PDA

View Full Version : R1b SNP Backbone Panels at FTDNA --> If you're confirmed U106, then wait!



GTC
08-02-2015, 01:11 PM
The following quote is from Charles Moore, U106 Project administrator and ISOGG R1b-U106 and Subclades administrator:



NOBODY who has tested U106+, OR BELOW, can derive any benefit from the R1b "Backbone" panel. This is a great test, but its SOLE purpose is to determine what branch of R1b you belong to. If you already know what branch of R1b you belong to, this test is COMPLETELY USELESS.

I am meeting with FTDNA next week to give them my advice on how to proceed with derivative U106 SNP Packs. People who are in U106, but will not be taking the much better Big Y or FGC tests, presumably for financial reasons, will be advised by us, HERE, and elsewhere, what derivative SNP Packs to order, once they are available, soon. Stay tuned.

NOBODY IN THE U106 PROJECT SHOULD ORDER THE BACKBONE TEST. NOBODY!!!

lgmayka
08-02-2015, 03:26 PM
I must, however, point out the timeframe issue.

Mr. Moore says: "I am meeting with FTDNA next week to give them my advice on how to proceed with derivative U106 SNP Packs." This sounds as if FTDNA has just begun to think about offering U106 SNP packs. This means that the first actual U106 SNP pack may not be offered until next year, with additional SNP packs to be released in subsequent years. R-U106 is only one of many haplogroups and clades that need SNP packs.

I must re-iterate the experience of the R1a Project. I submitted a comprehensive proposal for a Z280 SNP pack in November 2014. Absolutely nothing was done about it until I made a followup inquiry in April 2015. Design for the SNP pack was allegedly completed in May 2015. We are now in August, and I have not even heard of validation testing results for this SNP pack. Needless to say, I have not bothered to submit any further SNP pack proposals.

My point is that if someone in R-U106 wants some finer resolution before 2017, he might reasonably go ahead and order this "backbone" SNP pack at the introductory $79 price. It at least includes tests for:
Z381
L48
L47
Z156
Z17
Z18

VinceT
08-03-2015, 01:48 AM
I must, however, point out the timeframe issue.

Mr. Moore says: "I am meeting with FTDNA next week to give them my advice on how to proceed with derivative U106 SNP Packs." This sounds as if FTDNA has just begun to think about offering U106 SNP packs. This means that the first actual U106 SNP pack may not be offered until next year, with additional SNP packs to be released in subsequent years. R-U106 is only one of many haplogroups and clades that need SNP packs.

I must re-iterate the experience of the R1a Project. I submitted a comprehensive proposal for a Z280 SNP pack in November 2014. Absolutely nothing was done about it until I made a followup inquiry in April 2015. Design for the SNP pack was allegedly completed in May 2015. We are now in August, and I have not even heard of validation testing results for this SNP pack. Needless to say, I have not bothered to submit any further SNP pack proposals.

My point is that if someone in R-U106 wants some finer resolution before 2017, he might reasonably go ahead and order this "backbone" SNP pack at the introductory $79 price. It at least includes tests for:
Z381
L48
L47
Z156
Z17
Z18
Charles Moore, Raymond Wing, and Bennett Greenspan have been discussing this since the Beta R-M222 and R1a SNP-packs were released, so for a few months by now. The delay has been due to trying to distil the thousands of SNPs under R-U106 that have been discovered through FGC, BigY and Chromo2, into a minimalized yet informative Y-tree, while also keeping to a quota of approximately 100 SNPs per pack, keeping in mind that some SNPs will fail, resulting in the need to build in redundancy. Multiple packs will likely be necessary as consequence, so a strategy on how to split them up efficiently needed to be developed. The final presentation will be delivered on Wednesday.

And of course, this is just for the initial version of the pack(s).

I expect that the R-U106 SNP pack will be ready by fall or winter 2015.

haleaton
08-03-2015, 03:01 AM
Charles Moore, Raymond Wing, and Bennett Greenspan have been discussing this since the Beta R-M222 and R1a SNP-packs were released, so for a few months by now. The delay has been due to trying to distil the thousands of SNPs under R-U106 that have been discovered through FGC, BigY and Chromo2, into a minimalized yet informative Y-tree, while also keeping to a quota of approximately 100 SNPs per pack, keeping in mind that some SNPs will fail, resulting in the need to build in redundancy. Multiple packs will likely be necessary as consequence, so a strategy on how to split them up efficiently needed to be developed. The final presentation will be delivered on Wednesday.

And of course, this is just for the initial version of the pack(s).

I expect that the R-U106 SNP pack will be ready by fall or winter 2015.

Look forward to hearing results of meeting. I do hope Mr. Greenspan is not too upset with folks screwing with his business model . . . ;)

I think based on the Big Y SNPs shared novel variants now appearing in the Big Y results there is already another FTDNA Y-tree not fully shared. But by picking only one of the shared novel variants to represent each subclade, in most cases, the minimalization is probably a bad thing. Particulary to extend Y SNP testing to recent genealogy.

VinceT
08-03-2015, 04:10 AM
Look forward to hearing results of meeting. I do hope Mr. Greenspan is not too upset with folks screwing with his business model . . . ;)

I think based on the Big Y SNPs shared novel variants now appearing in the Big Y results there is already another FTDNA Y-tree not fully shared. But by picking only one of the shared novel variants to represent each subclade, in most cases, the minimalization is probably a bad thing. Particulary to extend Y SNP testing to recent genealogy.

The thing with these SNP packs, even if they were not minimalized, is that they can only test previously discovered SNPs. And everyone who buys that test will be testing SNPs that are predominantly found in other men's ancestral lines and not necessarily their own. Its intent is to classify according to a known existing phylogenetic structure.

If you desire to test SNPs found within the scope of recent genealogy (i.e. within the past 500 years), you would be far better off to buy them off-the-cart individually or in panels from YSEQ. But you would still be testing SNPs found in other paternal lines, and not necessarily your own.

Which leads us back to NGS sequencing via the "Big Y" or the "Y-Elite 2.0" from Full Genomes Corp. These discover your SNPs.

ArmandoR1b
08-03-2015, 04:19 AM
But by picking only one of the shared novel variants to represent each subclade, in most cases, the minimalization is probably a bad thing. Particulary to extend Y SNP testing to recent genealogy.

It will at least, in some cases, help disprove common ancestry within the last 4,000 years for a low price. It will hopefully also get some people to get additional individual SNP tests and refine some subclades even more.

haleaton
08-03-2015, 04:40 AM
It will at least, in some cases, help disprove common ancestry within the last 4,000 years for a low price. It will hopefully also get some people to get additional individual SNP tests and refine some subclades even more.

Oh I completely agree. I meant going to a minimalist tree rather than including all the shared novel variants [that are restricted to the clade] from Big Y (assuming FTDNA still wants to only use data from their own lab) in their tree.

For some reason, maybe just cost and marketing strategy, they have to keep the snps in these test down to around one hundred it is said. I have not heard an explanation of why it could be a more reasonable few thousand even if the definitions came from other labs if this is just existing bead chip technology using standard customization. I probably missed somebody stating what the exact technology they are using is or if they have not told anybody.

U106 admins clearly are spearheading this and are the experts here. I am here to learn from U106, though for U152 I think the price point and coverage is good to attract new testers.

One thing they should ask Bennett is if since the number of SNPs is small, if there is a no call or ambiguous result will they retest by whatever method to give a result for the stated SNPs. BritainsDNA did this when L2 failed on their chip. Deep Clade and individual orders did that. This guarantee would be further selling point.

haleaton
08-03-2015, 05:18 AM
The thing with these SNP packs, even if they were not minimalized, is that they can only test previously discovered SNPs. And everyone who buys that test will be testing SNPs that are predominantly found in other men's ancestral lines and not necessarily their own. Its intent is to classify according to a known existing phylogenetic structure.

If you desire to test SNPs found within the scope of recent genealogy (i.e. within the past 500 years), you would be far better off to buy them off-the-cart individually or in panels from YSEQ. But you would still be testing SNPs found in other paternal lines, and not necessarily your own.

Which leads us back to NGS sequencing via the "Big Y" or the "Y-Elite 2.0" from Full Genomes Corp. These discover your SNPs.

Oh, I went with with Full Genomes Corporation testing early on and though even pricier then it saved me more time/money than it cost. Really, the way to go. However what I need now is more data and new people having a interest and a reason to have an interest, within their budget for hobbies. I also made most of private SNPs available on YSEQ, if they were amenable to Sanger.

Issue was with FTDNA future tree only picking one shared novel variant, once they exclude the ones they report shared with other haplogroups including chimps, rather than the full set. They should include all of them in their tree. Surname groups may then do what you say. The good tree is a big selling point to the more casual customers.

lgmayka
08-03-2015, 10:56 AM
I expect that the R-U106 SNP pack will be ready by fall or winter 2015.
Just to be clear: You mean that the first--of the many packs that you will need for all of U106--should be ready by December 31, 2015. We pray.

TigerMW
08-03-2015, 06:24 PM
... I must re-iterate the experience of the R1a Project. I submitted a comprehensive proposal for a Z280 SNP pack in November 2014. Absolutely nothing was done about it until I made a followup inquiry in April 2015. Design for the SNP pack was allegedly completed in May 2015. We are now in August, and I have not even heard of validation testing results for this SNP pack. Needless to say, I have not bothered to submit any further SNP pack proposals....
I feel your pain. I have a submission that has been in the queue prior to my R1b-M343 Backbone request so they obviously have other considerations in their prioritization. It did seem to help when I reformatted things to fit what I had to do for ISOGG submissions... but I had to ask multiple times and present some justification on why this was good for members (their customers) and FTDNA.
I think U106 admins have a lot of clout so that will probably help them. Just the read the note from the opening post on this thread. They are not unequivocal.;)

TigerMW
08-03-2015, 06:34 PM
Oh I completely agree. I meant going to a minimalist tree rather than including all the shared novel variants [that are restricted to the clade] from Big Y (assuming FTDNA still wants to only use data from their own lab) in their tree.FTDNA will clearly use SNPs not in Big Y coverage regions. That's not an issue, but they like to see the evidence of how it fits on the tree. If it is in their database they do queries to validate the phylogeny.


For some reason, maybe just cost and marketing strategy, they have to keep the snps in these test down to around one hundred it is said. Think 100 for $100, but what that means is going for fewer SNPs does no good for testers. I tried that. They won't drop their price by decreasing SNPs. They can clearly go above 100 but there is a maximum that is based on the their underlying testing technology. I think that maximum is not a discrete number though. It depends.


... One thing they should ask Bennett is if since the number of SNPs is small, if there is a no call or ambiguous result will they retest by whatever method to give a result for the stated SNPs. BritainsDNA did this when L2 failed on their chip. Deep Clade and individual orders did that. This guarantee would be further selling point. That's a good idea.

TigerMW
08-03-2015, 06:40 PM
... My point is that if someone in R-U106 wants some finer resolution before 2017, he might reasonably go ahead and order this "backbone" SNP pack at the introductory $79 price. It at least includes tests for:
Z381
L48
L47
Z156
Z17
Z18
You are correct, and there are more SNPs for U106 than that included. However, I agree with Charles' general thrust that for U106+ confirmed people, a U106 Pack (or set of packs) would be a better value and much more logical.

TigerMW
08-03-2015, 06:53 PM
The thing with these SNP packs, even if they were not minimalized, is that they can only test previously discovered SNPs. And everyone who buys that test will be testing SNPs that are predominantly found in other men's ancestral lines and not necessarily their own. Its intent is to classify according to a known existing phylogenetic structure.

If you desire to test SNPs found within the scope of recent genealogy (i.e. within the past 500 years), you would be far better off to buy them off-the-cart individually or in panels from YSEQ. But you would still be testing SNPs found in other paternal lines, and not necessarily your own.

Which leads us back to NGS sequencing via the "Big Y" or the "Y-Elite 2.0" from Full Genomes Corp. These discover your SNPs.VinceT is 110% right on target.
That's what I trying to explain in the Lewis and Clark Expedition analogy. You can't get to your genetic genealogy homeland without someone in your known genealogical family doing an NGS test.
Click here for the Lewis and Clark analogy for NGS. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4737-FTDNA-s-Biggest-Gaffe-Individual-SNP-Orders&p=91972&viewfull=1#post91972)

haleaton
08-03-2015, 07:58 PM
FTDNA will clearly use SNPs not in Big Y coverage regions. That's not an issue, but they like to see the evidence of how it fits on the tree. If it is in their database they do queries to validate the phylogeny.


I was not very clear, sorry. All I meant they do not use outside sequence data from other NGS sources such 1K Genomes to classify the reported Big Y shared novel variants that are widely shared across haplogroups and just confuse the regular user. Often these useless SNPs also have "rs" number names already because they are so common and known. Maybe the Big Y database is big enough now to do that.

Then they should status all the remaining ones, finding or giving them names or not. They do not really make public their internal tree, just a SNP status if it is on it. It is fun though the SNPs chosen for the R1b Backbone test now being part of our public SNPs status list.

tkrahn
08-05-2015, 06:38 AM
I hope this is something better for U106 people (especially L48):
http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=16589

Thomas

haleaton
08-05-2015, 06:52 AM
I hope this is something better for U106 people (especially L48):
http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=16589

Thomas

Sorry to pipe in another clade, Thomas. But my experience with YSEQ has been that if they have a no call or result they repeat the test--so you always get a result. That's a big plus.

GTC
08-05-2015, 07:16 AM
Sorry to pipe in another clade, Thomas.

Thomas owns YSEQ. :)

haleaton
08-05-2015, 07:31 AM
Thomas owns YSEQ. :)

Yes. Always good to talk to the owner who can give his word on these things.

VinceT
08-05-2015, 09:00 AM
I hope this is something better for U106 people (especially L48):
http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=16589

Thomas

Thomas, that's fantastic! Are you working on a panel that covers R1b-U106 (xL48 xFGC3861)? ;)

TigerMW
08-05-2015, 01:14 PM
I hope this is something better for U106 people (especially L48):
http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=16589

Thomas
Thank you, Thomas. It looks like a very strong offering.

GTC
08-08-2015, 02:57 AM
An update from Charles Moore:


SNP Packs for U106 and the major branches are expected by the end of Q3, at about $100

lgmayka
08-08-2015, 08:23 AM
An update from Charles Moore:
That's wonderful and amazing! That highly accelerated schedule suggests that FTDNA is capable of acting very swiftly in matters it considers important enough.

Wing Genealogist
08-08-2015, 01:50 PM
While I cannot comment on the details, behind the scenes FTDNA has been very committed to making the U106 SNP packs available as soon as possible and getting it as complete and accurate as possible. In return, the U106 admin team has been committed to working together and helping make details of the new subclades publicly available ASAP. A win-win for everyone, especially the customers.

lgmayka
08-08-2015, 02:12 PM
In return, the U106 admin team has been committed to working together and helping make details of the new subclades publicly available ASAP.
Just to clarify: Other haplogroup team(s) may have been just as committed, but in this case FTDNA has clearly matched that commitment with its own. Excellent!

Wing Genealogist
08-08-2015, 02:14 PM
Yup. In general, ALL of the haplogroup teams deserve a round of applause for their dedication, without pay.

GTC
08-12-2015, 04:50 AM
An update from U106 Project Admin Mike Maddi:



...there are several SNP packs we're working on for members of the project, not just one for all of U106. Given the testing technology that FTDNA is using for the SNP packs, there is an effective limit of about 100 SNPs per pack.

There's no way that at 100 SNPs/pack, we can cover all of U106 with just one pack. So, there will be several that cover different branches of U106, with one of them for those who haven't tested beyond U106.

So, at the proper time, we'll give instructions here and on the project website how to determine which SNP pack, if any, you should order. (As Ray posted earlier in response to a question, generally those with Big Y or FGC results probably don't need to order a SNP pack.) To quote Charles, "We will say ready, set, go, at the appropriate time."

If you have tested positive for U106, and haven't already joined the U106 Project, then please do:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106/