
I am pleased as can be that FGC22501 appears to be working! Only one known positive tested via SNP pa k so far, but anither suspected in the works. This is a very geographicly broadbased SNP probably pre Roman conquest of Britain.

Heber
09-18-2015, 02:26 PM
Another set of R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack results have come in the last few days.

I have to admit, I'm surprised at the number of some of the perceived lesser subclades of the big haplogroups (i.e. L21, U106, etc.) are turning up. Subclades like FGC11134, FGC5494, Z251, etc. are examples in L21 which may have just been more johnny-come-lately's in the discovery process and not really minor.

I am pleased that we are cutting to the chase on a large number of people and ratcheting them down into more youthful subclades. In that regards, the test has been very successful in shaking the big R1b tree.

I asked several of my matches who were stuck at M269 to upgrade. Looking forward to the results.

MJost
09-18-2015, 02:31 PM
Another set of R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack results have come in the last few days.

I have to admit, I'm surprised at the number of some of the perceived lesser subclades of the big haplogroups (i.e. L21, U106, etc.) are turning up. Subclades like FGC11134, FGC5494, Z251, etc. are examples in L21 which may have just been more johnny-come-lately's in the discovery process and not really minor.

I am pleased that we are cutting to the chase on a large number of people and ratcheting them down into more youthful subclades. In that regards, the test has been very successful in shaking the big R1b tree.

As a person who is very interested in FGC5494, this M343 back bone test has produced some amazing results for subclades you mentioned. In a cursory look at the FtDNA L21 SNP results page there are at least 114 M343 tested kits. Out of that FGC5494 has over a dozen new positive kits from this simple test that allows those previously deemed 'outliers' who didn't have any association with the largest DF13 subclades. Our FGC5494 project has over 48 positive kit from BigY, Single testing, or backboneM343 or which 11 are from M343 testing, so far. In researching, eight are in the FGC5494 project and the L21 project, five belong only to the L21 and I found one in a surname project.

Mike, you and others have spend a lot of time suggesting recommend down stream projects that these new tester's join, but I feel that FtDNA could added verbiage on each persons results page to consider joining newly discovered SNP projects.

There are many more FGC5494+ men who are not included in these numbers due to testing at YSeq and Full Genome Corp. and not represented in these FtDNA numbers which is an ongoing concern.

Exciting results even with some issues.

MJost

R.Rocca
09-18-2015, 03:02 PM
I am glad to see that we are getting plenty of STR-only testers and they're getting a lot of value by being grouped many levels down from M269. I had a couple of R-M269 predicted folks tell me that they did not initially test because they are not R-M343 folks. Of course, they are both, but they did not know/understand that. A little Monday Morning Quarterbacking, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to have a a M269 backbone test as the M343+M269- folks are likely an extreme minority that have obvious STR signature. Either way, I doubt that FTDNA is going to change their marketing of the test now.

corner
09-18-2015, 03:31 PM
Another set of R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack results have come in the last few days.

I have to admit, I'm surprised at the number of some of the perceived lesser subclades of the big haplogroups (i.e. L21, U106, etc.) are turning up. Subclades like FGC11134, FGC5494, Z251, etc. are examples in L21 which may have just been more johnny-come-lately's in the discovery process and not really minor.

I am pleased that we are cutting to the chase on a large number of people and ratcheting them down into more youthful subclades. In that regards, the test has been very successful in shaking the big R1b tree.Have any P312* turned up? If one is a member of several of the deep DF27>ZZ12 subclades, the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack will give a P312* result.

Mikewww
09-18-2015, 04:44 PM
....
Mike, you and others have spend a lot of time suggesting recommend down stream projects that these new tester's join, but I feel that FtDNA could added verbiage on each persons results page to consider joining newly discovered SNP projects.
There is definitely more that they could do, but there are broader, thornier issues which cause more severe problems.

Now that I understand their banner ad system and prereq checking, I can see that their haplotree is of utmost importance. It touches a number of things from the prereq checking for new test (pack) orders, targeting for banner ads, targeting for email notifications, display of negative results, haplogroup assignment, etc.


....
There are many more FGC5494+ men who are not included in these numbers due to testing at YSeq and Full Genome Corp. and not represented in these FtDNA numbers which is an ongoing concern.
...
Not everyone likes my recommendation, but my recommendation is dependent on whether a tester/project member is interested in self-edification and knowledge versus posterity and discovery/confirmation of relationships in genetic genealogy, or not.

When you feel like you have a terminal SNP worth putting in the matching database then test that with FTDNA.

We need big improvements in project and matching database functionality, ease of use and efficiency for project administration sake, to support the massive growth in genetic genealogy that we want. The old off-line recordkeeping, spreadsheet stuff eventually has to go away for genetic genealogy. That stuff will always go on, but probably well above the genetic genealogy level.

Mikewww
09-18-2015, 05:09 PM
Have any P312* turned up? If one is a member of several of the deep DF27>ZZ12 subclades, the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack will give a P312* result.
Yes, we are seeing some. It appears to be less than 5% of the people tested but it is coming up. I've asked FTDNA to address this with a discount but they have something else they want to try first.

GoldenHind
09-18-2015, 05:21 PM
Have any P312* turned up? If one is a member of several of the deep DF27>ZZ12 subclades, the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack will give a P312* result.

There are about 20 in the P312 and Subclades Project who received nothing below P312 in the new backbone test, and their number grows every time another batch of results comes in. They are listed in section Baa1 in the project results pages. My guess is that nearly all of them are DF27*, but a few might be P312**.

You might also be interested in section Baa2, which are those whose Big Y results had nothing below P312.

razyn
09-18-2015, 05:36 PM
When you feel like you have a terminal SNP worth putting in the matching database then test that with FTDNA.
Easier said than done. An admin at FTDNA usually needs to know that your special SNP exists, and care enough to order it, and remember whether he has done that, and tell people once the test is available -- which FTDNA rarely even tells the admin. Many and complex variables, nothing automatic.

Hundreds of new ones below DF27 have been discovered since the BigY and FGC tests came on line (and earlier elsewhere, especially the S and CTS ones); and I think I've successfully requested about 22 of them at FTDNA. And a few other people have gotten a few more into their menu. Almost all of this process is left up to volunteers. At YSEQ anybody can volunteer, and many do (Wish a SNP) -- but it's a dollar a wish, and I don't do that for our roughly 1200 members.

Mikewww
09-18-2015, 05:59 PM
Easier said than done. An admin at FTDNA usually needs to know that your special SNP exists, and care enough to order it, and remember whether he has done that, and tell people once the test is available -- which FTDNA rarely even tells the admin. Many and complex variables, nothing automatic.
I've tried to understand the SNP offering process at FTDNA. I admit I went all out on my father's subclade and took the FTDNA admonishment of "first come, first serve" to heart. L513 has great coverage and it turns out this helped in the Pack design process because assays were already developed. Any SNP that was shared in that subclade has been submitted, almost all more than 5-6 months ago.

I didn't do that for DF27 but I'm trying to do my part via the DF27 pack development process. It is my understanding that any branch marking SNPs in the pack and maybe everything in the pack will available by Sanger Sequencing. I've literally asked them to do an SNP for every branch on the Big Tree, every branch which includes those solely identified via academic studies and FGC. Chromo 2 gets left out a bit but most of those came from studies anyway. Geno 2 doesn't get left out because FTDNA already has that database.



Hundreds of new ones below DF27 have been discovered since the BigY and FGC tests came on line (and earlier elsewhere, especially the S and CTS ones); and I think I've successfully requested about 22 of them at FTDNA. And a few other people have gotten a few more into their menu. Almost all of this process is left up to volunteers. At YSEQ anybody can volunteer, and many do (Wish a SNP) -- but it's a dollar a wish, and I don't do that for our roughly 1200 members.
Agreed. First it is of critical importance that people join projects and share their information. I've hit the concept of sharing and "team sport" pretty hard and have tried to facilitate that (including supporting Alex's free Big Tree analysis) via the yahoo groups, and I know you are part of that too and have done yeoman's work. However, some people (and there is one on this forum who hits me up every now and then) just won't share. It's their right. It's too bad but it is their right.

Second, I think the Wish an SNP thing at YSEQ is a wonderful option. Thomas is very good at evaluating SNPs so if he says it is good then it is good. Even if he doesn't say it is good, it may be good, but his recommendations are preferable.

corner
09-18-2015, 06:40 PM
There are about 20 in the P312 and Subclades Project who received nothing below P312 in the new backbone test, and their number grows every time another batch of results comes in. They are listed in section Baa1 in the project results pages. My guess is that nearly all of them are DF27*, but a few might be P312**.

You might also be interested in section Baa2, which are those whose Big Y results had nothing below P312.Thanks GoldenHind. I've just had a look at group 'Baa1. P312+ L21- U152- DF19- DF99- L238-[R1b Backbone done, DF27 untested, please order DF27] (R1b>P312*)'

There are a couple of likely DF27>Z2571>(FGC11397 and a few dozen phylogenetic equivalents) 'Rox2' subclade kits who stand out straight away through off-modal STR matching. A member of that subclade would get no result below P312 in the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack because none of the subclade's SNPs below P312 were included. Z2571 and FGC11397 are available for testing as single SNPs at FTDNA. They can also be got at YSEQ. The YSEQ DF27 panel includes those SNPs and most of the other currently known ones.

MacUalraig
09-18-2015, 06:49 PM
However, some people (and there is one on this forum who hits me up every now and then) just won't share. It's their right. It's too bad but it is their right.

Shame on him whoever it is. What's your YFull id? I've been on there since December 2013. I'm YF01405 on the M222 tree.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/DNA-R1B1C7/2014-08/1407872568

lgmayka
09-18-2015, 08:16 PM
Have any P312* turned up? If one is a member of several of the deep DF27>ZZ12 subclades, the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack will give a P312* result.
My project just got one today, kit 399633 of Poznań patrilineage (but apparently ethnically German).

Mikewww
09-18-2015, 09:13 PM
There are about 20 in the P312 and Subclades Project who received nothing below P312 in the new backbone test, and their number grows every time another batch of results comes in. They are listed in section Baa1 in the project results pages. My guess is that nearly all of them are DF27*, but a few might be P312**.

You might also be interested in section Baa2, which are those whose Big Y results had nothing below P312.

I think I should say it is more like 7-8% (rather than 5%) that fall into this P312* DF27 unknown examples that comes up out of the Backbone testing. I was counting the base-line of tests finished incorrectly. FTDNA says they are doing a true count of the number of people who fall into this category.

As you can see I've been segregating these P312* DF27? guys into a special subgrouping (in the R1b project) similar to the L11+ U106-L21- U152- P312? guys that fall out of Geno 2 testing.

All of these people should also show up in the P312 project as I automatically move them there from the R1b project as I see them and I just did a round of moves this morning.

I agree with Thomas on his his posting on the L21 forum about the significance of L21 and U106 testers. I supposed it is British Isles descendant market penetration thing, but more of these two subclades shake out of the R1b pack testing than do out of the others. DF27 seems to be edging out U152 though and that is not really accounting for the P312* DF27?.