Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

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

  1. #1
    Administrator
    Posts
    2,374
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-Z12
    mtDNA (M)
    I3b (FMS)

    Exclamation R1b SNP Backbone Panels at FTDNA --> If you're confirmed U106, then wait!

    The following quote is from Charles Moore, U106 Project administrator and ISOGG R1b-U106 and Subclades administrator:


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

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

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

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GTC For This Useful Post:

     lgmayka (08-02-2015),  R. Walker (10-02-2015),  R.Rocca (08-02-2015),  Táltos (08-05-2015)

  3. #2
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,718
    Sex

    I must, however, point out the timeframe issue.

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

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

    My point is that if someone in R-U106 wants some finer resolution before 2017, he might reasonably go ahead and order this "backbone" SNP pack at the introductory $79 price. It at least includes tests for:
    Z381
    L48
    L47
    Z156
    Z17
    Z18
    Last edited by lgmayka; 08-02-2015 at 03:33 PM.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lgmayka For This Useful Post:

     ArmandoR1b (08-02-2015),  haleaton (08-02-2015)

  5. #3
    Senior Member
    Posts
    410
    Sex
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Ethnicity
    European
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-FGC396>L199.1
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a1a1h

    Canada Netherlands Poland Austrian Empire Russia Imperial
    Quote Originally Posted by lgmayka View Post
    I must, however, point out the timeframe issue.

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

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

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

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

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

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VinceT For This Useful Post:

     ChrisR (08-03-2015),  haleaton (08-03-2015),  JohnHowellsTyrfro (08-08-2015),  lgmayka (08-03-2015)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    376
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Northern Europe
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-FGC5301 or R-A197
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

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

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

    I expect that the R-U106 SNP pack will be ready by fall or winter 2015.
    Look forward to hearing results of meeting. I do hope Mr. Greenspan is not too upset with folks screwing with his business model . . .

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

  8. #5
    Senior Member
    Posts
    410
    Sex
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Ethnicity
    European
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-FGC396>L199.1
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a1a1h

    Canada Netherlands Poland Austrian Empire Russia Imperial
    Quote Originally Posted by haleaton View Post
    Look forward to hearing results of meeting. I do hope Mr. Greenspan is not too upset with folks screwing with his business model . . .

    I think based on the Big Y SNPs shared novel variants now appearing in the Big Y results there is already another FTDNA Y-tree not fully shared. But by picking only one of the shared novel variants to represent each subclade, in most cases, the minimalization is probably a bad thing. Particulary to extend Y SNP testing to recent genealogy.
    The thing with these SNP packs, even if they were not minimalized, is that they can only test previously discovered SNPs. And everyone who buys that test will be testing SNPs that are predominantly found in other men's ancestral lines and not necessarily their own. Its intent is to classify according to a known existing phylogenetic structure.

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

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

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to VinceT For This Useful Post:

     haleaton (08-03-2015)

  10. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,449
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by haleaton View Post
    But by picking only one of the shared novel variants to represent each subclade, in most cases, the minimalization is probably a bad thing. Particulary to extend Y SNP testing to recent genealogy.
    It will at least, in some cases, help disprove common ancestry within the last 4,000 years for a low price. It will hopefully also get some people to get additional individual SNP tests and refine some subclades even more.

  11. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    376
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Northern Europe
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-FGC5301 or R-A197
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

    United States of America Scotland England North of England Norway England
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmandoR1b View Post
    It will at least, in some cases, help disprove common ancestry within the last 4,000 years for a low price. It will hopefully also get some people to get additional individual SNP tests and refine some subclades even more.
    Oh I completely agree. I meant going to a minimalist tree rather than including all the shared novel variants [that are restricted to the clade] from Big Y (assuming FTDNA still wants to only use data from their own lab) in their tree.

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

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

    One thing they should ask Bennett is if since the number of SNPs is small, if there is a no call or ambiguous result will they retest by whatever method to give a result for the stated SNPs. BritainsDNA did this when L2 failed on their chip. Deep Clade and individual orders did that. This guarantee would be further selling point.
    Last edited by haleaton; 08-03-2015 at 05:03 AM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to haleaton For This Useful Post:

     ArmandoR1b (08-03-2015)

  13. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    376
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Northern Europe
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-FGC5301 or R-A197
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

    United States of America Scotland England North of England Norway England
    Quote Originally Posted by VinceT View Post
    The thing with these SNP packs, even if they were not minimalized, is that they can only test previously discovered SNPs. And everyone who buys that test will be testing SNPs that are predominantly found in other men's ancestral lines and not necessarily their own. Its intent is to classify according to a known existing phylogenetic structure.

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

    Which leads us back to NGS sequencing via the "Big Y" or the "Y-Elite 2.0" from Full Genomes Corp. These discover your SNPs.
    Oh, I went with with Full Genomes Corporation testing early on and though even pricier then it saved me more time/money than it cost. Really, the way to go. However what I need now is more data and new people having a interest and a reason to have an interest, within their budget for hobbies. I also made most of private SNPs available on YSEQ, if they were amenable to Sanger.

    Issue was with FTDNA future tree only picking one shared novel variant, once they exclude the ones they report shared with other haplogroups including chimps, rather than the full set. They should include all of them in their tree. Surname groups may then do what you say. The good tree is a big selling point to the more casual customers.
    Last edited by haleaton; 08-03-2015 at 05:23 AM.

  14. #9
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,718
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by VinceT View Post
    I expect that the R-U106 SNP pack will be ready by fall or winter 2015.
    Just to be clear: You mean that the first--of the many packs that you will need for all of U106--should be ready by December 31, 2015. We pray.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to lgmayka For This Useful Post:

     TigerMW (08-03-2015)

  16. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,354
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by lgmayka View Post
    ... I must re-iterate the experience of the R1a Project. I submitted a comprehensive proposal for a Z280 SNP pack in November 2014. Absolutely nothing was done about it until I made a followup inquiry in April 2015. Design for the SNP pack was allegedly completed in May 2015. We are now in August, and I have not even heard of validation testing results for this SNP pack. Needless to say, I have not bothered to submit any further SNP pack proposals....
    I feel your pain. I have a submission that has been in the queue prior to my R1b-M343 Backbone request so they obviously have other considerations in their prioritization. It did seem to help when I reformatted things to fit what I had to do for ISOGG submissions... but I had to ask multiple times and present some justification on why this was good for members (their customers) and FTDNA.
    I think U106 admins have a lot of clout so that will probably help them. Just the read the note from the opening post on this thread. They are not unequivocal.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 08-03-2015 at 06:27 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-04-2018, 06:09 PM
  2. R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack FTDNA
    By Joe B in forum R1b General
    Replies: 459
    Last Post: 01-22-2016, 05:36 PM
  3. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-29-2015, 10:06 AM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-24-2015, 02:43 PM
  5. Confirmed R-U106
    By BalkanKiwi in forum R1b-U106
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-06-2015, 05:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •