PDA

View Full Version : Natgeno 2.0 nextgen autosomal test



BMG
01-26-2016, 04:01 PM
Has anybody got the results from Nat Geno 2.0 next gen. They have supposedly 18 ancestral components which is double their previous version.If anybody got results please share it here .
I have come across results of a malayali guy .
His results was 53% southern Asian 37% central Asian 6% south east Asian and 3% Arabian .

Shaikorth
01-26-2016, 05:03 PM
Found the numbers and descriptions for their French and Argentinian references:

France:
This reference population is based on groups living in modern-day France. The two largest components are Western/Central and Southern European. The former is a composite of early continental hunter-gatherers, some of which may have interacted and mixed with Neanderthals, and more recent migrations from the Middle East. The Southern European component is associated with agriculturalists arriving from the Fertile Crescent to Europe in the past 8,000 years, introducing crops such as wheat and barley.

Western and Central Europe
59%
Southern Europe
21%
Great Britain and Ireland
7%
Eastern Europe
5%
Jewish Diaspora
3%
Northern Africa
2%
Scandinavia
2%

Argentinian:
This reference population is based on people living in an urban setting in Argentina. The bio-geographic components are very diverse but include predominantly a mixture of groups from Central and Southern Europe, as well as Native American. Most groups in Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean, are a mixture of European, African, and Native American components.

Southern Europe
29%
Native American
27%
Western and Central Europe
21%
Western and Central Africa
9%
Northern Africa
5%
Asia Minor
4%
Great Britain and Ireland
3%

Cascio
01-30-2016, 11:01 AM
Is there a list of the ancestral components and what they consist of?

A.D.
02-10-2016, 12:54 PM
I got 100% great Britain and Ireland on the Regional Ancestry.
Y-DNA
P305,M42,M168,P143,M89,M578,P128,M526,M45,M207,P23 1,M343, M269,P310.P312.
R-Z270.
MT-
L3,N,R,R0,HV,H,H1,H1B,
H1B1H.

jortita
03-01-2016, 03:57 AM
Has anybody got the results from Nat Geno 2.0 next gen. They have supposedly 18 ancestral components which is double their previous version.If anybody got results please share it here .
I have come across results of a malayali guy .
His results was 53% southern Asian 37% central Asian 6% south east Asian and 3% Arabian .

My results being Assamese is as follows:

42% Southern Asian, 26% Central Asia, 20% Southeast Asia, 5% East Asia, 4% Siberian and 2% North African

jortita
03-01-2016, 12:52 PM
BMG: Unless one of the malayali persons parents is from one of the tibeto Burmese northeast indian communities, 36% central asian doesn't make sense as this component is highest with Mongolian and altayan reference populations and not South Asian populations. I know of some Malayali with mixed Assamese Bodo and Manipuri heritage

Amerijoe
03-01-2016, 02:12 PM
NG was last of the four testing companies I used to search for my ethnicity. I would highly suggest anyone doing testing with them to contact your project manager for verification of their results. No project, join one immediately!

NG has me at mtdna J1c4 and R-Z94. After verification I'm still at position J1c and NG is wrong. The R-Z94 is OK, but they should have tested downstream for Z2123 which would have come closer to Y15121. This too was verified by another P.M. In addition they also listed 22 positive snps which accordingly are false. They do not provide info on the tested negative snps.

Your First Reference Population: Irish
This reference population is based on people native to Ireland. The large Great Britain and Ireland component reflects the genetic and cultural isolation of groups on the island for millennia after the early Holocene retreat of the glaciers that covered Northern Europe. The large Scandinavia component reflects the historical influence of the Nordic groups on Ireland, whereas the Western and Southern Europe components reflect genetic links to neighboring regions, which remain even after migrants reached Ireland after the retreat of the glaciers, as well as recent historical influences from Spain, France, and Italy.

Irish
Great Britain and Ireland
79%
Scandinavia
11%
Southern Europe
6%
Western and Central Europe
4%

You
96%
Great Britain and Ireland
3%
Arabia

Your Second Reference Population: Scottish
This reference group is based on populations from Scotland, in the northern part of the island of Great Britain. This population is similar in genetic composition to our reference British population (England), yet the Scottish group shows greater influence from populations to the north, like Scandinavia and Arctic groups. The large Great Britain and Ireland component as well as the Scandinavian component are remnants from some of the first settlers of northern Europe, whereas the smaller components from mainland Europe show influence from migrations to the island after the arrival of agriculture to Europe some 8,000 years ago.

Scottish
Great Britain and Ireland
71%
Scandinavia
17%
Western and Central Europe
8%
Finland and Siberia
2%
You
96%
Great Britain and Ireland
3%
Arabia

My reference populations are Irish and Scottish. There is no differentiation between the two. The results from the other companies have Scotch and Irish almost equal.

Anyone else with questionable results contact NG and FTDNA.

Shaikorth
03-01-2016, 02:28 PM
BMG: Unless one of the malayali persons parents is from one of the tibeto Burmese northeast indian communities, 36% central asian doesn't make sense as this component is highest with Mongolian and altayan reference populations and not South Asian populations. I know of some Malayali with mixed Assamese Bodo and Manipuri heritage

Pamiri Tajiks have 57% Central Asian, more than Altayans.

Here are averages for all their reference pops:

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/

lgmayka
03-01-2016, 02:36 PM
The R-Z94 is OK, but they should have tested downstream for Z2123 which would have come closer to Y15121.
Your NG2+ results show G (the derived allele) at Z2121. Z2121 is at the R-Z2124 level (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/). NG and/or FTDNA may eventually figure this out. In any case, this is a good reason for all NG2+ customers to transfer their results into an FTDNA account and then download their raw data files.

redifflal
03-01-2016, 03:30 PM
Pamiri Tajiks have 57% Central Asian, more than Altayans.

Here are averages for all their reference pops:

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/

I wonder how accurate their Indian populations (North, South, East, West) are this time around. Last time their North Indian looked way too Northeast-Asian biased. Unless they had tested some isolated groups in between Ladakh and Uttarakhand, I didn't really see their North Indian profile. Most northern Indians who took that test (example Punjabis) were getting their two closest populations to be Western Indians and Tajiks, not North Indian...

This time they have also added a Bengali category, which doesn't look too different from the Eastern Indian. Wonder why? Also looks like North, South and West Indians have 2-4% Eastern African component, which in the last autosomal breakdown, was 0% across all of India. Also surprising to see 0% Arabian component in North Indian sample set (but 2% East African?).

I was hoping they would redo the breakdown for those of us who have already taken the Geno 2.0 test. But I'm stuck with the older breakdown which didn't have a Southern Asian category but rather considered Southwest Asian as the signal of the primary OOA migration into Indian subcontinent.

Shaikorth
03-01-2016, 03:45 PM
I wonder how accurate their Indian populations (North, South, East, West) are this time around. Last time their North Indian looked way too Northeast-Asian biased. Unless they had tested some isolated groups in between Ladakh and Uttarakhand, I didn't really see their North Indian profile. Most northern Indians who took that test (example Punjabis) were getting their two closest populations to be Western Indians and Tajiks, not North Indian...

This time they have also added a Bengali category, which doesn't look too different from the Eastern Indian. Wonder why? Also looks like North, South and West Indians have 2-4% Eastern African component, which in the last autosomal breakdown, was 0% across all of India. Also surprising to see 0% Arabian component in North Indian sample set (but 2% East African?).

I was hoping they would redo the breakdown for those of us who have already taken the Geno 2.0 test. But I'm stuck with the older breakdown which didn't have a Southern Asian category but rather considered Southwest Asian as the signal of the primary OOA migration into Indian subcontinent.

Previous North Indian was over 50% combined Northeast/Southeast Asian. Now it's much more similar to the West Indian.

jortita
03-01-2016, 10:38 PM
I agree and having worked in Central Asia previously most populations are primarily Mongoloid and if Kyrgyz are included they would also show similar percentages. Eastern Chinese have 8% Central Asian. The point is given it is primarily Mongoloid it is too high for a pure Malayali person. However there might be an error with the Takin reference population as this seems too high. The Central Asian component is generally quite high in Tibeto Burmese populations as well

Shaikorth
03-01-2016, 10:56 PM
I agree and having worked in Central Asia previously most populations are primarily Mongoloid and if Kyrgyz are included they would also show similar percentages. Eastern Chinese have 8% Central Asian. The point is given it is primarily Mongoloid it is too high for a pure Malayali person. However there might be an error with the Takin reference population as this seems too high. The Central Asian component is generally quite high in Tibeto Burmese populations as well

Central Asian can't be primarily East Asian since Pamiri Tajiks get 57%, and on top of it 11% Southeast Asian and East Asian combined. They would cluster with Altaians if it was.

Given how much more eastern the Mongolians of old Geno 2 looked, I think they have accidentally swapped their East and Central Asian percentages if this is the same sample.

jortita
03-01-2016, 11:11 PM
It also depends on the Pamiri Tajiks they have sampled, they could be Tungid which are more Mongoloid whereas the others are more closer to Iranians, the Caucasoid ones. My theory is that previously they had Northeast Asia, which has been broken down into East Asia and Northern Asia which overlaps with their definition of Central Asia

Shaikorth
03-01-2016, 11:20 PM
It also depends on the Pamiri Tajiks they have sampled, they could be Tungid which are more Mongoloid whereas the others are more closer to Iranians, the Caucasoid ones. My theory is that previously they had Northeast Asia, which has been broken down into East Asia and Northern Asia which overlaps with their definition of Central Asia

There's only one Pamiri Tajik sample around, it's among the South-Central asian populations closest to Europeans. These components seem to be same as in FtDNA, which means Central Asia is Tajik-Pashtun centric. The Japanese were 75% Northeast Asian before, more than Mongolians (67%), but now have 89% East Asian and just 2% Central Asian which may be ANE-related since they have a bit of it, so any large part of NE Asian can't have gone to Central Asian. More and more looks like the Mongolian result has a typo.

jortita
03-01-2016, 11:43 PM
I would not agree with you as I have strong Mongoloid traits and features and am married to a Tamilian Iyer with my daughter who looks Mizo and my son half Tibetan half European. I am lactose intolerant hereditary, high cheekbones, small eyes, little to no body and chest hair, dark yellow to medium yellow skin colour. Have been called chinky and Nepali when I have lived in Delhi. So if Central Asian was European then I would have none if these characteristics. I live in Bangkok where people mistake me for Mongoloid Nepali, Northern Thai, Malaysian, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean. When I lived in Europe, they thought I was South American indigenous. The South Asia region includes South Central Asia in my view. I look nothing like a Malayali person

jortita
03-01-2016, 11:48 PM
The other point is even if we agree that the Tamil sample is close to European and similar to Iranian, then why do Iranians so such a low percentage of central Asia- in them

Shaikorth
03-01-2016, 11:50 PM
I would not agree with you as I have strong Mongoloid traits and features and am married to a Tamilian Iyer with my daughter who looks Mizo and my son half Tibetan half European. I am lactose intolerant hereditary, high cheekbones, small eyes, little to no body and chest hair, dark yellow to medium yellow skin colour. Have been called chinky and Nepali when I have lived in Delhi. So if Central Asian was European then I would have none if these characteristics. I live in Bangkok where people mistake me for Mongoloid Nepali, Northern Thai, Malaysian, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean. When I lived in Europe, they thought I was South American indigenous. The South Asia region includes South Central Asia in my view. I look nothing like a Malayali person

You said you are Assamese and have 25% Southeast Asian and East Asian in your results, so why would you look like Malayali and why would you assume your looks come from a component that isn't your main ancestry?

I'm pretty sure that Pashtuns and Tajiks who test will have Central Asian as their main component, and Mongolians will get mainly East Asian.

jortita
03-02-2016, 12:38 AM
Please compare the Pamiri (Tajik) and Iranian percentages in the reference populations of the previous Geno 2.0 version they are very similar:

IRANIAN: Northeast Asian - 5%; Meditteranean - 42%; Southwest Asian - 44% and Northern European - 5%; PAMIRI (TAJIK): Northeast Asian - 10%; Mediterranean - 22%; Southwest Asian - 44%; Northern Europe - 22%.

76% IN COMMON ABOVE

Geno 2.0 next generation:

IRANIAN: Arabia - 56%; Eastern Africa - 4%; Northern Africa - 2%; Central Asia - 4%; Asia Minor - 6%; Southern Europe - 2%; Southern Asia - 24%. PAMIRI (TAJIK): Arabia - 6%; Eastern Europe - 5%; Finland and Northern Siberia - 3%; Eastern Asia - 9%; Scandanavia - 2%; Central Asia - 57%; Asia Minor - 11%; Southeast Asia and Oceania - 2%; Southern Asia - 3%

ONLY 19-20% IN COMMON ABOVE

They might have changed the sample

jortita
03-02-2016, 12:58 AM
In addition, if you go onto the blog of Nat Geo Geno 2.0, there are a couple of Koreans who are discussing their high Central Asian percentages which they attribute to their families claiming to be of Mongolian origin.

There is no point in arguing on this as you seem to feel their definition of Central Asian is more European oriented which I personally do not think so. I am from an Indo Aryan plus Tibeto Burman background. My paternal haplogroup is R-Z94 which is Indo-European and maternal haplogroup is M13C which is East Asian in origin. I have also checked my Y DNA tests on FTDNA site and I have quite significant amounts of O1, O2 and O3 as well as D, K, N, Q, on the Y-DNA as well.

BMG
03-02-2016, 01:06 AM
That malayali sample has no East Asian and northeast Indian Ancestry . There is yet another malayali sample with 41% central Asia . And there is a jatt guy with 49% central Asia .None of them has any East Asian Ancestry . That said Nat Geno has messed up and their population reference is bullshit .Their Indian reference is not matching the tested samples . also see Iranian reference 56% Arabian and 24% South Asian doesn't make sense . If only we knew what method they used to create this crap

jortita
03-02-2016, 02:12 AM
Does the Jatt and the Malayali sample also have Finland and Siberia admixtures? It seems they do not have East Asian as well from my understanding

redifflal
03-02-2016, 02:49 AM
I agree and having worked in Central Asia previously most populations are primarily Mongoloid and if Kyrgyz are included they would also show similar percentages. Eastern Chinese have 8% Central Asian. The point is given it is primarily Mongoloid it is too high for a pure Malayali person. However there might be an error with the Takin reference population as this seems too high. The Central Asian component is generally quite high in Tibeto Burmese populations as well

I don't think the ancestral components and their names have anything to do with the people currently residing in those geographic regions and their current physical features. These are genetic pools of ancestry, but I'm certain during the formation of these pools, those people at most had proto-Mongoloid proto-Caucasoid etc features. The features we see in people today are further evolutions. Unfortunately people are still walking around with ideas of pure races and in their heads applying them to these proto-featured but genetically well-defined populations.

Kurd
03-02-2016, 02:56 AM
One shouldn't rush to judge Geno 2.0 results as crap, just because they don't conform to either known ancestry or results from allele frequency based admixture calculators and commercial geneology companies, whose results are based on recent drift.

Geno 2.0's whole selling point is that they are not focused on recent ancestry and geneology, and presumably their methodology is different from that which admixture calculators and commercial geneology companies are based on. In fact, they advertise their results reflect deep ancestry. I find it hard to believe that such a large outfit would not base their outputs on some type of solid methodology.

With regards to the 2 Malyali samples, I am not surprised that their results are so different, since they could have very divergent histories if you go back a couple of thousand years ago. Remember, recent drift does not appear to be part of their calculation. Frankly, that is what intrigues me, since they don't conform to calculations based on more recent admixture events.

Also keep in mind that formal methods based on total shared drift, or shared drift till branch split points also are many times not consistent with results produced by admixture calculators and from commercial geneology outfits.

With regards to Pamiris not showing S Asian, where Iranians show 24% S Asian. This is quite plausible, because the S Asian numbers which tend to be higher in Pamiris than Iranians, are again based on recent shared drift. If you go back in time, most of the ancestry of Pamiris is in fact derived from outside of S Asia, whereas Iranians and Indians could have shared quite a bit of ancestry untill a few thousand years ago. Again, if you base calculations on older shared drift as Geno 2.0 appears to do, expect quite a bit of variation within modern countries.

They got me interested enough, where I will have a couple of subjects that I manage get tested with them in the near future

uwdental
03-02-2016, 04:36 AM
Hello everyone- always had a longtime interest regarding my ancestry and genome origins. Recently got my results from nat geo 2.0. Also kind of surprising. Was wondering if anyone could provide any insight, it would be appreciated. My results (mtDNA- U7A, paternal- R1A-L657). My reference population are also kind of interesting, not sure if they are accurate- (47% central asian, 33% southern asian, 11% Scandinavian, 6% Asia Minor, 2% Southeast Asian). According to nat geo I am closest to Pamiris.

Background- My paternal side are Sikhs/Hindus Khatri from the Islamabad region in present day Pakistan. Maternal grandfather Hindu Punjabi Khatri from Sialkot area of Pakistan, maternal grandmother Sikh Jatt from Patiala in India. Thanks everyone!

Shaikorth
03-02-2016, 06:02 AM
Please compare the Pamiri (Tajik) and Iranian percentages in the reference populations of the previous Geno 2.0 version they are very similar:

They might have changed the sample

There is just one Pamiri Tajik sample. The difference is due to the new Central Asian and South Asian components which split the ancestry.



I have also checked my Y DNA tests on FTDNA site and I have quite significant amounts of O1, O2 and O3 as well as D, K, N, Q, on the Y-DNA as well.

You can only have one Y-DNA.


Hello everyone- always had a longtime interest regarding my ancestry and genome origins. Recently got my results from nat geo 2.0. Also kind of surprising. Was wondering if anyone could provide any insight, it would be appreciated. My results (mtDNA- U7A, paternal- R1A-L657). My reference population are also kind of interesting, not sure if they are accurate- (47% central asian, 33% southern asian, 11% Scandinavian, 6% Asia Minor, 2% Southeast Asian). According to nat geo I am closest to Pamiris.

Background- My paternal side are Sikhs/Hindus Khatri from the Islamabad region in present day Pakistan. Maternal grandfather Hindu Punjabi Khatri from Sialkot area of Pakistan, maternal grandmother Sikh Jatt from Patiala in India. Thanks everyone!


Well, since Central Asian looks like the similar Pashtun/Tajik centered component it is in FTDNA, it's not so surprising that a high caste origin from Pakistan/NW India could get that result. The South Asian peaks in Tamils and Telugus. Compared to Tajiks you're somewhat South Indian shifted, I suppose Pathans would be even closer to you.

Mestace
03-02-2016, 01:33 PM
I don't see the point doing autosomal fits like this. What is in Great Britain, what is in southern Europe ? how do you compare anything with so many different "components", some being countries, region and whatnot.

Shaikorth
03-02-2016, 05:10 PM
I don't see the point doing autosomal fits like this. What is in Great Britain, what is in southern Europe ? how do you compare anything with so many different "components", some being countries, region and whatnot.

To me it looks more and more like these are same or very similar clusters to ones in MyOrigins. So their relation to each other (using TreeMix) looks something like this:

https://dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/relatedness-of-clusters.jpg

redifflal
03-02-2016, 05:27 PM
To me it looks more and more like these are same or very similar clusters to ones in MyOrigins. So their relation to each other (using TreeMix) looks something like this:

https://dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/relatedness-of-clusters.jpg

The breakdown looks very Eurocentric, but I guess that is the major market.

ArmandoR1b
03-02-2016, 05:56 PM
To me it looks more and more like these are same or very similar clusters to ones in MyOrigins. So their relation to each other (using TreeMix) looks something like this:

The names are almost identical.

myOrigins names -

https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/ftdna/myorigins-population-clusters/ and https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/ftdna/introducing-new-population-cluster-names-myorigins/

NextGen names -

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/

That is because "For Geno 2.0: Next Generation, the Genographic Project worked with partners at Family Tree DNA to break autosomal DNA results down into 18 different regions"

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4798-Geno-2-0-Next-gen&p=102116&viewfull=1#post102116


The breakdown looks very Eurocentric, but I guess that is the major market.

The clusters were created by Razib Khan and Rui H who I don't think are Eurocentric people

https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/user-guide/family-finder-myftdna/myorigins-methodology/

Oathsworn
03-02-2016, 07:52 PM
Do you have to purchase an entirely new test kit? Or can you 'upgrade' at an extra cost from the sample you've already given for the Geno 2.0 originally?

Sikeliot
03-02-2016, 08:27 PM
If anyone has a Sicilian or South Italian result for this I would be interested in seeing it.

jortita
03-02-2016, 11:50 PM
Given this fact, how different are my myorigins results going to be from the geno 2.0 results, they are due any day. I am a nature conservationist and not a human biodiversity specialist and learning a lot from the likes of you and others and even more keen to learn further.

jortita
03-03-2016, 04:18 AM
I agree with you, that its not based on ethnic makeup but more origin, even if you look at the reference populations for Southeast Asia, Indonesian Javanese sample possibly has 74% SE Asian while the Papuan reference population is also 77% SE Asian even though one is more austronesian and other is more austro-asiatic

Tsakhur
03-06-2016, 11:56 AM
I found the Iranian sample-56% Arabia to be weird. Why are Iranians 56% Arabia but there other neighbors like Georgians and Pamiris around 77% Asia Minor and 57% Central Asia? I believe there should be more Central Asian and Asia Minor for Iranian but that just my opinion.

Tsakhur
03-06-2016, 11:57 AM
One shouldn't rush to judge Geno 2.0 results as crap, just because they don't conform to either known ancestry or results from allele frequency based admixture calculators and commercial geneology companies, whose results are based on recent drift.

Geno 2.0's whole selling point is that they are not focused on recent ancestry and geneology, and presumably their methodology is different from that which admixture calculators and commercial geneology companies are based on. In fact, they advertise their results reflect deep ancestry. I find it hard to believe that such a large outfit would not base their outputs on some type of solid methodology.

With regards to the 2 Malyali samples, I am not surprised that their results are so different, since they could have very divergent histories if you go back a couple of thousand years ago. Remember, recent drift does not appear to be part of their calculation. Frankly, that is what intrigues me, since they don't conform to calculations based on more recent admixture events.

Also keep in mind that formal methods based on total shared drift, or shared drift till branch split points also are many times not consistent with results produced by admixture calculators and from commercial geneology outfits.

With regards to Pamiris not showing S Asian, where Iranians show 24% S Asian. This is quite plausible, because the S Asian numbers which tend to be higher in Pamiris than Iranians, are again based on recent shared drift. If you go back in time, most of the ancestry of Pamiris is in fact derived from outside of S Asia, whereas Iranians and Indians could have shared quite a bit of ancestry untill a few thousand years ago. Again, if you base calculations on older shared drift as Geno 2.0 appears to do, expect quite a bit of variation within modern countries.

They got me interested enough, where I will have a couple of subjects that I manage get tested with them in the near future

Dear Kurd,
Thank you very much for a detailed explanation. What do you think regarding the Iranian sample being 56% Arabian?

Hando
03-17-2016, 09:13 AM
Do you have to purchase an entirely new test kit? Or can you 'upgrade' at an extra cost from the sample you've already given for the Geno 2.0 originally?
That is a very good question and I hope someone can answer it.
I took the first ever National Geno test
in 2008, ay before even the first Geno 2.0. Can I upgrade or do I need to buy the most recent one?
Thanks

ArmandoR1b
03-17-2016, 10:20 AM
That is a very good question and I hope someone can answer it.
I took the first ever National Geno test
in 2008, ay before even the first Geno 2.0. Can I upgrade or do I need to buy the most recent one?
Thanks
You have to buy a new kit.

Amerijoe
03-17-2016, 01:26 PM
Here are the results from the testing companies with my assigned maternal and paternal haplogroups.

23 and me J1c, R1a1a
DNAtribes. J1c, R1a1a1b2a2a=Z2123
FTDNA. J1c, R-Y15121*
Geno 2+. J1c4, R-Z94

I've contacted both Geno 2+ and FTDNA concerning the results. Also had 22 false positives. Correspondence listed below indicate they are aware of the problem.


Hello Joe,

For Kit B82688, I see the problem you are addressing. We are working on a resolution. FTDNA is not exactly the same as the Genographic project and we are working on getting the SNPs to resolve. The solution is not implemented but we expect it to be soon.



Thank you


Best Regards,

Tom
Family Tree DNA
www.familytreedna.com

Hello,

Thank you for contacting The Genographic Project, I have requested that the Raw Data regarding the results of your kit:XTJPA3P3XR be reviewed. As soon as I hear anything back from this investigation, I will notify you immediately.

I deeply apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you, your patience and understanding throughout this entire process has been greatly appreciated.

Best Regards,



Alyssa G
Information Specialist
The Genographic Project

Hello Joe,

The person in charge of the science end of the project is Dr. Miguel Vilar. He is well aware of the issues and differences.

I will see what we can do to help with your kit.



Best Regards,

Tom
Family Tree DNA
www.familytreedna.co

A.D.
03-18-2016, 07:51 PM
Geno2+ has me as R-z270 hence DF27. DF27 doesn't show up on my raw data. Nither does z196.Z274, Z268, Z209, Z210, Z220, and z270 do. I have M222,"Y","G G", DF23,"Y","G G", Z290,"Y","G G" (and a few others stood out) I wasn't sure if you can have these and still be DF27. On my FTDNA Haplogroup/SNP tree I have Z2976, Z2983, Z2970, CTS7193,(that is as far as looked). At the moment my FTDNA Haplogroup/SNP tree says' Your predicted haplogroup is under review so I'm waiting. I was originally under Haplogroup A ???

ArmandoR1b
03-19-2016, 11:43 AM
Geno2+ has me as R-z270 hence DF27. DF27 doesn't show up on my raw data. That is because Geno2+ does not test DF27 but that doesn't matter when a person is positive for downstream markers.


Nither does z196.Z274, Z268, Z209, Z210, Z220, and z270 do.Geno2+ doesn't test for Z196 but it does test for the phylogenetically equivalent Z195. The files have have show it does test for Z274, Z268, Z209, Z220, and Z270. Z210 isn't necessary because it is phylogenetically equivalent to Z209 and Z220 and all three are upstream of Z270. It's the SNPs that are phylogenetically equivalent to Z270 that you want to worry about and only one of them is tested by Geno2+. They are Z216, PF7595, Z211, S358, PF7598. Since they aren't all tested by Geno2+ the best way to find you terminal SNP is a BigY test.


I have M222,"Y","G G", DF23,"Y","G G", Z290,"Y","G G" (and a few others stood out) I wasn't sure if you can have these and still be DF27. G is the ancestral value for those so of course you can have those and still be DF27. Why did you think they were derived?


On my FTDNA Haplogroup/SNP tree I have Z2976, Z2983, Z2970, CTS7193,(that is as far as looked). Those are L21 SNPs and therefore they are false positives.


At the moment my FTDNA Haplogroup/SNP tree says' Your predicted haplogroup is under review so I'm waiting. I was originally under Haplogroup A ???Don't hold your breath. If they ever do put you into the correct terminal SNP it will be Z270.