PDA

View Full Version : Big Y- was it a waste of money?



firemonkey
05-20-2016, 09:08 AM
I am beginning to wonder. It seems that nobody else from my subclade of E-V13 ie E-L17 has tested since I tested nearly 2 years ago.

Ali16
05-20-2016, 09:41 AM
You may be helping science, but yes. All of this is a waste of money.

Afshar
05-20-2016, 09:42 AM
I think the BigY sorts of tests will increase exponentially (Yfull has added a lot this year compared to last year), but I think its still a luck factor that somebody of your branch will test BigY, especially if your hg subclade is almost extinct.

lgmayka
05-20-2016, 09:46 AM
You will need to contact your closest Y-DNA (marker) matches, and suggest that they order the Big Y the next time it goes on sale. You may have to offer to contribute something toward that.

Gravetto-Danubian
05-20-2016, 10:23 AM
I would write to someone from the Italian labs - like Trombetta & Cruciani - emploring them to do some more studies to dissect E V13 in Europe

Worth a try ;)

leonardo
05-20-2016, 11:02 AM
Sorry to hear that. Things have worked well for me. Numerous matches. In combination with YFull, I have a match with the TMRCA at 700 years. Not bad for a y-dna match. Contacting your nearest STR matches sounds like a good start.

A Norfolk L-M20
05-20-2016, 01:48 PM
I'm waiting for my Big Y. In terms of genealogy, no, I don't expect it to provide new ancestors for the tree. Even if it did, any information that they could exchange would have been rather expensive. I've noticed that genetic genealogy is heavily biased to the other side of the Atlantic, and many of their ancestors have been there a long time now.

For myself, testing is more for the long haul. I know that I've chucked far too much money at it, too quickly. I only started testing this year - but by May, I had bought 2 x 23andMe tests, an ftDNA Y111 test, and now a Big Y test. I should maybe have taken my time, waited for others to test first.

However, so far I don't have any regrets. My results will be there hopefully online somewhere or another, to refer to for a long time. As others test, so mine will be there with a pretty good reference. I see it as an investment. My y-DNA isn't likely to change for a long time (except as the ytree changes!). Having a pretty rare haplogroup for NW Europe, and an interesting sub clade, I don't expect to bump into close Y cousins too often. It's a longer term interest. Having said that, my STR results have already provided links to another surname family also in Southern England, suggesting a common Y ancestry.

As more people test, more ancient DNA is published, and the tsunami of ytree growth continues to roll - we got in there early. Others will no doubt benefit from our results in the future, and so might we as we watch the full Y story unfold.

I fancy a better mtDNA test next, maybe test a couple of first cousins .... but I think that can now wait.

RobertCasey
05-20-2016, 02:20 PM
There is no doubt that Big Y tests works extremely well for some, but remains a slow process for others. Here is the ideal scenario where NGS tests work the best:

1) There is no doubt that Americans drive a lot of testing and most of us are primarily from United Kingdom and Ireland. So since the testing is more comprehensive for these geographies, this helps a lot.
2) It really helps to have the synergy of relatively large single signature haplogroup - for me that is L226 with 450 67 marker submissions.
3) It really helps to have one or two key researchers who spend 10 to 20 hours a week helping all the others.
4) It really helps to be Irish or Scottish, since clan names have fewer genetic origins and surname creation is very old.
5) Even within this ideal environment though, it also helps to have enough genetic diversity to separate your surname cluster from others.
6) Even within this ideal environment though, it also helps to no be part of group that produced very few male offspring during the last 1,000 years.
7) Even within this ideal environment though, it also helps if your cousins have actually tested much to date.

For all the others that have less of these ideal parameters, it should be thought as more of an investment in the future. Just because the rate is much slower, progress is being made across the entire YDNA haplotree. When I first ordered my 67 marker test, my known terminal YSNP was R-M269. Oh boy that was real exciting to know that I was European. Then P312 and L21 became my terminal YSNPs, that really narrowed it down to western Europe - not much better. But when L226 was discovered, this was a single signature haplogroup that remains today 100 % predictable at 67 markers. It is tied to only three or four counties in Ireland. So, for those who do match the ideal scenario, you are going to have to be more proactive and patient in building your YDNA database for your part of the haplotree. It will happen, just at a slower pace depending on how many of the above advantages do not apply to your part of the haplotree. There are pockets of L21 that still have only 10 or 15 submissions whereas L226 now has 450 67 marker submissions and 50 NGS tests. Here is a summary of L226 research:

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L226/R_L226_Private.html

Even this ideal environment, we are finding serious bottlenecks:

1) There is a trend of finding the genetic bottleneck of the trunk of this haplogroup. This is where these people rolled the dice and got 2s and 3s resulting in very little divergence in the last 1,400 years. Out of the 26 known branches now under L226, around 30 % of the NGS testers and private YSNPs belong to just three branches along this trunk (FGC5660 > FGC5628 > FGC5659). It will take extensive NGS testing, extensive SNP pack/pack testing, extensive testing of individual YSNP, some higher resolution Full Genomes testing and perhaps a lot of 111 upgrades.
2) There is a huge genetic bottleneck just after the creation of L226 (we almost did not survive the Dark Ages). This is revealed by having 25 equivalents of L226 to date - soon to go to 30 with Full Genomes Corp testing at higher coverage. Even when the signatures are robust in this early branch, there are no matches since these signatures almost did not survive the Dark Ages as well.
3) Even with all the stars aligned together, it appears that Big Y testing and extensive testing of private YSNPs will not be enough to connect all the genealogical lines together. We are already ordering high resolution Full Genomes testing to get more private YSNPs to test. Upgrading to 111 markers will only provide a modest improvement. So the current approach will require even more genetic data to break down genealogical brick walls.
4) It looks like we will have to order 67 markers and add 30 more fast mutating YSTRs to get better resolution. By adding 30 faster mutating markers, we will have to have 5 or 10 tests for each proven ancestors to filter out the massive parallel and backwards mutations. If breaking down genealogical brick walls is your primary goal, the current methodologies do not appear to get us there even for those that have more ideal conditions.

JMcB
05-20-2016, 04:33 PM
I'm actually in the process of considering BigY, but I know going in that it may not bear much fruit, at least initially. Plus, I have to confess that I'm not so sure I'm going to understand much of what it tells me. On the other hand, hopefully with the help of my project administrators and yfull, I'll get a handle on it. Personally, I'm more interested in tracking the migration route of my ancestors, than I am in making genealogical connections. So the question is, does it help me there?

Perhaps it's best to look at it as a long term investment, that will pay off down the road. Plus, I'll find out what my mtDNA haplogroup is and get some more STR information in the process. And it will help out my I1 haplogroup, which doesn't have the same numbers or coverage as R1b.

At this point, as you can probably tell, I'm still thinking about it.

What do you think?

GailT
05-20-2016, 09:17 PM
Perhaps it's best to look at it as a long term investment, that will pay off down the road. Plus, I'll find out what my mtDNA haplogroup is and get some more STR information in the process. And it will help out my I1 haplogroup, which doesn't have the same numbers or coverage as R1b. At this point, as you can probably tell, I'm still thinking about it. What do you think?


The last I heard FTDNA was removing the mtDNA results from the BigY test results, so you might not get mtDNA with the BigY. Also, you'll very likely need to pay FGS or Yfull to analyse the BigY results. The Y-prime test with FGS is appealing because it includes mtDNA results, includes interpretation of the Y SNP results, and also has much more complete SNP coverage than does BigY.

gotten
05-20-2016, 09:57 PM
The last I heard FTDNA was removing the mtDNA results from the BigY test results, so you might not get mtDNA with the BigY.

True, the FTDNA .bam files have been stripped from non-Y components since April 2015 or so? A ridiculous move by FTDNA in my opinion. A March 2015 Big-Y kit of mine had 98% coverage of mtDNA. Another kit that completed this month had absolutely no coverage of auDNA and mtDNA. Perhaps some coverage can be recovered by realigning the reads but I'm not optimistic. For reference: a Y-elite 2.0 kit had 87.23% coverage of mtDNA and 86% of Ydna coverage (compared to 56% YDNA coverage with my March 2015 Big-Y).

JMcB
05-21-2016, 12:08 AM
Well, that's certainly good information to have because it definitely changes the equation. And thank you both for passing it along. It certainly doesn't put FTDNA in a good light. At least, in my opinion. So with that in mind, it may pay to give FGS another look. Or perhaps just bide my time until the prices come down. It's not like I need to know this information right now.

leonardo
05-21-2016, 12:59 AM
The last I heard FTDNA was removing the mtDNA results from the BigY test results, so you might not get mtDNA with the BigY. Also, you'll very likely need to pay FGS or Yfull to analyse the BigY results. The Y-prime test with FGS is appealing because it includes mtDNA results, includes interpretation of the Y SNP results, and also has much more complete SNP coverage than does BigY.
If true, that is a shame. I received mtdna results as well, which made for a nice addition to the purchase.

JamesKane
05-21-2016, 10:26 AM
Big Y results were reworked last summer to filter off any reads not assigned to chrY by aengine. This has a few technical problems, which admittedly most will never be aware:

1) The filter is removing the pair for a small percentage of reads that are assigned chrY. These are mostly due to the use of GRCh19 and the settings used to map the reads onto that reference. While one pair is aligned to chrY, the other can sometimes be assigned to chrX or an autosomal segment.
2) GRCh19 has inaccuracies. There are segments of the autosomal DNA and chrX, which are more accurately mapped on chrY in GRCh38. Removing these reads reduces the value of your long term investment. A simple realignment to new references is less likely to improve the results of the original test data.

Big Y is a good test in many ways, but the removal of what they consider to be off-target data is a mistake. Those who have tested on the platform have paid for that data and it should be delivered to them.

JamesKane
05-21-2016, 10:50 AM
I am beginning to wonder. It seems that nobody else from my subclade of E-V13 ie E-L17 has tested since I tested nearly 2 years ago.

Unless you get very lucky in the genetic testing "lottery" and have a lot of motivated folks on your region of the tree testing, you really need to consider recruiting others on your general branch. The most effective method is to get a 5th cousin on your same Y line to test as well. Depending on your number of singleton novel variants there are two general strategies.

1) If there are less than 25 singletons, it is more cost effective to Wish the SNPs at YSEQ.net. The SNPs that are determined to be testable can then be ordered by the cousin.
2) If there are more than 24 singletons or the cousin wants to find his one or two private SNPs, he should order Big Y (or other NGS) test as well.

This gives you the match needed to identify the block of SNPs eligible for inclusion in a tree. A random one or two of the SNPs in the block can then be included in a SNP Pack, which helps to capture new candidates to test further and establish a fully public branch instead of one specific to your family in the last 200 years.

leonardo
05-21-2016, 11:21 AM
Big Y is a good test in many ways, but the removal of what they consider to be off-target data is a mistake. Those who have tested on the platform have paid for that data and it should be delivered to them.

Agreed James. On another note, I received another match yesterday. In my haplogroup, and within my main subclade, the tests keep rolling in. So, I can't complain too much. I invited my match to submit their results to YFull, and he seemed amenable. It would be great if there was a collection site, whereby all results: FTDNA, FGC and YSEQ results could be deposited and compared.

firemonkey
05-21-2016, 11:36 AM
Unfortunately there is only one person with the same surname/same Y line at FTDNA. This person is a GD of 2 at 37 markers. Unfortunately suggestions of him testing further, including offers to pay towards it, have fallen on deaf ears. The Tip report shows Generations Percentage
6 32.19%
8 57.73%
10 75.17%
12 86.05%
14 92.42%
16 95.99%
18 97.92%
20 98.94%
22 99.47%
24 99.74%
I am not in touch with any of my father's male cousins and have never heard that any of them are interested in genealogy.

firemonkey
05-21-2016, 11:47 AM
I have 43 distant STR matches at YFull but no close matches. I have no SNP matches.

MitchellSince1893
05-21-2016, 02:42 PM
I contacted my closest 67 STR matches ( genetic distance of 8 to 13 depending on method) and he agreed to a $17.50 yseq.net SNP test for one of my terminal snps . He turned up positive and agreed to further testing.

Another close 25 marker match did the same and was negative for the yseq.net test.

So as others have mentioned reach to your closest STR matches with a inexpensive investment in a single snp and go from there.

miiser
05-21-2016, 03:10 PM
Unfortunately there is only one person with the same surname/same Y line at FTDNA. This person is a GD of 2 at 37 markers. Unfortunately suggestions of him testing further, including offers to pay towards it, have fallen on deaf ears. The Tip report shows Generations Percentage
6 32.19%
8 57.73%
10 75.17%
12 86.05%
14 92.42%
16 95.99%
18 97.92%
20 98.94%
22 99.47%
24 99.74%
I am not in touch with any of my father's male cousins and have never heard that any of them are interested in genealogy.

To be frank, there's no need for this match to test further, unless you want to refine the MRCA estimate a little with an upgrade to 67 or 111 markers. With a GD of 2/37 and the same surname, he's obviously of the same lineage as you. Getting him to test Big Y won't tell you anything you don't already know.

A.Morup
05-21-2016, 03:18 PM
I also just did a BigY (got caught by that sale ;) ) , but I had no illusion that it would expand my family tree - where are still way too many years back in time! But I did it to get to know my "complete" haplogroup and to help expand science. The OP who is sad to have no matches should be glad that he did the BigY, thus making his rare Y-DNA available for future reasearch. And just bear in mind, that the next person in his haplogroup that tests will at least find one other person matching him!
Cheer up and keep them BigY's coming in!

JamesKane
05-21-2016, 06:49 PM
To be frank, there's no need for this match to test further, unless you want to refine the MRCA estimate a little with an upgrade to 67 or 111 markers. With a GD of 2/37 and the same surname, he's obviously of the same lineage as you. Getting him to test Big Y won't tell you anything you don't already know.

Maybe. This entirely depends on how common the surname in question is. We know none of the CTS4466 Kanes are a common lineage more recent than S1121 despite some of us matching at the 37 marker level. I'm a O'Donoghue (R-A804) originally and another was likely an O'Keefe (R-A159). STRs always need a SNP more recent than surname origins to confirm a lineage.

firemonkey
05-21-2016, 10:56 PM
Maybe. This entirely depends on how common the surname in question is.

It's not overly common. http://forebears.co.uk/surnames/gatty

miiser
05-22-2016, 05:48 AM
Maybe. This entirely depends on how common the surname in question is. We know none of the CTS4466 Kanes are a common lineage more recent than S1121 despite some of us matching at the 37 marker level. I'm a O'Donoghue (R-A804) originally and another was likely an O'Keefe (R-A159). STRs always need a SNP more recent than surname origins to confirm a lineage.

I agree, with a common name such as Smith, my assumption may not be true. But Firemonkey said that he had only a single surname match, so I assumed that this is not the case. It's VERY unlikely that this one match would happen to be from an unrelated lineage of the same surname. And it's not just a typical 37 marker match, but a 2/37 GD.

RobertCasey
05-22-2016, 07:04 AM
I agree, with a common name such as Smith, my assumption may not be true. But Firemonkey said that he had only a single surname match, so I assumed that this is not the case. It's VERY unlikely that this one match would happen to be from an unrelated lineage of the same surname. And it's not just a typical 37 marker match, but a 2/37 GD.

YSTR matching only works around 90 % of the time due to lack of divergence or convergence back to ancestral YSTR values. My Casey project has one submission that has extremely common YSTR marker values which are shared by three YSNP branches that are over 4,000 years old. These submissions have a genetic distance of only 3 or 4 at 67 markers yet do not share common YSNP ancestors at 4,000 years. This is why YSNP testing is absolutely necessary to rule out false YSTR hits.

But you do need to build your genetic cluster with 10 or 20 matches with similar surnames before you can start to determine the evolution of YSTR markers from your haplogroup modal values to your surname cluster haplotype that is dominated by one surname. If your surname is rare, this may be hard to accomplish or if your branch of the haplotree has not been tested by enough descendants, you will not have enough genetic information to determine relationships in recent times.

Under R-L226, we now have 450 67 marker submissions for a haplogroup that is around 1,400 years old (it is a single signature YSNP). After 50 NGS tests under this haplogroup and 50 more SNP packs/panel and individual YSNP orders, I am just now able to chart around 50 % of L226 via a combination of YSTRs and YSNPs. We now have 26 branches that are somewhat tested now. For those branches that are genetically isolated, it is becoming very clear the evolution of YSTR mutations. But even with this amount of genetic information, a significant portion of this haplogroup has diverged very little in the last 1,400 years (less than 2 or 3 mutations at 67 markers and obviously multiple parallel YSTR mutations). So these parts of the L226 haplotree will require much more NGS testing, SNP pack testing, individual YSNP testing and higher resolution Y Elite 2.1 testing to determine relationships. But we are getting enticing close in determining the exact progression of YSTR values and YSNP values from YDNA donors back to their one common ancestor around 1,400 years ago:

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L226/R_L226_Private.html

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L226/Haplotrees/L226_Home_20160520E.pdf (http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L226/R_L226_Private.html)

JMcB
05-23-2016, 05:01 AM
For those of you who are like me and aren't up to speed on SNP testing, BigY, Y Elite and the like. There's a very nicely done lecture given by John Cleary at the recent: Who Do You Think You Are conference, that may be of interest.

Using SNP Testing & STRs to enhance a genetic genealogy research project.
By John Cleary. Who Do You Think You Are, Birmingham, April 2016.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlxvdayxZiI&sns=em

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l5QARvhb38&sns=em

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxexkvfus6w&sns=em