PDA

View Full Version : R1b SNP Packs from FTDNA



TigerMW
03-16-2016, 08:15 PM
I get questions about this on various forums and will open a general thread here as I think we will have some updates soon. I have some insight (not much) in to the queue of new FTDNA packs and pack updates, particularly on the P312 side of things and things that directly touch the R1b project.

RobertCasey
03-16-2016, 08:52 PM
I get questions about this on various forums and will open a general thread here as I think we will have some updates soon. I have some insight (not much) in to the queue of new FTDNA packs and pack updates, particularly on the P312 side of things and things that directly touch the R1b project.
Any new developments of the inclusion of a lot of private YSNPs with these new YSNP pack tests ? If FTDNA is using chip array technology, the ongoing testing costs would not be much more - but the up front development costs would be a lot more as it takes time to develop chip array tests. It is very difficult to get others to test private YSNPs based on YSTR patterns of the NGS tester and panel test results. If we had private panel packs, this would provide an option to discover smaller and more genealogical branches vs. just finding where you fit on the existing haplotree (which provides value to analysis but will never discover new branches).

Cofgene
03-17-2016, 12:17 AM
Any new developments of the inclusion of a lot of private YSNPs with these new YSNP pack tests ?

The number of SNPs and the corresponding cost is limited to maxing out the current panels at about 150 variants. While technically possible for FTDNA to add another well (+50 variants) or more to the mix that becomes a lab logistics processing issue if various packs are various 'sizes'. How would FTDNA make money on such low volume private panels when each panel takes a lot of effort to validate? The cost of developing private panels will quickly exceed the cost of several Big-Y's. It is just easier to pay for full y sequencing up front to establish a small pool of 10-20 variants that can be processed at YSEQ for family specific investigations.

In terms of adding specific private variants to a panel I have been able to select S-, CTS, and PH- series variants present in individuals unmatched list and get most of those added to say the R-Z326 panel up to the point where I hit the ~150 variant limit. Note that I also selected specific early Z-series not covered by Big-Y. All of these are useful since they have been seen in other samples. Due to the amount of validation effort changing a panel's composition may occur only about once a year. FTDNA has a limited capacity to add new or update existing panels. One of the problems that will become more of an issue later in 2016 and into 2017 is the need to split existing panels to provide capacity for new clades and auxiliary variants of interest. Getting solid leader variants from those new panels back into upstream packs such as the r1b backbone will be a challenge.

TigerMW
03-21-2016, 10:04 PM
.... How would FTDNA make money on such low volume private panels when each panel takes a lot of effort to validate? The cost of developing private panels will quickly exceed the cost of several Big-Y's...
Cofgne, I think your assumptions related to FTDNA pack costs are off a bit. They have a surprisingly low break-even point on the number of SNP Packs orders from a single product. I can't give the number but this means packs could be designed for haplogroups in fairly youthful ranges.

It does depend on the target population of testers for that haplogroup but we definitely can look in closer than 1500 year old haplogroups. Keep in mind I'm familiar with high test penetration R1b populations.

I think they semi-arbitrarily set a limit on SNPs in a pack to 160. However, as noted, this is not a hard core threshold. This is a little bit of a card game. We have the hg G pack and L21 top-layer up close to a 190 if my memory serves me correctly.

lgmayka
03-21-2016, 10:17 PM
I think they semi-arbitrarily set a limit on SNPs in a pack to 160. However, as noted, this is not a hard core threshold. This is a little bit of a card game. We have the hg G pack and L21 top-layer up close to a 190 if my memory serves me correctly.
Right now, FTDNA advertises:
Get 112 SNPs related to M201 for only $119!
Get 170 SNPs related to L21 for only $119!

RobertCasey
03-22-2016, 06:47 AM
The number of SNPs and the corresponding cost is limited to maxing out the current panels at about 150 variants. While technically possible for FTDNA to add another well (+50 variants) or more to the mix that becomes a lab logistics processing issue if various packs are various 'sizes'. How would FTDNA make money on such low volume private panels when each panel takes a lot of effort to validate? The cost of developing private panels will quickly exceed the cost of several Big-Y's. It is just easier to pay for full y sequencing up front to establish a small pool of 10-20 variants that can be processed at YSEQ for family specific investigations.

I am assuming that the FTDNA SNP packs are small chip array tests vs. tiered testing of Sanger Sequencing like YSEQ. I base this on the fact that they do not use any tiering and test more real YSNPs - suggesting a lower cost chip array of some sort. Also, I have noticed that there appears to be no-calls with FTDNA SNP packs since many Z253 SNP packs are missing two L226 SNPs on a regular basis - another indication of chip array tests. The only issue that I really see is that chip array tests take more time to develop and require more setup costs - therefore, requiring high expected sales to cover initial costs.

I was hoping that Nat Geo or BritainDNA would replace their old and tired offerings with a massive L21, U106, etc. private SNP tests for around $100 to $150 for thousands of private YSNPs. These tests would sell very well since so many smaller genealogical branches would be revealed at a much lower cost than just more Big Y tests. I think that we need a combination of more NGS tests, economical large quantity private YSNP test (missing now) and panel tests of known branches discovered to date. To date, Big Y tests cost $1,400 per L226 branch discovered (major branches mostly but only 20 branches from 48 NGS tests). Individual YSNP testing has revealed 5 new L226 branches at around 10 % of the cost per branch (but these are much smaller and recent branches). It is doubtful that NatGeo is interested in genealogical YSNPs since they are really more interested in deep ancestry. BritainDNA would be our best hope as YSEQ or FGC do not seem to interested in chip array testing (even though FGC promised large scale / low cost testing testing of private YSNPs early on).

smal
03-22-2016, 07:55 AM
I am assuming that the FTDNA SNP packs are small chip array tests

This is not true. The FTDNA SNP packs are not microarray-based tests. Instead, they use iPLEX Assay chemistry and MassARRAY System for a detection of reaction products. The first stage of iPLEX Assay is the multiplex PCR. The sequences flanking target SNP are not always applicable for a development of good PCR-based test. The multiplex PCR is even more sensitive.

RobertCasey
03-22-2016, 05:07 PM
This is not true. The FTDNA SNP packs are not microarray-based tests. Instead, they use iPLEX Assay chemistry and MassARRAY System for a detection of reaction products. The first stage of iPLEX Assay is the multiplex PCR. The sequences flanking target SNP are not always applicable for a development of good PCR-based test. The multiplex PCR is even more sensitive.

So this is yet another type of test that have different characteristics (with some similar characteristics of micro-array based tests). The actual technology used is not as important as the characteristics of the technology:

1) Substantially less cost per YSNP than Sanger Sequencing (used by both FTDNA and YSEQ for individual YSNPs and YSEQ panel tests). The net impact would be that there could be many more YSNPs included in these tests. But the cost per YSNP would be much higher than chip array tests.
2) Similar to array tests, there will be no-calls for a low percentage of test results (observed in Z253 SNP packs). The percentage of no calls (omitted results) is not very high (less than 5 %) but that 5 % could be your part of the haplotree.
3) Less development costs and setup costs than array tests, so adding, modifying and deleting YSNPs can happen more frequently. But more development and higher setup costs than Sanger sequencing. Also, longer times between updates than Sanger Sequencing.
4) No major advantage for a tiered testing approach - just test all branches since the production costs are low vs. two or three tests combined into one order based on previous results of first and second tiers.


I agree with Mike W, that the number of YSNPs included in the FTDNA YSNP packs is probably more driven by setup, quality, etc. than ongoing costs once in production mode. This means that FTDNA could continue to add many more branches over time - if the market orders justify it. L21 is one of the largest since market demand is also high.

VinceT
03-23-2016, 04:24 AM
You can review the MassARRAY system here (http://agenabio.com/products/massarray-system/). They've recently added a nice sales-pitch oriented video overview.

By my understanding, each target site uses a thee-primer set with single base extension per variant target: two primers to amplify the target region, and one primer immediately adjacent to the variant site for the mass spectrometer to lock in on.

The main constraints are the number of multiplexed targets detectable per pad: the limit is 40.

All primers in the multiplex have to behave nicely with each other, and all need to have different lengths so that the mass spectrometer can discern them correctly. So there is significant fine-tuning involved to get each multiplex mix just right, but they have software to help with that. The problem is, that it becomes tricky every time additional targets are added to a multiplex. The multiplex may need to be redesigned to re-balance the primer mix, and this could have a domino effect if primers need to be re-jigged across several multiplexes to avoid discarding previously testable variants.

I think there was a nice technical overview provided at the 2015 Group Administrators Conference in Houston, and slides of the process were made available somewhere, but I've misplaced that link.

TigerMW
03-23-2016, 04:26 PM
...
4) No major advantage for a tiered testing approach - just test all branches since the production costs are low vs. two or three tests combined into one order based on previous results of first and second tiers.
...
Yes, since there is no advantage to tree traversing I've pushed for adding phylogenetic equivalent SNPs from lightly tested phylogenetic equivalent blocks. We've had good luck with this in busting up some lightly tested blocks. The new branching refinements oftentimes come from unexpected haplotypes. For instance, there is a long list of SNPs in the L226 block. This may be broken up some day, but it probably won't be broken up by an Irish III haplotype person, although you never know, such a person might pick off the most youthful SNP or two in the block. NGS testing is still much better but if you can get 50 relevant people to test a block with SNP packs versus 5 with NGS testing then so be it.

Of course, shared private SNPs could be added and are being added. I'm quite fine with that but I think singletons are problematic. Other folks that run surname project disagree with me on that. Also, there are those that keep NGS results close to the vest so it is hard to know what is a singleton and what is not from the outside looking in.

RobertCasey
03-24-2016, 03:54 AM
Of course, shared private SNPs could be added and are being added. I'm quite fine with that but I think singletons are problematic. Other folks that run surname project disagree with me on that. Also, there are those that keep NGS results close to the vest so it is hard to know what is a singleton and what is not from the outside looking in.

Your singletons (truly private YSNPs to one NGS tester) are not being tested as much as they should be. Within L226, 48 NGS tests have only revealed 20 new branches at over $1,400 per branch discovered (about the same as Walk the Y). However, testing singletons by those who closely match the NGS testers signatures have revealed five new at 10 % of the cost per branch ($160 per branch). Granted, the branches are much smaller and more recent but I now have two new branches that represent the two Casey surname clusters only to date (they are probably somewhat broader than one surname though). We will hopefully soon have some new branches within the surname as well (this will really get genealogists flowing in with huge orders once this becomes widespread and well understood).

We still need an unending supply of more NGS tests for sure, but testing private YSNPs by close genetic matches of NGS testers yields some excellent results and sure beats people testing NGS twice for very close matches that reveal almost no new private YSNPs or recent branches. It is very labor intensive to analyze the signature for each NGS tester for good testing candidates and even after that, it is a very hard sell to testing candidates (except those that have already shown interest in testing YSNPs).

What we need need is a chip array test that tests 5,000 to 20,000 private YSNPs under L21, etc. Once these tests start revealing a bunch of smaller and more recent branches, they should sell extremely well. We should continue to work down the haplotree with more NGS tests but we could also work on building up the haplotree from the NGS testers as well. Since chip array tests are extremely cheap to test (much more than the FTDNA SNP pack), the only real issue is some major company thinking this would be a good enough marketplace to drive some quantities of orders required to offset the chip design costs.

miiser
03-24-2016, 04:25 AM
Since chip array tests are extremely cheap to test (much more than the FTDNA SNP pack), the only real issue is some major company thinking this would be a good enough marketplace to drive some quantities of orders required to offset the chip design costs.

I would also love to see such a test, and agree that it would be the most efficient and beneficial approach for the majority of customers.

But the other possible issue, apart from sales potential, is whether FTDNA considers it desirable to make testing more efficient, with consequently reduced revenues. FTDNA's marketing approach has historically been to promote incremental testing, selling one upgrade after another: 37 marker -> 67 marker -> 111 marker -> high level SNP pack -> subclade SNP pack -> Big Y + mtDNA -> mtDNA full + Family Finder. I doubt FTDNA is interested in developing one low cost test that would make many of their other tests unnecessary and reduce the typical revenue per customer. Unless a competitor applies some pressure by developing such a test, I can't see FTDNA pursuing this strategy.

RobertCasey
03-24-2016, 03:58 PM
I would also love to see such a test, and agree that it would be the most efficient and beneficial approach for the majority of customers.

But the other possible issue, apart from sales potential, is whether FTDNA considers it desirable to make testing more efficient, with consequently reduced revenues. FTDNA's marketing approach has historically been to promote incremental testing, selling one upgrade after another: 37 marker -> 67 marker -> 111 marker -> high level SNP pack -> subclade SNP pack -> Big Y + mtDNA -> mtDNA full + Family Finder. I doubt FTDNA is interested in developing one low cost test that would make many of their other tests unnecessary and reduce the typical revenue per customer. Unless a competitor applies some pressure by developing such a test, I can't see FTDNA pursuing this strategy.
I agree that FTDNA is unlikely to produce such tests as they get so much revenue from Big Y as well as their SNP packs. BTW, Full Genomes Corp originally stated that they would provide such a test - but quickly became specialized in NGS and full genomes testing (and the profitable medical market). Nat Geo is unlikely to test such recent mutations and is going nowhere fast. However, BritainsDNA has experience in this marketplace with CROMO2 and their current approach for finding current branches and a few new branches is very poor compared to the SNP packs (FTDNA) and SNP panels (YSEQ). They could get back into the game with such a test

But then FTDNA would then quickly develop a similar product to ensure that no smaller companies to get big to worry about. Notice the trend: atDNA from 23andme and FTDNA says me too. Ancestry.com jumps in with huge databases - FTDNA says me too and is trying to react to that market. Full Genomes Corp introduces NGS - then we get Big Y. YSEQ comes out with SNP panel tests and FTDNA follows with SNP packs. FTDNA used to be the leader in YSTRs and Walk the Y - but they are now in market share preservation mode and minimal innovation / maximum profits. Do not get me wrong, if was not for FTDNA we would not be making these posts to begin with - I just hate to see their focus stray from their original innovative approach. BTW, they will probably lose money competing with Ancestry.com as they dominate the genealogical database world. They should remain with their core business - innovative YDNA testing not only because of their roots but the long term market potential of YDNA is so huge with genealogical YSNPs (missing that boat taking off and wasting resources on competing with Ancestry.com who actually know how to run an IT shop).

TigerMW
04-14-2016, 01:43 PM
I've been very busy on a number of activities, including real life stuff, so I haven't tried to keep track of what FTDNA is doing with packs for R1b recently. I checked in this week.

This is just my interpretation, so caveat emptor. It's a free interpretation and that's how much it is worth.

FTDNA did not put out any new SNP Packs for R1b in the 1st quarter. There were several out in December but a hiatus since then. They seem to be renovating their SNP assessment process and making stricter the rules for what is acceptable or not. This saves them headaches, costs and customer sat issues but I fear they will be less likely to do experimental SNPs. In the past this has allowed for SNPs like ZZ10, ZZ12, FGC5494, etc. to get on the board so I don't want to lose that experimentation.

I am aware they are developing a series of SNP packs for U152 and filling in a gap or two in DF21 (under L21) and in the early branching above the P311 groups. They started working on these last year and should have had them by now, in my opinion.

This is semi-related, but they seem to be much better at updating their haplotree. I think they invested a good person or two in it, or they have just learned a lot and improved the process.

dfervin
04-14-2016, 02:10 PM
Re: SNP Packs

Looks like FTDNA approved the Clan Irwin L555 SNP Pack as it appeared under the advanced test section yesterday.

I'm a member of that group, not an admin or expert on the process, but I noticed that my four novel variants have been included in the pack.
My Haplogroup also changed that day to R BY-3663, which I guess is the current designation for one of my variants.

I believe our project admin had been working to get the pack approved for at least four months...

David Ervin
South Carolina

RobertCasey
04-14-2016, 04:53 PM
FTDNA did not put out any new SNP Packs for R1b in the 1st quarter. There were several out in December but a hiatus since then. They seem to be renovating their SNP assessment process and making stricter the rules for what is acceptable or not. This saves them headaches, costs and customer sat issues but I fear they will be less likely to do experimental SNPs. In the past this has allowed for SNPs like ZZ10, ZZ12, FGC5494, etc. to get on the board so I don't want to lose that experimentation. I am aware they are developing a series of SNP packs for U152 and filling in a gap or two in DF21 (under L21) and in the early branching above the P311 groups. They started working on these last year and should have had them by now, in my opinion.

It should be expected that the rate of new SNP packs are slowing down in the major parts of R1b like L21. I am more concerned about them keeping these SNP Packs updated. Currently, FTDNA has less than half of the L226 branches in the Z253 test. Other than the obvious that they can only do updates around once per year due to setup / design costs, I think another major factor is that Z253 pack order rates are pretty reasonable and steady state. The next step would be to split Z253 SNP pack into two or three SNP packs but orders may not be significant enough to justify this breakup. In the mean time, YSEQ quickly updated their Z253 panel test and it now includes all but two L226 branches. I submitted all the new L226 branches as requests for new individual YSNP tests (no response). Is there some better way to inform FTDNA of all the many new branches missing in SNP packs (most discovered from comparing Big Y tests only) ?



This is semi-related, but they seem to be much better at updating their haplotree. I think they invested a good person or two in it, or they have just learned a lot and improved the process.

I think FTDNA is getting back into the innovative mode by massive updating of their haplotree. With innovation comes some baggage of learning curve but I advocate being patient vs. demanding, otherwise they may slow down the innovation. Under the R haplogroup, ISOGG only has 25 % of FTDNA's terminal YSNPs and even Alex's BigTree has only 50 % of the terminal YSNPs. However, FTDNA uses a lot of equivalent YSNPs as terminal YSNPs, so Alex's percentage is probably much higher. It is really encouraging that a vendor is now leading the pack in creating the best haplotree - probably a reaction to Alex's fine work.

Joe B
04-14-2016, 05:41 PM
What's the time frame for updating the R1b-M343 SNP Pack? There is a need to get better coverage for some of the branches that have not qualified for their own SNP pack. The R1b-M343 (xL23) haplogroups need more depth. The R1b-L51 (xU106 xP312) haplogroups are very active. With well over 50 Big Y tests for the R1b-CTS6889 and R1b-CTS4528 branches completed they have enough phylogenetic depth for a small SNP pack and would make good use of it. There are also a lot of BDNA SNPs for the R1b-CTS6889 and R1b-CTS4528 branches that are phylogenetically imporatant and would be nice additions to a SNP pack. Just yesterday I heard about the fustration and testing fatigue that the R1b-CTS4528 folks have had with the single SNP testing method. It's become a phylogenetic bracketing dead end for them.

TigerMW
04-14-2016, 09:56 PM
... I am more concerned about them keeping these SNP Packs updated.
I'm concerned about that too. M222 and Z255 have already seen updates (V2's) but I think the M343 Backbone should have high priority as Joe B mentioned.

The only issue is that it hard to justify upgrades while there are significant gaps, i.e. U152, etc. I don't go to their conferences but one of the presentations related to the "initial configuration" of the packs. My conjecture is that means they have to settle on their mapping of branches to various pack products... They have to get them all out the door and they have pressure on multiple fronts for additions, some of which are well justified.


...
Currently, FTDNA has less than half of the L226 branches in the Z253 test. Other than the obvious that they can only do updates around once per year due to setup / design costs, I think another major factor is that Z253 pack order rates are pretty reasonable and steady state. The next step would be to split Z253 SNP pack into two or three SNP packs but orders may not be significant enough to justify this breakup.
I may be wrong, but my approach is not to assume what FTDNA can't do or what their business model is but press them on what we want and find out where they have give and where they will break. We know there is a maximum # SNPs per pack. In ideal situations that may be around 190 or so, but they are trying to keep under in a safe zone that seems to be about 150 or a little more. We can only make assumptions about their costs, but I think the breakeven # of orders per individual pack product is quite low, quite low. The population of L226 testers blows it away.


.... Is there some better way to inform FTDNA of all the many new branches missing in SNP packs (most discovered from comparing Big Y tests only) ?
Your Z253 project admins are doing this, but FTDNA is slow. There is no other word for it. The 2H of last year produced a lot of packs and a couple of updates, but this year has been slow so far.


....I think FTDNA is getting back into the innovative mode by massive updating of their haplotree.
They are doing better in this area but I wouldn't go too far in to characterizing this as innovative. Maybe the innovative thing would just be the SNP packs produce a very low cost per SNP.


Under the R haplogroup, ISOGG only has 25 % of FTDNA's terminal YSNPs and even Alex's BigTree has only 50 % of the terminal YSNPs.
Some folks don't like commercial entities but there is an advantage to a self-funding concern. ISOGG needs a big donor or two. I mean big.


However, FTDNA uses a lot of equivalent YSNPs as terminal YSNPs, so Alex's percentage is probably much higher. It is really encouraging that a vendor is now leading the pack in creating the best haplotree - probably a reaction to Alex's fine work.
Alex is Godsend for P312 folks. I hope the U152 folks decide to leverage him. I know there is interest there.

TigerMW
04-14-2016, 10:00 PM
What's the time frame for updating the R1b-M343 SNP Pack? There is a need to get better coverage for some of the branches that have not qualified for their own SNP pack. The R1b-M343 (xL23) haplogroups need more depth. The R1b-L51 (xU106 xP312) haplogroups are very active. With well over 50 Big Y tests for the R1b-CTS6889 and R1b-CTS4528 branches completed they have enough phylogenetic depth for a small SNP pack and would make good use of it. There are also a lot of BDNA SNPs for the R1b-CTS6889 and R1b-CTS4528 branches that are phylogenetically imporatant and would be nice additions to a SNP pack. Just yesterday I heard about the fustration and testing fatigue that the R1b-CTS4528 folks have had with the single SNP testing method. It's become a phylogenetic bracketing dead end for them.
Only Lawrence was able to get me to predict a time-line, for DF27 and the L21 super pack, and that worked but these guys are slow. They are addressing your early branches, slowly.

TigerMW
04-15-2016, 03:34 PM
....
I am aware they are developing a series of SNP packs for U152....
I could tell from the questions FTDNA has been asking me that they were getting close on some of these packs, hence I refreshed this thread.

I was just told FTDNA will release U152 packs, starting today. I have not checked, but I think this will be in stages and it will be important to know how they overly the branches into the individual packs. I would guess there will be an obvious hole or two, which where the future packs in the series will be.

This also a critical time for feedback. If they are missing SNPs, which probably are, we need to get them feedback in the next couple of business days. They are surprising in their ability to do late adds but once the beta run of orders is actually submitted to the lab for processing, the late add perod is done and we have to wait for V2. I can help on late-adds but we have to look at the packs and understand them right away.

I'll start a thread on this in the U152 category.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6928-U152-SNP-Packs-from-FTDNA

Cofgene
04-16-2016, 10:45 AM
It should be expected that the rate of new SNP packs are slowing down in the major parts of R1b like L21. I am more concerned about them keeping these SNP Packs updated. Currently, FTDNA has less than half of the L226 branches in the Z253 test. Other than the obvious that they can only do updates around once per year due to setup / design costs, I think another major factor is that Z253 pack order rates are pretty reasonable and steady state. The next step would be to split Z253 SNP pack into two or three SNP packs but orders may not be significant enough to justify this breakup. In the mean time, YSEQ quickly updated their Z253 panel test and it now includes all but two L226 branches. I submitted all the new L226 branches as requests for new individual YSNP tests (no response). Is there some better way to inform FTDNA of all the many new branches missing in SNP packs (most discovered from comparing Big Y tests only) ?



I think FTDNA is getting back into the innovative mode by massive updating of their haplotree. With innovation comes some baggage of learning curve but I advocate being patient vs. demanding, otherwise they may slow down the innovation. Under the R haplogroup, ISOGG only has 25 % of FTDNA's terminal YSNPs and even Alex's BigTree has only 50 % of the terminal YSNPs. However, FTDNA uses a lot of equivalent YSNPs as terminal YSNPs, so Alex's percentage is probably much higher. It is really encouraging that a vendor is now leading the pack in creating the best haplotree - probably a reaction to Alex's fine work.


We need to remove the phrase "terminal SNPs" from the discussions. It is misleading. Use something like latest known shared SNP.

MitchellSince1893
04-16-2016, 02:51 PM
We need to remove the phrase "terminal SNPs" from the discussions. It is misleading. Use something like latest known shared SNP.
If a term isn't currently used how about "most recent known SNP" (MRKS) or most recent common SNP (MRCS)

ArmandoR1b
04-16-2016, 03:21 PM
or Most recent identified SNP (MoRIS) or youngest identified SNP (YIS)

Saetro
04-16-2016, 11:51 PM
We need to remove the phrase "terminal SNPs" from the discussions. It is misleading. Use something like latest known shared SNP.

Any replacement term needs to be 1)brief 2)memorable 3)not unpronounceable alphabet soup.
It takes a lot of effort to encourage ordinary people to join haplogroup studies.
The more who do, the more information is available for all to benefit.
These long terms just put people off.
At the very least, any term that consists of initials should form a pre-existing word - (the correct meaning of "acronym") - or at least a pseudo-word.
Instead of Mitchell's "MRKS" try "MoRKS", for example.
Armando's "MoRIS" is pronounceable but somehow I don't find it memorable. (Probably just me.)

cairn
04-17-2016, 05:06 PM
How about something like Terminal Observed Public SNP; TOPS or TOPSNP.

The meaning of "terminal" is obvious as an end point of sorts on the haplotree. "Observed" speaks to the fact that the SNP has actually been found in the sample, allowing for samples where a single SNP testing process was used (I.e. Sanger sequencing or SNP Packs) as well as NGS tests lacking coverage of some regions. "Public" is in common with ISOGG's usage meaning that the SNP is old enough or shared widely enough to be shared by several families or lineage.

TOPS or TOPSNP is also readable or its own and the word "top" itself also implies a sort of endpoint, so it's not too difficult to remember.

MitchellSince1893
04-17-2016, 06:25 PM
According to ISOGG "terminal SNP" is proper to describe this situation.


A terminal SNP is the defining SNP of the latest subclade known by current research.

Until next month (when my closest STR match's FGC Y elite 2.1 results come out), my terminal SNP is Y9080/FGC123401 et al. It is the latest subclade known by current research.

Next month, current research will identify a new latest SNP i.e. terminal SNP.

So why do we need a new term again?


As this is the common understanding of the "terminal SNP", maybe an easier solution is a term to distinguish between latest known by research and the no kidding last SNP in a line.

As I said in another thread I include the term "current" before "terminal SNP" i.e. "my current terminal SNP" to indicate that this is what is currently known. Maybe include the term "final terminal SNP" to indicate that this line has been fully researched.

If those are too long one could abbreviate it to CT-SNP and FT-SNP.

Peccavi
04-17-2016, 07:55 PM
"my terminal SNP is Y9080/FGC123401" - Mitchell

What exactly does this mean.

I took the 67 marker STR FTDNA test and was told I was M269. As many years ago I had test on the old Nat Geo 12 STR as Rb1, the result was rather disappointing.

So I tested on the SNP pack which was offered and the result came back as DF21, with no mention of any "terminal SNP".

MacUalraig
04-17-2016, 08:54 PM
You are heading in the right direction down the tree but DF21 is ~4k years old and there is a big tree underneath it to explore before your lowest level SNP. For that you will need one of the DF21 tests (FTDNA or YSEQ).

Also please don't forget STR tests do not give you a haplogroup (= SNP group) per se - they are different tests. You may get a predicted SNP or a SNP run at the same time you ordered an STR test.

MitchellSince1893
04-17-2016, 11:34 PM
"my terminal SNP is Y9080/FGC123401" - Mitchell

What exactly does this mean.


Maybe using the example of my dad's results will help.

My father's BigY test results came out in March 2014 and my dad was the first person to match 6 previously novel SNPs of an individual that participated in the 1000 genome project. He was known as Hg01777 from Valencia Spain.

These SNPs created a new branch called R-Z142>R-Z150>FGC12378, FGC12379, FGC12380, FGC12381 (aka Y3140), FGC12382, and FGC12383. These FGC SNPs were no longer novel to Hg01777, and became new terminal SNPs that we both shared.

In Dec 2014, kit# 268283 BigY results came in and he was the first person to match my father's previously novel SNPs FGC12401 (aka Y9080), FGC12402, FGC12403, FGC12404, FGC12405. These FGC SNPs were no longer novel to my father, but were now the new terminal SNPs for our new branch.

So in the above example, FGC12378 et al are still Hg01777's current terminal SNPs (he hasn't had any futher matches with his current list of novel SNPs), but they are no longer my father's current terminal SNPs.

In Nov 2015 Kit# 268283 had one of his novel SNPs match the BigY results of kit# E14371. This SNP, Y19291, is now their new terminal SNP/branch.

This may help visualize the above https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y3140/

RobertCasey
04-18-2016, 01:19 AM
When I first ordered my 67 markers on November 18, 2006, my first terminal YSNP was R-M269. Yes that is right, we had my narrowed down my connections to only 75 % of Irish people. At this time, M222 was listed as brother to U106. In 2008, P312 and L21 were discovered and when I ordered my "Deep Clade" test on 1/9/2010, I confirmed my new terminal SNP, L21. Then later in 2010, Dennis Wright and others sponsored a "Walk The Y" which discovered L226. This was a huge improvement as this was single YSTR signature YSNP that remains 100 % accurate via prediction even today. But from encouragement from Dennis, went ahead a verified my L226+ status on 4/9/2011. This single signature status was a real breakthrough and got me interested in YSNPs in a big way.

Then $1,325 went to Full Genomes Corporation for Y Elite 1.0 on June 3, 2013 which was the first NGS test under L226. But I had to wait for Big Y to arrive and then in November, 2014, FGC5628 became my terminal SNP (which eliminated around 35 % of L226 from being closely related to me). ISOGG then added FGC5660 above FGC5628 but ISOGG will not add my new terminal YSNP FGC5659 which covers only around 35 % of L226 since it is an insert-delete. Recently, I convinced a close relative to test one of my private YSNPs and I now have a new terminal SNP, FGC5639. This terminal YSNP is a genealogical YSNP that is around 1,000 years old (when the Casey surname originated) and only has Casey individuals testing positive to date (along with two obvious NPEs of Casey men that should test positive as well). We now have pending tests for four private YSNPs of mine that will hopefully split the Casey cluster into two branches and create yet another terminal YSNP. I still have twelve more private YSNPs not tested by Big Y that could find even more terminal YSNPs (or another major branch) and four more private YSNPs not tested by Casey testers to date.

TigerMW
04-20-2016, 04:53 PM
Back to the packs. Let's talk about the R1b-P312 SNP Pack. It is a wickedly difficult balancing act.

It could be called (take your pick):

a. R1b-P312 the top-layer and misc. subclades SNP Pack

b. R1b-P312 (xDF27 xL21 xU152) SNP Pack

c. R1b-P312*, DF19, DF99, L238, ZZ38, A9063 subclades SNP Pack

It is loaded with DF19 subclade SNPs, about 80.
It has pretty good coverage for the L238 subclade with about 28 SNPs.
It has coverage for DF99 with 6 SNPs but I think some will say this should be beefed up (Goldenhind?)

This has more in it for the P312* potential people than many know. Razyn, see, I do care about the phylogeny even though others may think this is a "waste of genomic data."

P312 22157311-C-A
CTS12684 28670117-C-T

We may find there are P312+ CTS12684- people or CTS12684+ P312- people.

L238 21253443-A-G
Z2245 07071234-C-A
Z2246 08388960-C-T

We might find which of these three L238 branch marking SNPs came first and last.

L21 15654428-C-G
L459 05275051-C-G
Z245 2200784-C-G
Z290 28632468-G-C

We might find which of these three L21 branch marking SNPs came first and last.

A9063 09464776-A-T

I don't know much about the size of A9063 but it is tested.

ZZ38_1 22452057-T-A

I don't know what to think about the ZZ SNPs, but Alex has this as another subclade of P312 and I'm sure it is. ZZ38_1 seems to work according to FTDNA, ZZ37 no.

DF19 14301499-G-T
Z4161 23783754-T-C
Z8192 23189653-C-T

We might find which of these three DF19 branch marking SNPs came first and last.

U152 and DF27 have no equivalents so for U152, just U152- is all that is needed for P312* status.

DF27, ugh, it causes challenges. DF27 is not in the P312 pack due to problems the technology has with it, but DF27's two big halves are included:

Z195 17922066-G-A

ZZ12_1 19736631-T-C
ZZ12_2 20442843-A-G

DF27 (the SNP itself) apparently is not treated the same as for the R1b-M343 SNP Pack. I don't think. Razyn, do you know? I haven't seen anyone get the part 2 "Sanger Sequencing" DF27 pack for the R1b-P312 Pack, like we do for the R1b-M343 Pack. If people come the R1b-M343 Backbone route DF27 coverage is not an issue.

I requested ZZ11_1 as it covers the ancestor to DF27 and U152 and could minimize the DF27 issue.

ZZ11_1 22286799-C-G (I don't know where ZZ11_2 is or if it exists)

However, I see that ZZ11 must have failed and is not included in the pack. It is in the DYZ19 region. I started a special thread on ZZ11 today.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6965-What-is-ZZ11-and-what-do-we-do-with-it

Perhaps the best news is that when R1b-P312 SNP Pack was released only a dozen or so of it's SNPs were on the FTDNA haplotree. Now 155 of the SNPs in this pack are.

razyn
04-20-2016, 05:12 PM
DF27 apparently is not treated the same as for the R1b-M343 SNP Pack. I don't think. Razyn, do you know? I haven't seen anyone get the part 2 "Sanger Sequencing" DF27 pack for the R1b-P312 Pack, like we do for the R1b-M343 Pack.
I don't think the need is felt. Even I don't feel it, really. Once the pack has tested Z195, and ZZ12 two ways, it seems to catch everybody we know to look for, who is DF27+.

GoldenHind
04-20-2016, 11:45 PM
Back to the packs. Let's talk about the R1b-P312 SNP Pack. It is a wickedly difficult balancing act.

It could be called (take your pick):

a. R1b-P312 the top-layer and misc. subclades SNP Pack

b. R1b-P312 (xDF27 xL21 xU152) SNP Pack

c. R1b-P312*, DF19, DF99, L238, ZZ38, A9063 subclades SNP Pack

It is loaded with DF19 subclade SNPs, about 80.
It has pretty good coverage for the L238 subclade with about 28 SNPs.
It has coverage for DF99 with 6 SNPs but I think some will say this should be beefed up (Goldenhind?)

This has more in it for the P312* potential people than many know. Razyn, see, I do care about the phylogeny even though others may think this is a "waste of genomic data."

P312 22157311-C-A
CTS12684 28670117-C-T

We may find there are P312+ CTS12684- people or CTS12684+ P312- people.

L238 21253443-A-G
Z2245 07071234-C-A
Z2246 08388960-C-T

We might find which of these three L238 branch marking SNPs came first and last.

L21 15654428-C-G
L459 05275051-C-G
Z245 2200784-C-G
Z290 28632468-G-C

We might find which of these three L21 branch marking SNPs came first and last.

A9063 09464776-A-T

I don't know much about the size of A9063 but it is tested.

ZZ38_1 22452057-T-A

I don't know what to think about the ZZ SNPs, but Alex has this as another subclade of P312 and I'm sure it is. ZZ38_1 seems to work according to FTDNA, ZZ37 no.

DF19 14301499-G-T
Z4161 23783754-T-C
Z8192 23189653-C-T

We might find which of these three DF19 branch marking SNPs came first and last.

U152 and DF27 have no equivalents so for U152, just U152- is all that is needed for P312* status.

DF27, ugh, it causes challenges. DF27 is not in the P312 pack due to problems the technology has with it, but DF27's two big halves are included:

Z195 17922066-G-A

ZZ12_1 19736631-T-C
ZZ12_2 20442843-A-G

DF27 (the SNP itself) apparently is not treated the same as for the R1b-M343 SNP Pack. I don't think. Razyn, do you know? I haven't seen anyone get the part 2 "Sanger Sequencing" DF27 pack for the R1b-P312 Pack, like we do for the R1b-M343 Pack. If people come the R1b-M343 Backbone route DF27 coverage is not an issue.

I requested ZZ11_1 as it covers the ancestor to DF27 and U152 and could minimize the DF27 issue.

ZZ11_1 22286799-C-G (I don't know where ZZ11_2 is or if it exists)

However, I see that ZZ11 must have failed and is not included in the pack. It is in the DYZ19 region. I started a special thread on ZZ11 today.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6965-What-is-ZZ11-and-what-do-we-do-with-it

Perhaps the best news is that when R1b-P312 SNP Pack was released only a dozen or so of it's SNPs were on the FTDNA haplotree. Now 155 of the SNPs in this pack are.

If there was truth in advertising, it should be called the DF19 and L238 pack, with a few bones for everyone else.

I think the DF19 SNPs ought to be split off into a separate pack which could be accurately be entitled the DF19 pack. The same could be done with L238, or the two could be combined into a joint DF19/L238 pack.

That would allow the creation of a separate pack which could actually incorporate more than a pitiful handfull of DF99 SNPs. Currently I am hesitant to recommend the P312 pack to DF99 men, as they are only likely to get one or two SNPs from it, and they can now order most of them a la carte anyway. It's not good value for the money. The DF99 SNPs could be combined with those relevant to what is generally considered P312*. According to Alex, ZZ37 and ZZ38 are extremely important to the P312* group. They unite L624, S27900 and even a few Z39300. S27900 is extremely important in Wales and likely to be quite large. L624 is important in Scotland. Because they have been largely ignored (except by BritainsDNA), we have no idea whether they have a presence on the continent or not. Nor do we know if ZZ37/38 will also encompass a good portion of those who still retain the P312** classification. Alex has found an enormous number of SNPs beneath both S27900 and L624. Since ZZ38 and ZZ37 appear to be phylogentically equivalent and ZZ37 apparently is working, they should just go with the former. along with at least some of what appear to be their important downstream SNPs.

TigerMW
05-06-2016, 01:51 PM
... The DF99 SNPs could be combined with those relevant to what is generally considered P312*. ....
What are the DF99 SNPs that need to be added?

I think this is what is in the pack:

DF99 08829491-C-A Z6001/S11987
FGC16982 17688792-G-T Y5049
S16136 14539162-G-A
FGC16979 17879816-A-G Y5046
FGC847 14008320-G-C Y2833
BY3449 17283677-G-A
BY3447 02712571-C-T

The following are on my chart as equivalents to others above and are in CombBed regions (which are usually safe):

S23540 21783578-A-C
BY3450 18865575-A-G
17473973-G-A
17942775-A-G
18602764-T-A
19141185-C-G
22826458-T-G

Here are additional equivalents that I have but the regions aren't necessarily great:

Z29643 04404325-G-A
FGC16988 04585565-A-G
FGC17033 24141718-G-A
FGC17038 04686465-CG-TC
FGC16981 21501541-G-C Y5047
FGC16983 23171645-G-C Y5048
FGC16995 05811497-C-T
FGC846 04199952-T-C Y2834
24869693-A-T
26715391-T-C

GoldenHind
05-07-2016, 12:50 AM
What are the DF99 SNPs that need to be added?

I think this is what is in the pack:

DF99 08829491-C-A Z6001/S11987
FGC16982 17688792-G-T Y5049
S16136 14539162-G-A
FGC16979 17879816-A-G Y5046
FGC847 14008320-G-C Y2833
BY3449 17283677-G-A
BY3447 02712571-C-T

The following are on my chart as equivalents to others above and are in CombBed regions (which are usually safe):

S23540 21783578-A-C
BY3450 18865575-A-G
17473973-G-A
17942775-A-G
18602764-T-A
19141185-C-G
22826458-T-G

Here are additional equivalents that I have but the regions aren't necessarily great:

Z29643 04404325-G-A
FGC16988 04585565-A-G
FGC17033 24141718-G-A
FGC17038 04686465-CG-TC
FGC16981 21501541-G-C Y5047
FGC16983 23171645-G-C Y5048
FGC16995 05811497-C-T
FGC846 04199952-T-C Y2834
24869693-A-T
26715391-T-C

One problem is that we don't have sufficient samples to know which of the SNPs that appear in equivalent blocks on Alex's DF99 tree are truly phylogenetically equivalent, and which will result in important divisions. I hope this will change as we get more DF99 Big Y tests. I know of two that are currently pending and others who are considering it.

Most of the blocks on Alex's tree, with one exception, have at least one SNP included in the P312 pack. The one exception is the block headed by FGC864 (14209332G>C), not to be confused with FGC846. This block contains a further six SNPs as well. We know that this block of SNPs divides the FGC847 subclade in two. One of the DF99 project members has already been forced to turn to YSEQ to have it tested because FTDNA doesn't offer it. Neither FGC864 or any of the other 6 SNPs in that block (FGC 858, 867, 877, 881, 889, and 890) are mentioned on your list above. If FGC864 is problematic, surely one of the other six would work. I can provide position and mutation information if you want.

I also think S23540 from your CombBed list above may be significant. As the S designation suggests, it was used by BritainsDNA in their Chromo2 test. It appears on Alex's chart in the same block as their other SNP S16136, but I believe one is upstream from the other and that they aren't equivalent. Unfortunately I have conflicting information which of the two is upstream from the other.

TigerMW
05-11-2016, 09:46 PM
FTDNA is expanding their R1b-L21 pack portfolio slightly this month (they say). Greg H is posting about it elsewhere but I'll summarize here.

R1b-Z253 Pack will be refreshed to V2. In fact, it is already updated.

There are two new packs coming that fall under Z253's branching.

R1b-L226 Pack which aligns with the Irish III haplotype modal.

R1b-Z2185 & L1066 Pack which aligns with the Irish IV haplotype modal plus the L1066- branches of Z2185.

Essentially, the Z253 Pack is the R1b-Z253 (xZ2185 xL226) Pack. If a person is R-Z253 and that's all they know the Z253 pack is still good as the individual SNPs Z2185 and L226 are included in it. However, if you think you are Z2185+ or L226+ do to your matches or whatever you might strongly consider skipping to the appropriate pack.

This is one area where the coverage strategy seems to be working. Z253, Z2185 and L226 (I believe) are all in the L21 top-layer pack, the P312 top-layer & DF19, DF99, L238 pack and the M343 Backbone Pack.

Also under L21, the R1b-CTS4466 (Irish II/South) Pack has been refreshed. James K is posting about it under that section of the forum.

RobertCasey
05-12-2016, 06:20 AM
Essentially, the Z253 Pack is the R1b-Z253 (xZ2185 xL226) Pack. If a person is R-Z253 and that's all they know the Z253 pack is still good as the individual SNPs Z2185 and L226 are included in it. However, if you think you are Z2185+ or L226+ do to your matches or whatever you might strongly consider skipping to the appropriate pack.

You can verify if you are L226 by using my L21 YSNP predictor if you have 67 markers. The requirement for testing positive for L21 is no longer required as I have recently verified that any R-M269 predicted submission has been verified not to affect the accuracy of prediction of L226 only. Also, any R haplogroup can now use this test for L226 only. There is one minor adjustment though for R1a which has some minor convergence with L226. However, the genetic distance for R1a submissions is always over 20 and can be manually eliminated.

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L21/SNP_Predictor/index.php

TigerMW
05-13-2016, 12:22 PM
You can verify if you are L226 by using my L21 YSNP predictor if you have 67 markers. The requirement for testing positive for L21 is no longer required as I have recently verified that any R-M269 predicted submission has been verified not to affect the accuracy of prediction of L226 only. Also, any R haplogroup can now use this test for L226 only. There is one minor adjustment though for R1a which has some minor convergence with L226. However, the genetic distance for R1a submissions is always over 20 and can be manually eliminated.

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L21/SNP_Predictor/index.php

I agree with the STR signature concept and I think that is worked in to your methodology. I get a little nervous that people use tools like this without doing the additional due diligence like checking matches. I'm also a little nervous that predictor tools can keep up with the tree but for Bronze and Iron Age branching and pack selection this should not be a problem.

Last year, I started to recommend* people get to 67 or 111 STRs first before jumping in the SNP testing as this might set them on a path like the STR based predictors that can be helpful.

The intended coverage strategy and modularity in packs is intended to support STR signature so STRs can be leveraged.

However, everyone has different risks tolerances and budgetary considerations, a safe approach for those who are R-M269 predicted is taking the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack first. This test is a little cheaper (FTDNA seems to like it) than their other packs and includes L226 in it.

* I still think NGS is best if one can afford it.

TigerMW
06-24-2016, 09:13 PM
FTDNA put out some additional SNP packs for R1b-U152 subclades. The line-up now looks like:

R1b-U152 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-Z43 (~Z56)

R1b-L2 (xZ367 xZ49) top-layer and misc subclades
R1b-Z367
R1b-Z49

I have not looked at these closely yet but I think this means there are two more packs come and then U152 will have coverage of all major branches.

Celt_??
07-11-2016, 12:43 AM
@Mikewww - I ordered the R1b-Z367 SNP Pack two weeks ago. Is there a predictable turnaround time for new SNAP Packs? Or does FTDNA need to wait until they have a minimum number of these Packs ordered to begin the testing? I appreciate your response.

TigerMW
07-11-2016, 12:38 PM
@Mikewww - I ordered the R1b-Z367 SNP Pack two weeks ago. Is there a predictable turnaround time for new SNAP Packs? Or does FTDNA need to wait until they have a minimum number of these Packs ordered to begin the testing? I appreciate your response.
This is anecdotal. I checked the most recent two SNP pack results completed in a smaller project I administrator. These pack results came in on July 7th. One of them one ordered on May 12th and the other ordered May 21st.

I suspect that FTDNA accumulates these orders into to batches and then releases a batch for testing. It looks like 6-8 weeks is not an unreasonable expectation but if your pack is a brand new pack that may change things in case they need reruns.

jbarry6899
07-11-2016, 01:16 PM
I suspect that FTDNA accumulates these orders into to batches and then releases a batch for testing. It looks like 6-8 weeks is not an unreasonable expectation but if your pack is a brand new pack that may change things in case they need reruns.

We recently had an M343 pack for a project member come back in 3 weeks. On the other hand, some of the newly identified individual SNPs are taking 8-12 weeks, possibly because they had to develop individual primers.

TigerMW
07-11-2016, 04:34 PM
Please ignore - wrong topic.

TigerMW
07-29-2016, 08:10 PM
I moved a number of people to subgroups in the R1b project today. We even had a couple of V88 guys to move this time. U152 definitely had a pickup as U152 and L2 SNP Pack results have come in the last couple of weeks.

MitchellSince1893
07-29-2016, 09:40 PM
I moved a number of people to subgroups in the R1b project today. We even had a couple of V88 guys to move this time. U152 definitely had a pickup as U152 and L2 SNP Pack results have come in the last couple of weeks.

I saw on the U152 FTDNA project page where the first Z49 SNP pack results are starting to come out.

Cofgene
07-30-2016, 04:53 PM
Under U106 the Z326 and L47 v2 revisions have been submitted to FTDNA. The Z8 pack v2 revision will be submitted within a couple of days. Overall these packs will have about 30-40% more total SNPs for the same testing price level. Basically we are getting them updated to reflect the haplogroups that were identified through June 2016. Revisions to the Z156 pack are still being worked on as we are constrained by space/slots for that panel.

Note that I'm seeing an increasing number of individuals who are NOT providing access to their BigY VCF/BED files for formal analysis. It is a pain to reconstruct some of these missing results to identify new haplogroup nodes that FTDNA then confirms. This process is slowing down clade identification and we are missing out on identifying useful variants such as INDELs.

TigerMW
07-31-2016, 04:33 PM
Under U106 the Z326 and L47 v2 revisions have been submitted to FTDNA. The Z8 pack v2 revision will be submitted within a couple of days. Overall these packs will have about 30-40% more total SNPs for the same testing price level. Basically we are getting them updated to reflect the haplogroups that were identified through June 2016. Revisions to the Z156 pack are still being worked on as we are constrained by space/slots for that panel.

Note that I'm seeing an increasing number of individuals who are NOT providing access to their BigY VCF/BED files for formal analysis. It is a pain to reconstruct some of these missing results to identify new haplogroup nodes that FTDNA then confirms. This process is slowing down clade identification and we are missing out on identifying useful variants such as INDELs.
If the Z156 Pack is bumping maximums please consider splitting it now. It may be inevitable. This has been done in other haplogroups. For example, the old Z253 Pack under L21 is now three packs. I have been surprised by their willingness to specialize. There is even the equivalent of a "Clan Irwin" Pack now.

If you do plan any new packs please let me know. It is important to make sure new packs are covered in the R1b-M343 Backbone Pack.

Cofgene
07-31-2016, 06:39 PM
If the Z156 Pack is bumping maximums please consider splitting it now. It may be inevitable. This has been done in other haplogroups. For example, the old Z253 Pack under L21 is now three packs. I have been surprised by their willingness to specialize. There is even the equivalent of a "Clan Irwin" Pack now.

If you do plan any new packs please let me know. It is important to make sure new packs are covered in the R1b-M343 Backbone Pack.


Work on Charles M. about splitting it. I am for the concept of splitting that pack but have been out voted. One technical problem with splitting Z156 is that it becomes dicier to provide a STR-to-pack prediction. Getting individuals to test a leader SNP or two before ordering a pack is tough to do. A natural break would DF96 and DF98 centric with the smaller pack picking up the other 6 branches under Z156.

TigerMW
08-18-2016, 08:28 PM
I've got an email notice that the R1b-Z2185 SNP Pack is out. To be honest, I thought it was already out. I may have been confusing it with the R1b-Z253 v2 SNP Pack. That would have more top-layer and misc. subclades SNPs since the Z2185 subclade is being separated.

This Z2185 Pack is right on for people with Irish IV type STR signatures.

TigerMW
09-07-2016, 10:01 PM
I've got an email notice that the R1b-Z2185 SNP Pack is out. To be honest, I thought it was already out. I may have been confusing it with the R1b-Z253 v2 SNP Pack. That would have more top-layer and misc. subclades SNPs since the Z2185 subclade is being separated.

This Z2185 Pack is right on for people with Irish IV type STR signatures.

The R1b-L226 SNP Pack is out now too. It is targeted for Irish III STR haplotype people. There are a lot of "DC" SNPs in this one. I'm NOT familiar with this tree but I'll try to figure it out.

TigerMW
09-07-2016, 10:02 PM
The R1b-Z36 SNP Pack is now out so U152 is inching closer to full coverage.

emmental
09-07-2016, 11:15 PM
The R1b-Z36 SNP Pack is now out so U152 is inching closer to full coverage.

I just ordered the Z36 pack. I was extremely happy to see that there are 13 SNPs from my FGC test. :)

TigerMW
09-08-2016, 01:21 PM
I just order the Z36 pack. I was extremely happy to see that there are 13 SNPs from my FGC test. :)
I do the same thing. I have an NGS test. I just order the pack to make sure my SNPs are working right.
:)

TigerMW
09-08-2016, 01:25 PM
You can see all the SNP Packs for any haplogroup if you log into myFTDNA and go to ORDERS, then ADVANCED TESTS/BUY NOW, then SELECT A PRODUCT/SNP PACK. If you click on any pack a list of SNPs drops out.

However, that is all arranged alphabetically and has no summary descriptions, which I think are needed and have asked FTDNA to provide.

I keep the list of Packs for R1b updated by major subclade on the FAQ page of the R1b project.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/faq#/FPACKS

------------------------------------------
R1b-M343 Backbone (bridge to below packs as well as backbone SNPs)

R1b-Z2103 (old L23* or Armenian Haplotype) [Subgroup B. Z2103+ R1b-M343>L278/P25>L389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103]
R1b-P312 top-layer and misc (with DF19,L238,DF99 focus) [Subgroup P. P312+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312 (includes DF19,L238,DF99)]

R1b-DF27 support [Subgroup Pd. DF27+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>DF27 & Subclades]
R1b-DF27 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to Z198 and Z209)
R1b-Z198 (SRY2627 & L165)
R1b-Z209 (North-South Cluster & Basque M153)

R1b-L21 support [Subgroup Pl. L21+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>L21 & Subclades]
R1b-L21 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-CTS4466 (Irish II/South)
R1b-DF21 pack to come <--- expected soon
R1b-DF41
R1b-DF49 (xM222 but bridges to M222)
R1b-L1065 (Scots Modal & most L1335 people)
R1b-L226 (Irish III) <----- new!
R1b-L555 (Clan Irwin under Z251)
R1b-L513 (11-13 Combo)
R1b-M222 (Northwest Irish)
R1b-Z246 (includes DF25, DF5)
R1b-Z253 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to L226 & Z2185)
R1b-Z2185 (L1066/Irish IV) <---- new!
R1b-Z255 (L159.2/Irish Sea/Leinster)
R1b-Z3000 (Clan Colla)

R1b-U152 support [Subgroup Pu. U152+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>U152 & Subclades]
R1b-U152 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-Z36 <---- new!
R1b-Z43 (~Z56)
R1b-L2 (xZ367 xZ49) top-layer and misc subclades
R1b-Z367
R1b-Z49
R1b-Z92 pack <--- expected soon

R1b-U106 support [Subgroup U. U106+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>U106 & Subclades]
R1b-U106 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-L47
R1b-L48 (xL47 xZ8 xZ326)
R1b-Z8
R1b-Z18
R1b-Z156
R1b-Z326

Kråke
09-09-2016, 06:13 AM
Thanks Mikewww for the job with the SNP-packs! A little question:
I have haplogroup R1b-A7967 ( in the U152 project) and I have done the Big Y. A relative of mine has been through testing SNPs and Y67 received hablogrupp R1b-Z36. There are distance two between me and my relative at Y67 and we are positioned both R1b- A7967 in the U152 project. Should my relative order the new SNP Pack Z36. If he does this. Is there an opportunity to get further out of the tree? Or must he make a BigY?

Kråke
09-09-2016, 04:44 PM
I have ordered the Z36 Pack for the relative so I have to wait and see

TigerMW
09-09-2016, 07:18 PM
Thanks Mikewww for the job with the SNP-packs! A little question:
I have haplogroup R1b-A7967 ( in the U152 project) and I have done the Big Y. A relative of mine has been through testing SNPs and Y67 received hablogrupp R1b-Z36. There are distance two between me and my relative at Y67 and we are positioned both R1b- A7967 in the U152 project. Should my relative order the new SNP Pack Z36. If he does this. Is there an opportunity to get further out of the tree? Or must he make a BigY?

How distant is this relative? If he is quite distant or the genealogical record is a little unsure it would be good to take Big Y. I see A7967 is estimated to be 3600 years old. This relative would give you the line of SNPs from A7967 to your MRCA with the relative. You would be putting a new subclade on the board.

Kråke
09-10-2016, 04:20 PM
He is about 4th cousin.

TigerMW
09-27-2016, 11:49 AM
Things are little slow here. I'll post an update on a study I found recently on the SNP Pack testing equipment - the Agena MassARRAY. This is not the old-style microarray but a modern Mass-Spectrometry (MS) based system.

Here is the primary conclusion of this study for medical applications,
"Mutational analysis by MS is a reliable method for routine diagnostic use, which can be easily extended for testing of additional mutations."

We can now see why FTDNA chose this system. They are a high volume lab and so the investment in this equipment produces a cost effective method.
"In the authors opinion MALDI MS is the most cost effective method to detect clinically relevant mutations in CRC. Since it is an open platform more mutational hotspots for testing may be easily added. However, this holds only true for high throughput laboratories."

"Detection of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF by mass spectrometry - a sensitive, reliable, fast and cost-effective technique", Kriegsmann, et. al., 2015.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280588075_Detection_of_KRAS_NRAS_and_BRAF_by_mass_ spectrometry_-_a_sensitive_reliable_fast_and_cost-effective_technique

TigerMW
10-06-2016, 12:27 AM
I believe these were just announced today. I see three new SNP Packs for R1b... DF63 and FGC5494 under L21 and Z192 under U152. I think this gets us full coverage of U152.

You can see all the SNP Packs for any haplogroup if you log into myFTDNA and go to ORDERS, then ADVANCED TESTS/BUY NOW, then SELECT A PRODUCT/SNP PACK. If you click on any pack a list of SNPs drops out.

However, that is all arranged alphabetically and has no summary descriptions, which I think are needed and have asked FTDNA to provide.

I keep the list of Packs for R1b updated by major subclade on the FAQ page of the R1b project.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/faq#/FPACKS


R1b-M343 Backbone (bridge to below packs as well as backbone SNPs)

R1b-Z2103 (old L23* or Armenian Haplotype) [Subgroup B. Z2103+ R1b-M343>L278/P25>L389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103]
R1b-P312 top-layer and misc (with DF19,L238,DF99 focus) [Subgroup P. P312+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312 (includes DF19,L238,DF99)]

R1b-DF27 support [Subgroup Pd. DF27+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>DF27 & Subclades]
R1b-DF27 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to Z198 and Z209)
R1b-Z198 (SRY2627 & L165)
R1b-Z209 (North-South Cluster & Basque M153)

R1b-L21 support [Subgroup Pl. L21+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>L21 & Subclades]
R1b-L21 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-CTS4466 (Irish II/South)
R1b-DF21 pack to come <--- expected soon
R1b-DF41
R1b-DF63 <----- new!
R1b-DF49 (xM222 but bridges to M222)
R1b-FGC5494 <----- new!
R1b-L1065 (Scots Modal & most L1335 people)
R1b-L226 (Irish III)
R1b-L555 (Clan Irwin under Z251)
R1b-L513 (11-13 Combo)
R1b-M222 (Northwest Irish)
R1b-Z246 (includes DF25, DF5)
R1b-Z253 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to L226 & Z2185)
R1b-Z2185 (L1066/Irish IV)
R1b-Z255 (L159.2/Irish Sea/Leinster)
R1b-Z3000 (Clan Colla)

R1b-U152 support [Subgroup Pu. U152+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>U152 & Subclades]
R1b-U152 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-Z36
R1b-Z43 (~Z56)
R1b-L2 (xZ367 xZ49) top-layer and misc subclades
R1b-Z367
R1b-Z49
R1b-Z192 <----- new!

R1b-U106 support [Subgroup U. U106+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>U106 & Subclades]
R1b-U106 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-L47
R1b-L48 (xL47 xZ8 xZ326)
R1b-Z8
R1b-Z18
R1b-Z156
R1b-Z326

TigerMW
10-14-2016, 09:23 PM
I believe these were just announced today. I see three new SNP Packs for R1b... DF63 and FGC5494 under L21 and Z192 under U152. I think this gets us full coverage of U152....
There were couple more SNP Packs released today. R1b-DF21 and R1b-Z251 are both under L21. The R1b-DF21 SNP Pack should be seen as a DF21 top-layer and misc subclades pack. Subclades like P314 and S5456 get good coverage as well as the top of DF21.
The Z251 pack is a great fit for Z251 anything, although if you are a Clan Irwin person you should be looking at their specialized pack.

R1b-M343 Backbone (bridge to below packs as well as backbone SNPs)

R1b-Z2103 (old L23* or Armenian Haplotype) [Subgroup B. Z2103+ R1b-M343>L278/P25>L389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103]
R1b-P312 top-layer and misc (with DF19,L238,DF99 focus) [Subgroup P. P312+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312 (includes DF19,L238,DF99)]

R1b-DF27 support [Subgroup Pd. DF27+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>DF27 & Subclades]
R1b-DF27 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to Z198 and Z209)
R1b-Z198 (SRY2627 & L165)
R1b-Z209 (North-South Cluster & Basque M153)

R1b-L21 support [Subgroup Pl. L21+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>L21 & Subclades]
R1b-L21 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-CTS4466 (Irish II/South)
R1b-DF21 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to Z246 & Z3000) <---- new!
R1b-DF41
R1b-DF49 (xM222 but bridges to M222)
R1b-DF63 <---- new!
R1b-FGC5494 <---- new!
R1b-L1065 (Scots Modal & most L1335 people)
R1b-L226 (Irish III)
R1b-L555 (Clan Irwin under Z251)
R1b-L513 (11-13 Combo)
R1b-M222 (Northwest Irish)
R1b-Z246 (includes DF25, DF5)
R1b-Z251 <---- new!
R1b-Z253 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to L226 & Z2185)
R1b-Z2185 (L1066/Irish IV)
R1b-Z255 (L159.2/Irish Sea/Leinster)
R1b-Z3000 (Clan Colla)

R1b-U152 support [Subgroup Pu. U152+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>U152 & Subclades]
R1b-U152 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-Z36 <---- new!
R1b-Z43 (~Z56)
R1b-L2 (xZ367 xZ49) top-layer and misc subclades
R1b-Z367
R1b-Z49
R1b-Z192 <---- new!

R1b-U106 support [Subgroup U. U106+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>U106 & Subclades]
R1b-U106 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-L47
R1b-L48 (xL47 xZ8 xZ326)
R1b-Z8
R1b-Z18
R1b-Z156
R1b-Z326

TigerMW
10-16-2016, 11:34 PM
I agree with almost everything in your post but there is one additional factor that I would add. The numbers of equivalents are very high (I have not confirmd 6.3 but that is reasonable). However, there is a huge variation between YSNPs that have genetic bottlenecks (with large numbers of equivalent YSNPs) and the more recent YSNPs. From Alex's chart (which does track fairly well), M222 and L1335/L1065 have 45 equivalent YSNPs, L555 has 38, L720 has 30, L226 has 25 and L193 has 9. If you filter out all the largest 50 branches, the average would drop to two or three equivalents per branch (with lots of variation within this grouping as well).

I also agree that there are lot of missing equivalent YSNPs that FTDNA and admins submitting changes just have not had enough time to add these equivalents. However, I do not think the value of equivalent YSNPs warrants inclusion priority over private YSNPs in SNP packs. We already have discovered four branches with the 50 private YSNPs in the L226 SNP pack and no branches from 50 equivalents with the first 25 Mass Array L226 SNP test results. We have already had 50 NGS tests where these equivalent YSNPs have remained YSNP equivalents. I think that we would have eight branches if 100 private YSNPs were included instead. NGS tests is really a preferred way to convert equivalent branches into haplotree branches.

If you only include the top 10 % of highest numbers of YSNPs with equivalents, your number would probably double or triple as the point I think that you were making is that there are a lot of older YSNPs where there huge numbers of equivalent YSNPs. For these older YSNPs, there are not enough private YSNPs remaining and equivalents would have a much higher odds of discovering a new branch. I really do not want to repeat the L459 and Z260 funds that could have been directed to more Walk the Ys. Equivalents do yield some new branches, but we should favor private YSNPs over equivalent YSNPs for younger YSNPs. For SNP packs that cover older YSNP branches, a liberal usage equivalents make more sense.

I want to re-iterate that I truly respect your intellect and your thinking Robert. I don't always agree, but as I think you've noted we probably agree on about 85 or 90% of the stuff. The amount agreement or disagreement does not matter anyway. Your intelligent approaches are always food for thought.

Your thinking on the use of fixed/targeted SNP testing is very pertinent. There are trade-offs between trying to bust phylogenetic equivalent blocks and more youthful, even singleton SNPs (one individual only). My general answer is probably one you've thought or heard often from the I/T world - it depends.

I need to collect my thoughts and post again, but I think it matters what the Genetic Distances in matching databases to NGS testers are. I don't see the usefulness of testing for singleton SNPs for someone who no one is closely related to.

On the other hand, I don't see the usefulness of testing a phylogenetic block out when it is has been tested 500 times. If it is lightly tested that is another story but what is the citeria for lightly tested and giving up on breaking a phylogenetic block? Is it 50? or is 100? or 200? or is it 20? I don't think it is 20 and I don't think we need 500.

The other aspect of this is where to place in (which) testing packages the phylogenetic equivalents. An example might be L459. Everyone that we know who is L21+ is L459+. What about all P312+ L21- people? Perhaps they should test for L459.

Cofgene
10-17-2016, 10:32 AM
[QUOTE=Mikewww;192856

Your thinking on the use of fixed/targeted SNP testing is very pertinent. There are trade-offs between trying to bust phylogenetic equivalent blocks and more youthful, even singleton SNPs (one individual only). My general answer is probably one you've thought or heard often from the I/T world - it depends.

....

On the other hand, I don't see the usefulness of testing a phylogenetic block out when it is has been tested 500 times. If it is lightly tested that is another story but what is the citeria for lightly tested and giving up on breaking a phylogenetic block? Is it 50? or is 100? or 200? or is it 20? I don't think it is 20 and I don't think we need 500.

[/QUOTE]

Busting a block is needed if there are more than 3 downstream branches. Retesting some of the ones present in a block does become an exercise in futility. Instead of retesting one needs to push for higher coverage WGS results to identify the variants that results, such as BigY, don't report on.

TigerMW
10-18-2016, 05:48 PM
Busting a block is needed if there are more than 3 downstream branches. Retesting some of the ones present in a block does become an exercise in futility. Instead of retesting one needs to push for higher coverage WGS results to identify the variants that results, such as BigY, don't report on.
Why the rule on not busting blocks if not more than 3 downstream branches?
An excellent counter is the case of a block of youthful SNPs from 2 NGS testers in a large surname group. There would be no downstream public branches in such a scenario and may never be particularly if the two NGS testers were cousins.

I don't see this as "either or" decision-making. There are some people, many, who will not pay more than a $150 for a test. NGS testing is always better for people who an afford it.

TigerMW
01-03-2017, 08:44 PM
There is an R1b-L51 (xP312 xU106) SNP Pack out now. I posted a thread over in the R1b early subclades category. I think some of the R1b basal project folks have worked very hard on their tree and with the haplotree guy at FTDNA to see some good things come out. I need to try to catch up with them.

TigerMW
01-04-2017, 05:19 AM
It's been a long time coming but FTDNA's SNP Pack coverage of R1b is fairly decent now. You can see and read more about this at the R1b project FAQ web page under the question "What are SNP Packs and which should I consider?". Just click on that question.
https://www.familytreedna.com/ groups/r-1b/faq#/FPACKS

I count 45 SNP Packs for R1b. At an average of about 135-140 SNPs per pack that means there are over 6,000 SNPs at less than a dollar per SNP. Packs are all in one fell swoop packages so everyone who takes a pack gets tested for everything in the pack, which provides tree, SNP and test cross-validation.

These are fixed sets of SNPs that need to be updated periodically but my understanding of FTDNA's intent is:

1) Cover every public haplogroup within R1b and support updating testers' haplogroup labels to a youthful haplogroup.

2) Enable any R1b (R-M269, etc.) predicted individual to get to their most youthful haplogroup in one or two SNP Pack tests. (This means that top-layer packs have pointers to youthful subclade packs but I think there are one or two holes to be fixed.)

3) Exploit STR signatures to support SNP Pack design but next step recommendations (from FTDNA) are conservative, based only on SNP testing.

4) Continue to grow the SNP Packs to support more and more genealogical timeframe SNPs, including multiple SNPs per surname.

R1b-M343 Backbone (bridge to below packs as well as backbone SNPs)

R1b-Z2103 (old L23* or Armenian Haplotype) [Subgroup B. Z2103+ R1b-M343>L278/P25>L389>P297> M269>L23>Z2103]
R1b-L51 (L23+ L51+ P312- U106-) [Subgroup L. L51+ R1b-L51>L278/P25>L389>P297> M269>L23>L51] <---- new!
R1b-P312 top-layer and misc (with DF19,L238,DF99 focus) [Subgroup P. P312+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312 (includes DF19,L238,DF99)]

R1b-DF27 support [Subgroup Pd. DF27+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312> DF27 & Subclades]
R1b-DF27 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to Z198 and Z209)
R1b-Z198 (SRY2627 & L165)
R1b-Z209 (North-South Cluster & Basque M153)

R1b-L21 support [Subgroup Pl. L21+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312>L21 & Subclades]
R1b-L21 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-CTS4466 (Irish II/South)
R1b-DF21 (xZ246 xZ3000 xS3058 xS5488) top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to Z226, Z3000, S3058 & S5488)
R1b-Z246/DF25 (includes DF25, DF5)
R1b-Z3000 (Clan Colla)
R1b-S3058
R1b-S5488 (Ely Carroll, etc.)
R1b-FGC5780 <---- new!
R1b-DF49 (xM222) (bridges to M222)
R1b-M222 (Northwest Irish)
R1b-DF63
R1b-FGC5494
R1b-L1065 (Scots Modal & most L1335 people who are really L1065+)
R1b-L513 (xS5668 xS6365) top-layer and misc subclades (11-13 Combo, bridges to S5668, S6365) <---- new!
R1b-S5668 (xS5982) <---- new!
R1b-S5982&L193 <---- new!
R1b-S6365 <---- new!
R1b-S1051
R1b-Z251
R1b-L555 (Clan Irwin under Z251)
R1b-Z253 (xZ2185 xL226) top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to L226 & Z2185)
R1b-L226 (Irish III)
R1b-Z2185 (L1066/Irish IV)
R1b-Z255 (L159.2/Irish Sea/Leinster)


R1b-U152 support [Subgroup Pu. U152+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>P312> U152 & Subclades]
R1b-U152 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-Z36
R1b-Z43 (~Z56)
R1b-L2 (xZ367 xZ49) top-layer and misc subclades
R1b-Z367
R1b-Z49
R1b-Z192

R1b-U106 support [Subgroup U. U106+ R1b>M269>L23>L51>P311>U106 & Subclades]
R1b-U106 top-layer and misc subclades (bridges to the below)
R1b-L47
R1b-L48 (xL47 xZ8 xZ326)
R1b-Z8
R1b-Z18
R1b-Z326
R1b-Z156

For more info see:
https://www.familytreedna.com/ groups/r-1b/faq#/FPACKS

TigerMW
04-20-2017, 01:14 PM
For the first time, FTDNA is offering SNP Packs on sale. They are $89 rather than $119 so they are $30 off.

The R1b-M343&M269 Backbone Pack is now $79, so it is $20 off its $99 price.

I've got more information on the SNP Packs for R1b at the R1b FAQ project web page under the question "What are SNP Packs?"
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/faq#/FPACKS

The SNP Pack technology (MS or Mass Spectometry) is used reliably in medical applications. The equipment they use is the Agena MassARRAY.

TigerMW
06-29-2017, 05:56 PM
I have heard that an updated R1b-M343 and M269 Backbone Pack will be available soon.

DillonResearcher
06-29-2017, 06:58 PM
I have heard that an updated R1b-M343 and M269 Backbone Pack will be available soon.

Email just received from FTDNA saying that the new pack contains the following SNPs:

M343, L278, P25, PH155, L754, V88, L388, L389, V1636, P297, M73, M269, PF7562, BY1713, BY16680, FGC31923, FGC31929, FGC31939, A11710, A11711, A11712, A15807, A15808, BY16698, BY16699, A15809, BY16690, BY16692, Z29764, Z29766, Z29758, FGC42003, FGC42006, FGC42011, Y31467, Y31468, PH2558, GG445, GG460, L23, L478, PF6404, CTS9416, Z2103, Z2104, Z2105, Z8128, P310, P311, PF6414, PF6535, Y410, L11, L151, L51, U106, U198, Z156, DF96, L48, L47, Z18, P312, CTS12684, L238, DF99, ZZ12_1, FGC20747, FGC20764, ZZ19_1, Z34609, Z195, U152, L2, Z367, Z49, Z43, Z36, Z192, L21, L459, Z245, Z290, Z260, DF63, FGC5494, L555, Z251, S1026, DF25, FGC5780, S1051, CTS4466, Z255, Z16434, ZZ7_1, Z253, Z2185, L226, L513, S5668, S5982, S6365, DF21, S3058, Z3000, M222, DF49, FGC4077, A223, S588, FGC4133, BY16696, A259, A431, BY2285, DF19, DF41, DF85, FGC8739, L1065, M697, PF7559, PF7560, PF7564, PF7566, PF7568, PF7572, PF7573, PH4238, S691, Z16433, Z16437, Z225, Z29765, Z29767, Z29782, Z29799, Z29802, Z326, DF98, PF6289, Z8, Z4161, Z198, Z209, S764, Y31466, Z29784, BY18740

TigerMW
06-29-2017, 07:23 PM
Email just received from FTDNA saying that the new pack contains the following SNPs:

M343, L278, P25, PH155, L754, V88, L388, L389, V1636, P297, M73, M269, PF7562, BY1713, BY16680, FGC31923, FGC31929, FGC31939, A11710, A11711, A11712, A15807, A15808, BY16698, BY16699, A15809, BY16690, BY16692, Z29764, Z29766, Z29758, FGC42003, FGC42006, FGC42011, Y31467, Y31468, PH2558, GG445, GG460, L23, L478, PF6404, CTS9416, Z2103, Z2104, Z2105, Z8128, P310, P311, PF6414, PF6535, Y410, L11, L151, L51, U106, U198, Z156, DF96, L48, L47, Z18, P312, CTS12684, L238, DF99, ZZ12_1, FGC20747, FGC20764, ZZ19_1, Z34609, Z195, U152, L2, Z367, Z49, Z43, Z36, Z192, L21, L459, Z245, Z290, Z260, DF63, FGC5494, L555, Z251, S1026, DF25, FGC5780, S1051, CTS4466, Z255, Z16434, ZZ7_1, Z253, Z2185, L226, L513, S5668, S5982, S6365, DF21, S3058, Z3000, M222, DF49, FGC4077, A223, S588, FGC4133, BY16696, A259, A431, BY2285, DF19, DF41, DF85, FGC8739, L1065, M697, PF7559, PF7560, PF7564, PF7566, PF7568, PF7572, PF7573, PH4238, S691, Z16433, Z16437, Z225, Z29765, Z29767, Z29782, Z29799, Z29802, Z326, DF98, PF6289, Z8, Z4161, Z198, Z209, S764, Y31466, Z29784, BY18740
I just received the notice too. It is $89 for one week before going back to the $99 price.

TigerMW
11-24-2017, 07:25 PM
I have heard that the U106 Project has some new SNP Packs. Does anyone have the specifics?

Wing Genealogist
11-24-2017, 08:33 PM
New SNP Packs for U106:

Z326 broken up into two: Z326xFGC10367 and FGC10367

Z156 broken up into three: Z156xDF98xDF96, D98 and DF96. This last one includes L1/S26 & its subclades.

GoldenHind
11-25-2017, 01:21 AM
I have heard that the U106 Project has some new SNP Packs. Does anyone have the specifics?

Any news on a new P312 SNP Pack? The current one is clearly inadequate, and I have been holding off on advising people to order it until it is replaced.

TigerMW
11-26-2017, 03:26 PM
Any news on a new P312 SNP Pack? The current one is clearly inadequate, and I have been holding off on advising people to order it until it is replaced.
They are working on it and it should help out DF99 and L238 quite a bit.

When we will see something I don’t know.

Jan_Noack
12-12-2017, 05:34 AM
HI,
I'd like advice as to which pack. I'm tossing up between the FTDNA R1b-M343 and M269 Backbone Pack version 2, for my hubbie who tested as likely M269 (R1b(), or
YSEQ's R1b-M343 Orientation Panel $77 together with the $59 all relevant downstream panels tested, which makes it $136 to the newest SNP's available I think?
I gather YSEQ is Sanger and I THINK this means you cannot get false positives, but may still get false negatives? (though I can find nowhere that states the probability of these occurring). I am finding it very difficult to find out what exactly each style of testing means ( I've a science degree, so maybe could understand the info, I just can't find out much about the testing methods). I've been reading from many folk who are stating they have got many no calls on big y, one poor tester getting no further than before they tested!, but many being asked to test SNP packs afterwards as the BigY did not cover their SNP's..so until someone comes up with a Y test that having longer read lengths (at ;east 250bp but preferably 500bp) as well as at least 30X mode testing, I think it's probably better to just get a SNP pack that takes one as far as possible at the current time. Obviously I'd prefer if FTDNA offered this due to the projects, but if it's better at YSEQ...

I gather that at least one company ( I suspect the lot) have been looking at one of those larger NGS style panels with many SNP's that they hope will be one panel fits everyone even if you have no idea who you are..for a long time now.. and It is a good idea, which will be popular if priced cheap enough..it's what I would have liked instead of the STR tests which I find a tad outdated in the science, as they could fit within many differing branches and testing everyone's SNP's will provide more accurate ancestry. The STR tests did help confirm the surname , so it was worth it...but i would have preferred an SNP panel down to the last 500-700 years or so level!(ie surname level)
.
The drawback to all these panels (Mass Array, Sanger or NGS) is , no new "discovery" SNP's , and also possibly no new changes to branch structure with these Y panel tests of various kinds..but they will provide confirmation of "discovered" SNP's, and place more people into the trees already established, provided them with more accurate ancestry and maybe even more modern "cousins". They are of course only really possible as we now do have a fairly stable tree structure..ie the branches are not being discovered to be wrongly placed..otherwise these panels don't work as well..or come up with unexpected results...especially the larger one size fits all panel!

Your valued thoughts please everyone, especially as to YSEQ tests versus FTDNA for R1b

Jan_Noack
12-18-2017, 06:09 AM
I reposted this post under "Commercial testing , other" as I feel this is the wrong thread. I do not know how to delete it, sorry.

TigerMW
01-18-2018, 08:23 PM
Here is the current list of R1b SNP Packs. I am counting 50 in all. I was informed there are more in the works, but that the M343 (xM269) early subclades pack is not available on the Advanced Tests menu right now. You can still order it by contacting Michael Sager. The reason it is not on that menu is the banner positioning for it was wrong on their haplotree so they just pulled it off while they fix it.


R1b - M343&M269v2 Backbone
R1b - M343xM269
R1b - Z2103
R1b - L51xP312xU106
R1b - P312

R1b - L21v2
R1b - CTS4466
R1b - DF21
R1b - S3058
R1b - S5488
R1b - Z246
R1b - FGC5780
R1b - Z3000
R1b - DF41
R1b - DF49xM222
R1b - M222
R1b - DF63
R1b - FGC5494
R1b - L1065
R1b - L513xS5668xS6365
R1b - S5668xS5982
R1b - S5982&L193
R1b - S6365
R1b - S1051
R1b - Z251
R1b - L555
R1b - Z253
R1b - L226
R1b - Z2185
R1b - Z255

R1b - DF27
R1b - Z198
R1b - Z209

R1b - U152
R1b - L2
R1b - Z49
R1b - Z367
R1b - Z36
R1b - Z43
R1b - Z192

R1b - U106xZ18xZ156xL48
R1b - L48xL47xZ8xZ326
R1b - L47
R1b - Z326xFGC10367
R1b - FGC10367
R1b - Z8
R1b - Z156xDF96xDF98
R1b - DF96
R1b - DF98
R1b - Z18

Webb
02-26-2018, 07:20 PM
Here is the current list of R1b SNP Packs. I am counting 50 in all. I was informed there are more in the works, but that the M343 (xM269) early subclades pack is not available on the Advanced Tests menu right now. You can still order it by contacting Michael Sager. The reason it is not on that menu is the banner positioning for it was wrong on their haplotree so they just pulled it off while they fix it.


R1b - M343&M269v2 Backbone
R1b - M343xM269
R1b - Z2103
R1b - L51xP312xU106
R1b - P312

R1b - L21v2
R1b - CTS4466
R1b - DF21
R1b - S3058
R1b - S5488
R1b - Z246
R1b - FGC5780
R1b - Z3000
R1b - DF41
R1b - DF49xM222
R1b - M222
R1b - DF63
R1b - FGC5494
R1b - L1065
R1b - L513xS5668xS6365
R1b - S5668xS5982
R1b - S5982&L193
R1b - S6365
R1b - S1051
R1b - Z251
R1b - L555
R1b - Z253
R1b - L226
R1b - Z2185
R1b - Z255

R1b - DF27
R1b - Z198
R1b - Z209

R1b - U152
R1b - L2
R1b - Z49
R1b - Z367
R1b - Z36
R1b - Z43
R1b - Z192

R1b - U106xZ18xZ156xL48
R1b - L48xL47xZ8xZ326
R1b - L47
R1b - Z326xFGC10367
R1b - FGC10367
R1b - Z8
R1b - Z156xDF96xDF98
R1b - DF96
R1b - DF98
R1b - Z18

Mike, I just noticed I have a Y haplogroup backbone test pending but I didn't order one. Didn't you say something earlier about if you had the Y 111 test and BigY, there was a backbone test ordered? I wanted to check with you before I emailed FTDNA. Thanks, Webb.

TigerMW
03-07-2018, 03:44 AM
Mike, I just noticed I have a Y haplogroup backbone test pending but I didn't order one. Didn't you say something earlier about if you had the Y 111 test and BigY, there was a backbone test ordered? I wanted to check with you before I emailed FTDNA. Thanks, Webb.
There is no charge for that test but it is not really a test. This just means that FTDNA is manually reviewing your results in terms of Y SNPs and branch/haplogroup placement. That's a good thing. If you have Big Y and you see this that means there was a "BAM interpretation" done.

Webb
03-07-2018, 02:16 PM
There is no charge for that test but it is not really a test. This just means that FTDNA is manually reviewing your results in terms of Y SNPs and branch/haplogroup placement. That's a good thing. If you have Big Y and you see this that means there was a "BAM interpretation" done.

Thanks for the response. Yes I had the BigY done several years ago but just recently upgraded to 111 markers.