PDA

View Full Version : A Genuine Geno 2 Mess and Mystery



GoldenHind
01-29-2016, 09:59 PM
Recently I had occasion to look at someone's Geno 2 results. Full disclosure: I am not a fan of Geno 2. However I have never seen anything quite like this. The person is classified as R-Z2970, which appears to be either equivalent or below M222. However M222 itself is only shown as presumed positive, not tested positive. Z2983 and Z976, which appear above Z2970, are also shown as tested positive. Also listed as tested positive is MC14, which is parallel to DF49 rather than under it, so inconsistent with the above. DF49, DF13 and L21 are all shown as presumed positive. I know for a fact that L21 is tested in Geno 2, so why is it only presumed as opposed to tested positive? I believe M222 and at least some of the others are also tested.

This is only the beginning. His results show he tested positive for the folllowing, all of which are below U152: CTS57193, L552, Z148 and CTS278. Yet U152 is shown as presumed negative. Again, I know U152 is tested. so why presumed negative rather than tested negative?

There is more. He is also shown as testing positive for Z274, which is below DF27.

More yet: he is also listed as positive for Z306, Z319 and four more SNPs under U106, which is also shown as presumed rather tested negative.

Now I am fully aware that FTDNA's R haplotree is on life support and that some SNPs occur in more than R-1b subclade, but I've never seen anything like this before. Has anyone else?

Does anyone know if it is possible to get a list of the SNPs which tested negative (none are listed in his results)? If so. how does one go about getting them?

lgmayka
01-29-2016, 10:52 PM
Is this Geno 2.0 Next Generation? My impression is that the test has a lot of false positives which have not yet been weeded out of the results. In consequence, perhaps, the latest transfer from Geno 2+ (as FTDNA calls it) goes in the other direction of extreme conservatism--as if rolling back to the original Geno 2.0.

GoldenHind
01-29-2016, 11:28 PM
I do not believe it is the Next Generation test. However the results were only very recently tranferred to FTDNA.

VinceT
01-30-2016, 12:03 AM
Some possibilities:
a) significant DNA contamination (no intimate relations with other men before swabbing!)
b) insufficient DNA (high noise-to-signal ratio)
c) bad chip
d) instrumentation failure
e) data corruption

ArmandoR1b
01-30-2016, 06:03 AM
When a transfer to FTDNA is fully successful a CSV file is included with around 13,000 SNPs. It has the allele value from the test result. So if negative it has the ancestral value and if positive it has the derived allele. I can explain this better tomorrow.

jutland
01-30-2016, 01:30 PM
This happend to me. I am d27 y16018 but initially nat geo had me as u152 cts278.
This matter was just resolved but now I don't know if my regional info is wrong too?

rms2
01-30-2016, 01:52 PM
It is stories like this, which have cropped up from time to time over the years, albeit rarely, that make me glad I have tested with more than one company and have had my FTDNA results confirmed by BritainsDNA's Chromo2 test.

Good to have a second opinion.

ArmandoR1b
01-30-2016, 02:22 PM
I do not believe it is the Next Generation test. However the results were only very recently tranferred to FTDNA.

You can tell the difference between a Geno 2.0 and a Geno 2.0 NextGen test by looking at the order history -

Genographic 2.0 Transfer is for the regular Geno 2.0

Genographic 2+ Transfer is for the Geno 2.0 NextGen

I can tell by the SNPs that you have listed in the first post that the results are for Geno 2.0 NextGen. A lot of people are getting false positive results and people don't know how to find and use the CSV sheet with the test results that include ancestral alleles which are negative test results. M222 was tested and it will show what the allele result was in the CSV file.

The Geno 2.0 NextGen CSV file can be downloaded from the myDashboard, which is the initial page when logging into an account, and below the other tests that have been performed there will be a section that says Genographic Transfer and below it the Download mtDNA SNPs as CSV | Download Y-DNA SNPs as CSV links. That is where the CSV file is with the more than 13,000 NextGen SNPs and alleles. The file in the Haplotree & SNPs page is completely different and does not include the alleles from the Geno 2.0 NextGen test. The CSV file cannot be downloaded from the Geno 2.0 NextGen site.

The original Geno 2.0 didn't transfer the CSV file but it could be downloaded from the Geno 2.0 site.

ArmandoR1b
01-30-2016, 02:35 PM
Does anyone here know how to create programs like the one's Felix created at http://www.y-str.org/p/tools-utilities.html or work with spreadsheets in order to convert the SNPs and alleles from the Geno 2.0 NextGen CSV file into a list of positive and negative SNPs and maybe even place them into a tree like structure?

MacUalraig
01-30-2016, 02:52 PM
I'm not sure if this answers your question but when I analysed Chromo2 results for the M222 group I loaded them all into an Access database and had a table from the already known tree with a column for 'tree level' from 1 down to 8 or whatever. Then I did a join to that table and ordered it by descending tree level,and hey presto the terminal SNP comes out at the bottom.

Mind you, C2 had the actual positive/negative call at the end. If G2+ doesn't have that you can add a compare against the reference SNP table to the query.

GoldenHind
01-30-2016, 08:28 PM
You can tell the difference between a Geno 2.0 and a Geno 2.0 NextGen test by looking at the order history -

Genographic 2.0 Transfer is for the regular Geno 2.0

Genographic 2+ Transfer is for the Geno 2.0 NextGen

I can tell by the SNPs that you have listed in the first post that the results are for Geno 2.0 NextGen. A lot of people are getting false positive results and people don't know how to find and use the CSV sheet with the test results that include ancestral alleles which are negative test results. M222 was tested and it will show what the allele result was in the CSV file.

The Geno 2.0 NextGen CSV file can be downloaded from the myDashboard, which is the initial page when logging into an account, and below the other tests that have been performed there will be a section that says Genographic Transfer and below it the Download mtDNA SNPs as CSV | Download Y-DNA SNPs as CSV links. That is where the CSV file is with the more than 13,000 NextGen SNPs and alleles. The file in the Haplotree & SNPs page is completely different and does not include the alleles from the Geno 2.0 NextGen test. The CSV file cannot be downloaded from the Geno 2.0 NextGen site.

The original Geno 2.0 didn't transfer the CSV file but it could be downloaded from the Geno 2.0 site.

It appears to have been originally a Geno 2 test, later upgraded to the Next Generation test.

To the list of possible explanations, I would add a sample mix-up. At least one inconsistent YDNA SNP test result from FTDNA I am aware of (not a Geno 2 test) was apparently due to testing the wrong sample for one of the SNP tests.

vettor
01-30-2016, 08:44 PM
In mid 2014 when I transferred my NG to ftdna .........they only accepted 260 snps out of 13000 that NG supplied

who do I contact in ftdna to see where they placed my other 12000 plus snp's ............the person I once dealt with is no longer there

ArmandoR1b
01-31-2016, 01:35 PM
This happend to me. I am d27 y16018 but initially nat geo had me as u152 cts278.
That happened to several other DF27 people but I don't know if everyone had their terminal SNP corrected. Have you transferred your Geno NextGen test to FTDNA?


This matter was just resolved but now I don't know if my regional info is wrong too?
I think you are talking about the autosomal portion of the test which is very different. If you do the transfer to FTDNA then pay for the $39 Family Finder test you can upload to Gedmatch. Then get an AncestryDNA or 23andme test and also upload to Gedmatch and compare results.

ArmandoR1b
01-31-2016, 01:53 PM
I'm not sure if this answers your question but when I analysed Chromo2 results for the M222 group I loaded them all into an Access database and had a table from the already known tree with a column for 'tree level' from 1 down to 8 or whatever. Then I did a join to that table and ordered it by descending tree level,and hey presto the terminal SNP comes out at the bottom.
I was hoping to learn something that could easily be distributed and used by the general population with a PC and basic skills. A lot of people don't have Access. Or can the Access database be converted to something that can be distributed to people without Access?


Mind you, C2 had the actual positive/negative call at the end. If G2+ doesn't have that you can add a compare against the reference SNP table to the query.
I've figured out how to convert the alleles to positive and negative values and append them to the SNPs. I still have about 10,040 SNPs that I need to find the derived allele for. I have a master list of 37,494 SNPs, some are just synonymous names, with the ancestral and derived alleles. I've tried pulling data from the Ray Banks site but wasn't successful. Excel doesn't find spaces between the SNP names and the rest of the data. Any idea where I could get more reference SNPs and their alleles?

ArmandoR1b
01-31-2016, 02:03 PM
It appears to have been originally a Geno 2 test, later upgraded to the Next Generation test.
The original test results don't get transferred with the CSV file to the Genographic Transfer section in the myDashboard page. Have you looked at the CSV file?


To the list of possible explanations, I would add a sample mix-up. At least one inconsistent YDNA SNP test result from FTDNA I am aware of (not a Geno 2 test) was apparently due to testing the wrong sample for one of the SNP tests.
A possible way to determine that would be to have him test again with Geno 2.0 and to transfer the results to a new FTDNA kit. If there are contradictory results the 2nd time around then the test has problems. However, if there aren't any contradictory results in the 2nd test it doesn't mean that it was a mix-up the first time. It could be that the test had problems the first time.

ArmandoR1b
01-31-2016, 02:09 PM
In mid 2014 when I transferred my NG to ftdna .........they only accepted 260 snps out of 13000 that NG supplied
The original Geno 2.0 had about 12,052 SNPs. The Geno 2.0 NextGen has more than 13,600 SNPs. Those 260 SNPs that FTDNA accepted were relevant to your haplogroup.


who do I contact in ftdna to see where they placed my other 12000 plus snp's ............the person I once dealt with is no longer there

They don't have them but you do since you already downloaded the CSV file from the Geno 2.0 site.

jutland
01-31-2016, 04:47 PM
I just opened up my email from Nat Geo and to my surprise they sent me the same incorrect haplogroup cts278. The only change is in my regional info which makes this even more of a joke.
What is wrong with Nat Geo? They have a serious problem over there and whats more confusing is they use FTDNA's lab who discovered the mistake initially.

Armando, I did transfer info to FTDNA.

razyn
01-31-2016, 05:14 PM
The original problem mentioned on this thread, Z2970, turned up today as the terminal SNP for a couple of DF27+ guys. (One kit doesn't have any STRs tested, so it's invisible in the project.) That's either a bad test/cell or a fairly randomly recurrent SNP, not sure which.

ArmandoR1b
01-31-2016, 05:38 PM
I just opened up my email from Nat Geo and to my surprise they sent me the same incorrect haplogroup cts278. The only change is in my regional info which makes this even more of a joke.
What is wrong with Nat Geo? They have a serious problem over there and whats more confusing is they use FTDNA's lab who discovered the mistake initially.
CTS278 is a very unreliable SNP. Apart, from people from different subclades of DF27 being positive for CTS278, so are two people that are positive for U106, and so is a person that is in haplogroup C (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6206-URGENT-Results-came-and-Help!!-NGE-2-0)


Armando, I did transfer info to FTDNA.
Do you see an option to download the CSV from myDashboard at FTDNA? If so, are you willing to send it to me through a PM?

ArmandoR1b
01-31-2016, 05:40 PM
The original problem mentioned on this thread, Z2970, turned up today as the terminal SNP for a couple of DF27+ guys. (One kit doesn't have any STRs tested, so it's invisible in the project.) That's either a bad test/cell or a fairly randomly recurrent SNP, not sure which.

Z2970 is also showing positive for a U106 person's results that I have, as well as a haplogroup C person, and a U106 person at http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6206-URGENT-Results-came-and-Help!!-NGE-2-0

It's a bad test for sure.

GoldenHind
01-31-2016, 06:32 PM
It appears to have been originally a Geno 2 test, later upgraded to the Next Generation test.



Correction to the above: I have now heard from the person who actually ordered the test. It is just a Geno Next Gen test, not an upgrade to an original Geno 2.

vettor
02-01-2016, 05:32 AM
The original Geno 2.0 had about 12,052 SNPs. The Geno 2.0 NextGen has more than 13,600 SNPs. Those 260 SNPs that FTDNA accepted were relevant to your haplogroup.



They don't have them but you do since you already downloaded the CSV file from the Geno 2.0 site.


The issue is ........while ftdna correctly match natgeno for my marker , they fail to accept the negative SNP which shows up on my tree, they have these as listed as untested. This snp ( M193 for one ) was negative tested for both natgeno and 23andme, so why does ftdna give inaccurate info/data on my account for my tree which the project administors use to determine various studies.?
They even have some of my SNPs as untested for markers which I am positive for .........via natgeno2 and 23andme


and yes I have most of my natgeno2 positive and negative snps saved

jutland
02-03-2016, 01:40 PM
Armando, I will send the info I didnt forget. Nat Geo did the send me more mixed messages.
They recognized the wrong haplogroup cts278 yet sent me an update and its still the same old incorrect haplogroup and now the regional changed, they told me It wouldnt
when I first inquired about the FTDNA corrected haplogroup 16018. Sadly, I would have never known If I had less knowledge about the R1b tree and didnt do further testing with
FTDNA DF 27 pack.
Anotolia is now SW Asia, I went from Spain and Italy( makes sense) to being Greek lol. This is crazy! My history is well known and while I admire the Greeks
I dont see how this could be possible as a first choice. My guess is that Europeans came through SW Asia and some how this is being over read as the regional component is taking this back
to far for an autosomal analysis? Makes no sense, autosomal dna cant go that far with accuracy if this is the case. How I changed from Spain to Greece overnight is odd. I could see Italy and
Greece depending on region given the historical connection in many cases but not mine.
My sister got results back from Ancestry and SW asia and caucases was less than 2 percent the rest was Europe. This is significantly different from Nat Geo.
I did use the family finder with FTDNA and they, not suprised, gave me the same autosomal results as NG. I asked them if they repeated my test they said no, just interpreted it going off what NG sent.
They suggested I re do the test with a new sample if I wanted them to test for autosomal dna which makes sense but since they work with NG I will pass on this since I lost confidence. Im sure they will ultimately get things sorted but not in the near future. I am confident in the Haplogroups but feel the autosomal analysis they have is overlapping ancient with present so is not accurate at least in my case.
I will test with other companies to confirm the autosomal component and despite my sister already tested I too will do ancestry for curiosity( should be the same).
How will Gedmatch help?

GoldenHind
03-04-2016, 08:11 PM
Recently I had occasion to look at someone's Geno 2 results. Full disclosure: I am not a fan of Geno 2. However I have never seen anything quite like this. The person is classified as R-Z2970, which appears to be either equivalent or below M222. However M222 itself is only shown as presumed positive, not tested positive. Z2983 and Z976, which appear above Z2970, are also shown as tested positive. Also listed as tested positive is MC14, which is parallel to DF49 rather than under it, so inconsistent with the above. DF49, DF13 and L21 are all shown as presumed positive. I know for a fact that L21 is tested in Geno 2, so why is it only presumed as opposed to tested positive? I believe M222 and at least some of the others are also tested.

This is only the beginning. His results show he tested positive for the folllowing, all of which are below U152: CTS57193, L552, Z148 and CTS278. Yet U152 is shown as presumed negative. Again, I know U152 is tested. so why presumed negative rather than tested negative?

There is more. He is also shown as testing positive for Z274, which is below DF27.

More yet: he is also listed as positive for Z306, Z319 and four more SNPs under U106, which is also shown as presumed rather tested negative.

Now I am fully aware that FTDNA's R haplotree is on life support and that some SNPs occur in more than R-1b subclade, but I've never seen anything like this before. Has anyone else?

Does anyone know if it is possible to get a list of the SNPs which tested negative (none are listed in his results)? If so. how does one go about getting them?

The person in question has just got his result for a test for DF99 and is positive. This is completely inconsistent with Z2970, yet he is still classified as such by FTDNA. I will have to contact them to see if they will correctly reclassify him.

GoldenHind
04-15-2016, 12:32 AM
As I mentioned on another thread, I have just become aware of yet another person who got a Z2976+ Z2790+ result from the new Geno 2, yet all of the markers upstream from them are listed as "presumed" positive rather than actually tested positive. I have no faith in the accuracy of these results at all.

Hando
04-15-2016, 02:22 AM
Hi, having read about the mistakes made by FTDNA on this thread, should I be concerned about the results of my
1) FTDNA Family Finder Test
2) FTDNA Y-DNA 37 and YDNA 111 tests?

3)Also, should I be concerned about the results of my FTDNA Free Autosomal DNA Transfer test?
4) And Y HAP Backbone Test?
5)MtDNA Plus and Full Sequence Tests?
Thanks

GoldenHind
04-15-2016, 03:12 AM
Hi, having read about the mistakes made by FTDNA on this thread, should I be concerned about the results of my
1) FTDNA Family Finder Test
2) FTDNA Y-DNA 37 and YDNA 111 tests?

3)Also, should I be concerned about the results of my FTDNA Free Autosomal DNA Transfer test?
4) And Y HAP Backbone Test?
5)MtDNA Plus and Full Sequence Tests?
Thanks

I don't think you should be worried about those other tests. In my experience, FTDNA is generally reliable, but no one is perfect. However the Geno 2 test is rubbish in my opinion. It may work correctly for some, but there are too many reported false positives and negatives to make it a viable test.

GoldenHind
04-15-2016, 09:44 PM
As I mentioned on another thread, I have just become aware of yet another person who got a Z2976+ Z2790+ result from the new Geno 2, yet all of the markers upstream from them are listed as "presumed" positive rather than actually tested positive. I have no faith in the accuracy of these results at all.

I have looked further into this persons results. In addition to the results quoted above, which are beneath L21, he also got positive results for ZZ12_1, which is beneath DF27, Z274 and Z270, also downstream from DF27 but inconsistent with ZZ12_1, as well as a couple of SNPs below U106.

Hando
04-16-2016, 04:12 PM
I don't think you should be worried about those other tests. In my experience, FTDNA is generally reliable, but no one is perfect. However the Geno 2 test is rubbish in my opinion. It may work correctly for some, but there are too many reported false positives and negatives to make it a viable test.

Thank you for the reassurance regarding the reliability of FTDNA's Y DNA and MtDNA tests. I have another question. Is the first/oldest Nat Genographic test from 2007 reliable? That is the Nat Geno test I transferred to FTDNA. I plan on getting another Y DNA -111 test done, as well as a Big Y test and a full sequence MtDNA test done, but I am concerned that FTDNA will use the results of my previous Nat Geno 1 test and that this may result in rubbish results.

GoldenHind
04-16-2016, 05:14 PM
Thank you for the reassurance regarding the reliability of FTDNA's Y DNA and MtDNA tests. I have another question. Is the first/oldest Nat Genographic test from 2007 reliable? That is the Nat Geno test I transferred to FTDNA. I plan on getting another Y DNA -111 test done, as well as a Big Y test and a full sequence MtDNA test done, but I am concerned that FTDNA will use the results of my previous Nat Geno 1 test and that this may result in rubbish results.

I don't know of reports that the earlier version of the Geno test had a lot of false results, unlike the new version. The main problem with it was that a number of important SNPs were omitted. I don't think your Geno test will have any effect on the tests you plan to order from FTDNA.

jutland
04-17-2016, 01:38 PM
I got my results from Ancestry. Com and results make sense. I downloaded to Ged match along with the FTdna (from NG transfer) and the raw dna match.
Looking at the admixture I get N Italian which makes sense and this is with the various admix tools on Gedmatch which matches Ancesty.com though they are less specific.
So the interpretation of the autosomal dna by NG ,and if the transferred dna to FTdna used the same markers, I think they are totally off.
Going from nearly100% European to 70% shows how off NG is.
NG still hasn't changed my haplogroup to the correct y16018 from cts278, unbelievable.
Does anyone know know which is the most accurate admix tool for Europeans?

GoldenHind
04-21-2016, 11:18 PM
I filed a bug report concerning the individual I mentioned above who got a R-Z2970 result (which is under L21) in the Geno 2 Next Gen test, but later tested DF99+ (which is inconsistent with an L21 result) in a separate test at FTDNA, requesting they change his Y haplogroup designation from R-Z2970 to R-DF99. They replied they attempted to do so, but some glitch is preventing them from doing it. They said they had no projected date for correcting the problem.

GoldenHind
05-14-2016, 04:16 PM
I filed a bug report concerning the individual I mentioned above who got a R-Z2970 result (which is under L21) in the Geno 2 Next Gen test, but later tested DF99+ (which is inconsistent with an L21 result) in a separate test at FTDNA, requesting they change his Y haplogroup designation from R-Z2970 to R-DF99. They replied they attempted to do so, but some glitch is preventing them from doing it. They said they had no projected date for correcting the problem.

I am pleased to report that the individual in question has now been correctly reclassified from R-Z2970 to R-DF99. Note however DF99 is not actually tested in the Geno 2 Next Gen- that came from a separate test from FTDNA.

Ali16
05-18-2016, 01:33 PM
Some possibilities:
a) significant DNA contamination (no intimate relations with other men before swabbing!)
b) insufficient DNA (high noise-to-signal ratio)
c) bad chip
d) instrumentation failure
e) data corruption

No need to imply that people are gay. It is a bad chip!

GoldenHind
06-20-2016, 07:45 PM
I have encountered another example of a highly suspect result from a Geno 2 test. The person in question is someone of Italian origin resident in Brazil, and he is classified as R(1b)-Z18133, which FTDNA positions several steps below R(1b)- L21. I noticed that all upstream markers up to P311, including L21, are marked as "presumed" rather than actually tested positive, which makes me suspect these results are completely unreliable. If Geno 2 reported negative results these inaccurate results could be easily identified.

razyn
06-28-2016, 11:52 PM
I have encountered another example of a highly suspect result from a Geno 2 test. The person in question is someone of Italian origin resident in Brazil, and he is classified as R(1b)-Z18133, which FTDNA positions several steps below R(1b)- L21. I noticed that all upstream markers up to P311, including L21, are marked as "presumed" rather than actually tested positive, which makes me suspect these results are completely unreliable. If Geno 2 reported negative results these inaccurate results could be easily identified.
I have one Z18133+ member in the DF27 project, group E (kit 160221). He has tested DF27+ and Z195-. No way is he L21+, or any subclade of it; so either that's an unstable/recurrent mutation, or a bad test result. I checked, and he does in fact have Geno2+ results -- so I expect the problem lies in that fact.

wombatofthenorth
06-29-2016, 02:56 AM
I have one Z18133+ member in the DF27 project, group E (kit 160221). He has tested DF27+ and Z195-. No way is he L21+, or any subclade of it; so either that's an unstable/recurrent mutation, or a bad test result. I checked, and he does in fact have Geno2+ results -- so I expect the problem lies in that fact.

If you are just going by his RAW data I do know that FTDNA reports some of the Geno 2.0 Y and mtDNA SNPs as reverse strand so apparent positive and negative results can be flipped. For instance my dad's RAW would appear to make him positive for BY2171 according to the RAW data FTDNA gives you for his Y, but they said they looked into it and that they provided reverse strand results for that SNP so he is actually negative. It seems like over at Geno they know how most of them work but FTDNA somehow doesn't seem to have the proper info and are getting some of them wrong. I'm not sure why FTDNA doesn't have the strand table and seems to be working it out bug report by bug report instead.

jutland
07-09-2016, 11:25 PM
Nat Geo sent me a message that my haplogroup went from y16018 to P310. Not sure how they did this but its been a long time waiting and this is the response.
I dont know what to think but Im waiting for my BIG Y results which clear all this.

GoldenHind
07-26-2016, 05:27 PM
I have encountered one more example of an apparently false positive result from Geno 2 NG for Z18133. He previously tested P312** in the FTDNA M343 NG test, including L21- and subsequently DF27-. This appears to be at least the third example of a false positive for Z18133. The other possibility is that this is a completely unstable marker.

leo76
07-30-2016, 03:24 AM
No need to imply that people are gay. It is a bad chip!

And WHAT exactly is wrong with being gay?

Besides, no one is "implying" anything. It's simply a possibility for an anomalous result, and one that has to be considered for the sake of thoroughness.

GoldenHind
11-25-2017, 01:38 AM
I have come across another person with a questionable Geno 2 result. He tested CTS11041+ (which is under U106) there. However he is only presumed positive for U106. CTS11041 is the only SNP under P310 he tested positive for. My guess is that CTS11041 is another of those SNPs for which Geno 2 returns a false negative result.

Does anyone know if U106 is included in Geno 2? This person is a 67 marker same surname match to someone who has tested DF99+, which is under P312. Neither P312 nor DF99 is tested in Geno 2.

Wing Genealogist
11-25-2017, 08:06 AM
I have come across another person with a questionable Geno 2 result. He tested CTS11041+ (which is under U106) there. However he is only presumed positive for U106. CTS11041 is the only SNP under P310 he tested positive for. My guess is that CTS11041 is another of those SNPs for which Geno 2 returns a false negative result.

Does anyone know if U106 is included in Geno 2? This person is a 67 marker same surname match to someone who has tested DF99+, which is under P312. Neither P312 nor DF99 is tested in Geno 2.

YES, U106 is included in the Geno 2. It is highly likely the CTS11041 result is bogus and you should contact Michael Sager at FTDNA to let him know about this. Please PM me if you need his email address.

sam-iJ-ZS1727
04-15-2018, 04:15 PM
Geno 2.0 is tricky
Presumed positive is the only thing i see in results. I am J1 and only 4 SNPs are tested positive in j1, all others are presumed Positive. My predicted Haplogroup is ZS1727 under YSC76 and the STR zs1727 is only tested by Geno, no other company has dicovered it. People who have this STR have extremely different results, i mean clusters are so different that it is impossible they belong to the same STR.
All my matches are from J1-FGC11 which is parallel to YSC76. I lost money and time discussing a haplogroup that i might not belong to.
I advice all those who are tested ZS1727 positive to do an SNP test Pack and complain to Geno and FTDNA if results show totally different SNP.

sam-iJ-ZS1727
04-17-2018, 06:39 PM
I had the confirmation from Mr Greenspan. He Said that the SNP chip from Geno is ''not Reliable'' and that they are going to ''disregard'' it.
It means all those who tested positive to ZS1727 through the Geno project have to do a new test.
Geno is the most expensive Y-dna test and has the most horrible results. FTDNA, even if they have the same Labs, wash their hands from Geno results.

francesco-s91
05-12-2018, 01:29 AM
I am really disappointed with the data transfer geno 2.0 to ftdna.
I hope that the results of Yseq and the ftdna V3 snp pack, finally deliver the wariness

francesco-s91
05-19-2018, 11:02 AM
Hi group today i recieved my results from ftdna V3snp pack, its J1-ZS241.
So we can say that the geno to ftdna transfer is fake

GoldenHind
03-06-2019, 09:26 PM
I believe I have found yet another example of a false positive or at least unreliable result from a Geno 2 test. The test is from 2016 but I'm not sure which version is involved. The most downstream marker found in the sample in question in question is R-P310. For a long time FTDNA did not assign a terminal SNP to him, then finally classified him only as M269, despite the P310+ result. They have now changed his classification to CTS6449, which is under U152 and L2. However both those markers are marked only as "presumed positive" rather than "tested positive." I suspect both were/are included in Geno 2, so should be marked as "tested positive" if the CTS6449 result and placement on the tree is accurate. In looking around in some of the other Geno 2 threads on this forum, it looks like this is a yet another unreliable Geno 2 marker. Can anyone confirm this, and if this is indeed the case, why is FTDNA still treating it as accurate? I also wonder how many people in FTDNA haplogroup projects are erroneously classified due to unreliable Geno 2 results. It should be a warning to R1b project administrators

GoldenHind
03-21-2019, 07:58 PM
I believe I have found yet another example of a false positive or at least unreliable result from a Geno 2 test. The test is from 2016 but I'm not sure which version is involved. The most downstream marker found in the sample in question in question is R-P310. For a long time FTDNA did not assign a terminal SNP to him, then finally classified him only as M269, despite the P310+ result. They have now changed his classification to CTS6449, which is under U152 and L2. However both those markers are marked only as "presumed positive" rather than "tested positive." I suspect both were/are included in Geno 2, so should be marked as "tested positive" if the CTS6449 result and placement on the tree is accurate. In looking around in some of the other Geno 2 threads on this forum, it looks like this is a yet another unreliable Geno 2 marker. Can anyone confirm this, and if this is indeed the case, why is FTDNA still treating it as accurate? I also wonder how many people in FTDNA haplogroup projects are erroneously classified due to unreliable Geno 2 results. It should be a warning to R1b project administrators

It doesn't look like anyone actually read the above, but I nonetheless point out that the above person recently tested P312>DF99 with FTDNA. Neither of those markers are tested in Geno 2. This is completely inconsistent with the previous assignment from FTDNA as CTS6449, which is under U152 and L2. He received an email from FTDNA which stated his previous assignment of U152 was inaccurate and he is actually DF99. However they have yet to change his haplogroup assignment from CTS6449 to DF99.

One more example of an wildly inaccurate result from Geno 2.

GoldenHind
04-06-2019, 09:44 PM
It doesn't look like anyone actually read the above, but I nonetheless point out that the above person recently tested P312>DF99 with FTDNA. Neither of those markers are tested in Geno 2. This is completely inconsistent with the previous assignment from FTDNA as CTS6449, which is under U152 and L2. He received an email from FTDNA which stated his previous assignment of U152 was inaccurate and he is actually DF99. However they have yet to change his haplogroup assignment from CTS6449 to DF99.

One more example of an wildly inaccurate result from Geno 2.

The comedy of errors at FTDNA with regard to the Geno 2 test results for the above person continues. His haplogroup classification has now been changed from CTS6449 (under P312>U152) to M129, which is under P312>L21. Both are inconsistent with his recent DF99+ (a different P312 subclade from both U152 and L21) test result. I have contacted FTDNA on his behalf to ask them to correct has classification to R-DF99. They seem to be placing more faith in the obviously worthless Geno 2 results than in his DF99+ result from FTDNA.