Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Ashkenazi-Q] Re: Advanced Orders Panel

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Joseph
    Ditto! to both... Thanks Rebekah! ... Ditto!  to both...    Thanks Rebekah! On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, wrote:   Dear Rebekah
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Ditto!  to both... 
       
      Thanks Rebekah!

      On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, <Abramselaine@...> wrote:
       

      Dear Rebekah and Thomas,
       
      I have been so lost for so long though I do keep hoping that something clicks for me. Any 'free samples' that I'm eligible for will be highly appreciated.
       
      And, Rebekah, I trust you implicitly; no hesitation at all.
       
      Elaine
       
      In a message dated 9/30/2010 7:26:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rebekahthorn@... writes:
       

      Dear Thomas,


      I cannot imagine my project members objecting to a free test. However, they do need to be asked first. Some samples are linked to deceased relatives or those who were very difficult to convince to test. Using up these samples, of course, would not be acceptable.

      My project members trust me because I am honest with them.

      ---
      Regards,
      Rebekah A. Canada
      Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA
      H & HV mtDNA Hg Project
      Q Y-DNA Hg Project, I-P109 Y-DNA Hg Project, Scandinavian Y-DNA Project
      http://www.google.com/profiles/rebekahthorn
      http://friendfeed.com/rebekahthorn


      On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Thomas Krahn <thomas@...> wrote:
      Dear Alessandro,

      I agree on the addition of L273, L274 to the Q-P36.2 branch.
      Ytree is updated.

      L330, L331, L334 need further verification. I prepared orders for all controls downstream Q-MEH2 (that I have available) to verify. If you have some reason/proof that those 3 SNPs are on the Q-MEH2 level then please give me a hint. Maybe there are available sequencing traces from older WTY runs?

      L329, L332, L333 also need further verification. Essentially I'll verify the same controls as above.

      L153 was ancestral in all samples. I agree that it should be removed.
      I did this for the Draft Tree.

      In Q-M378 I essentially agree with your tree and I've updated the Draft Tree.
      Here is the matrix of relevant samples that I have in my database:

      SampleL275L314L245L272L315L301L327
      GRC004822G-A-C-A-C-T-T-
      GRC012587A+ G+A-   
      GRC012800A+ G+A-C-T- 
      GRC014497A+ G+A-   
      GRC020355  G+    
      GRC023868  G+    
      GRC10041416A+ G+A-C-  
      GRC032745   T+   
      GRC10034946   T+   
      GRC10035356   T+   
      GRC004675A+ G+T+ T- 
      GRC011109A+C+G+A-T+T- 
      GRC10037108  C-  C+ 
      GRC000575A+ C-A-  C+

      L314, L315, L301, L327 need of course more confirmations that I try to fill in with running those assays on the listed samples. I hope no-one has any objections to get free test results.

      I hope this helps,

      Thomas








      On 09/30/2010 02:10 AM, Alessandro Biondo wrote:
      Dear Thomas,
       
      Using information from both the current draft tree at http://ytree.ftdna.com/ , 
      and the SNP’s details provided at http://ymap.ftdna.com/ , and using also 
      information we know about the SNP and WTY test of members of the Y-DNA 
      Haplogroup Q Project, we think the most updated tree below Q-M242 is like that 
      in the attached excel file. The more dubious placement at present are for the 
      SNPs discovered from the WTY test of sample 38126 (for which a very prudent 
      approach is used), and the position of L301 (because we don’t know if the sample 
      L301+ has been tested also for other relevant L# SNP. The position of the 
      remaining new SNPs seems to be quite reliable (at the current level of 
      knowledge), including the removal of L153.
      
      Best Regards,
      Alessandro.
      
      
      
      
      ----- Messaggio originale -----
      Da: Thomas Krahn <thomas@...>
      A: Rebekah Adele Canada <rebekahthorn@...>
      Cc: Alessandro Biondo <alefbiondo@...>
      Inviato: Gio 30 settembre 2010, 00:23:56
      Oggetto: Re: Advanced Orders Panel
      
      On 09/29/2010 05:20 PM, Rebekah Adele Canada wrote:
        
      Dear Thomas,
      
      Do you think you will have time soon to fix the many problems with
      your Draft Y-Tree?
      http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=31182976
         
          
      This is something I can do on my own. What exact problems do you mean. 
      I'm open for any input.
      
      Thomas
      
      
            



    • bjmva
      Rebekah, You are correct in the fact that we should be asked first, not just take our samples and use them. One of my samples on file is from a deceased
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Rebekah,
        You are correct in the fact that we should be asked first, not just take our samples and use them. One of my samples on file is from a deceased relative and I need to know how much it would take and how much would be left. Really, that goes for the living relative's sample. We did pay out of hand for these tests, no one should assume that they can use our sample for their own. I would like to know if FTDNA has the right to use our samples without our permission. This is not acceptable. 
         
        If there is a new test that can be run, I need the information first.
         
        Please keep me informed. You are our voice and we trust you.
        BJ

        On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Rebekah Adele Canada <rebekahthorn@...> wrote:
         

        Dear Thomas,


        I cannot imagine my project members objecting to a free test. However, they do need to be asked first. Some samples are linked to deceased relatives or those who were very difficult to convince to test. Using up these samples, of course, would not be acceptable.

        My project members trust me because I am honest with them.

        ---
        Regards,
        Rebekah A. Canada
        Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA
        H & HV mtDNA Hg Project
        Q Y-DNA Hg Project, I-P109 Y-DNA Hg Project, Scandinavian Y-DNA Project
        http://www.google.com/profiles/rebekahthorn
        http://friendfeed.com/rebekahthorn


        On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Thomas Krahn <thomas@...> wrote:
        Dear Alessandro,

        I agree on the addition of L273, L274 to the Q-P36.2 branch.
        Ytree is updated.

        L330, L331, L334 need further verification. I prepared orders for all controls downstream Q-MEH2 (that I have available) to verify. If you have some reason/proof that those 3 SNPs are on the Q-MEH2 level then please give me a hint. Maybe there are available sequencing traces from older WTY runs?

        L329, L332, L333 also need further verification. Essentially I'll verify the same controls as above.

        L153 was ancestral in all samples. I agree that it should be removed.
        I did this for the Draft Tree.

        In Q-M378 I essentially agree with your tree and I've updated the Draft Tree.
        Here is the matrix of relevant samples that I have in my database:

        SampleL275L314L245L272L315L301L327
        GRC004822G-A-C-A-C-T-T-
        GRC012587A+ G+A-   
        GRC012800A+ G+A-C-T- 
        GRC014497A+ G+A-   
        GRC020355  G+    
        GRC023868  G+    
        GRC10041416A+ G+A-C-  
        GRC032745   T+   
        GRC10034946   T+   
        GRC10035356   T+   
        GRC004675A+ G+T+ T- 
        GRC011109A+C+G+A-T+T- 
        GRC10037108  C-  C+ 
        GRC000575A+ C-A-  C+

        L314, L315, L301, L327 need of course more confirmations that I try to fill in with running those assays on the listed samples. I hope no-one has any objections to get free test results.

        I hope this helps,

        Thomas








        On 09/30/2010 02:10 AM, Alessandro Biondo wrote:
        Dear Thomas,
         
        Using information from both the current draft tree at http://ytree.ftdna.com/ , 
        and the SNP’s details provided at http://ymap.ftdna.com/ , and using also 
        information we know about the SNP and WTY test of members of the Y-DNA 
        Haplogroup Q Project, we think the most updated tree below Q-M242 is like that 
        in the attached excel file. The more dubious placement at present are for the 
        SNPs discovered from the WTY test of sample 38126 (for which a very prudent 
        approach is used), and the position of L301 (because we don’t know if the sample 
        L301+ has been tested also for other relevant L# SNP. The position of the 
        remaining new SNPs seems to be quite reliable (at the current level of 
        knowledge), including the removal of L153.
        
        Best Regards,
        Alessandro.
        
        
        
        
        ----- Messaggio originale -----
        Da: Thomas Krahn <thomas@...>
        A: Rebekah Adele Canada <rebekahthorn@...>
        Cc: Alessandro Biondo <alefbiondo@...>
        Inviato: Gio 30 settembre 2010, 00:23:56
        Oggetto: Re: Advanced Orders Panel
        
        On 09/29/2010 05:20 PM, Rebekah Adele Canada wrote:
          
        Dear Thomas,
        
        Do you think you will have time soon to fix the many problems with
        your Draft Y-Tree?
        http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=31182976
           
            
        This is something I can do on my own. What exact problems do you mean. 
        I'm open for any input.
        
        Thomas
        
        
              



      • Robert Michelson
        Rebecca, You have my permission to use my DNA sample For your research. My Family Tree DNA number is 115493. Robert Alan Michelson (Bob)
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 24, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Rebecca,

          You have my permission to use my DNA sample   For your research. My Family Tree DNA number is 115493.

          Robert Alan Michelson (Bob)                                                                                                                                                                                        



          From: Rebekah Adele Canada <rebekahthorn@...>
          To: Thomas Krahn <thomas@...>
          Cc: Alessandro Biondo <alefbiondo@...>; Eileen Krause <eileenk@...>; Q (Ashkenazi Group) <Ashkenazi-Q@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 7:26:28 PM
          Subject: [Ashkenazi-Q] Re: Advanced Orders Panel

           

          Dear Thomas,


          I cannot imagine my project members objecting to a free test. However, they do need to be asked first. Some samples are linked to deceased relatives or those who were very difficult to convince to test. Using up these samples, of course, would not be acceptable.

          My project members trust me because I am honest with them.

          ---
          Regards,
          Rebekah A. Canada
          Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA
          H & HV mtDNA Hg Project
          Q Y-DNA Hg Project, I-P109 Y-DNA Hg Project, Scandinavian Y-DNA Project
          http://www.google.com/profiles/rebekahthorn
          http://friendfeed.com/rebekahthorn


          On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Thomas Krahn <thomas@...> wrote:
          Dear Alessandro,

          I agree on the addition of L273, L274 to the Q-P36.2 branch.
          Ytree is updated.

          L330, L331, L334 need further verification. I prepared orders for all controls downstream Q-MEH2 (that I have available) to verify. If you have some reason/proof that those 3 SNPs are on the Q-MEH2 level then please give me a hint. Maybe there are available sequencing traces from older WTY runs?

          L329, L332, L333 also need further verification. Essentially I'll verify the same controls as above.

          L153 was ancestral in all samples. I agree that it should be removed.
          I did this for the Draft Tree.

          In Q-M378 I essentially agree with your tree and I've updated the Draft Tree.
          Here is the matrix of relevant samples that I have in my database:

          SampleL275L314L245L272L315L301L327
          GRC004822G-A-C-A-C-T-T-
          GRC012587A+ G+A-   
          GRC012800A+ G+A-C-T- 
          GRC014497A+ G+A-   
          GRC020355  G+    
          GRC023868  G+    
          GRC10041416A+ G+A-C-  
          GRC032745   T+   
          GRC10034946   T+   
          GRC10035356   T+   
          GRC004675A+ G+T+ T- 
          GRC011109A+C+G+A-T+T- 
          GRC10037108  C-  C+ 
          GRC000575A+ C-A-  C+

          L314, L315, L301, L327 need of course more confirmations that I try to fill in with running those assays on the listed samples. I hope no-one has any objections to get free test results.

          I hope this helps,

          Thomas








          On 09/30/2010 02:10 AM, Alessandro Biondo wrote:
          Dear Thomas,

          Using information from both the current draft tree at http://ytree.ftdna.com/ ,
          and the SNP’s details provided at http://ymap.ftdna.com/ , and using also
          information we know about the SNP and WTY test of members of the Y-DNA
          Haplogroup Q Project, we think the most updated tree below Q-M242 is like that
          in the attached excel file. The more dubious placement at present are for the
          SNPs discovered from the WTY test of sample 38126 (for which a very prudent
          approach is used), and the position of L301 (because we don’t know if the sample
          L301+ has been tested also for other relevant L# SNP. The position of the
          remaining new SNPs seems to be quite reliable (at the current level of
          knowledge), including the removal of L153.

          Best Regards,
          Alessandro.




          ----- Messaggio originale -----
          Da: Thomas Krahn <thomas@...> A: Rebekah Adele Canada <rebekahthorn@...> Cc: Alessandro Biondo <alefbiondo@...> Inviato: Gio 30 settembre 2010, 00:23:56 Oggetto: Re: Advanced Orders Panel On 09/29/2010 05:20 PM, Rebekah Adele Canada wrote:
          Dear Thomas,

          Do you think you will have time soon to fix the many problems with
          your Draft Y-Tree?
          http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=31182976
          This is something I can do on my own. What exact problems do you mean. 
          I'm open for any input.

          Thomas





        • Robert Michelson
          Hello all, I have a question that perhaps someone can answer. I took the chromosome browser results -- three at a time and downloaded them into Excel for the
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 10, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello all,
            I have a question that perhaps someone can answer.
            I took the chromosome browser results -- three at a time and downloaded them into Excel for the top 15 "cousin" matches.  Then I combined them in one file.  I ended up with 532 data lines of names, chromosome number, starting location, ending location, centimorgans and matching SNPS.

            Then I sorted them by chromosome first followed by starting location and finally ending location.  I came up with a considerable number of locations that are identical with two or more people.  The same goes with ending locations.  In a number of the data lines, both start and end with the same number, though that is the exception, not the rule.

            As an example, these five match me

            632779081354390822.651772
            632779081363224693.181873
            632779081363224693.181873
            632779081363224693.181873
            632779081363224693.181873

            The first number is the chromosome then the start, end location, centimorgans and SNPS.  My question is whether the testing process tends to cluster starting and ending locations or is the actual locations and in this case 4/5 are identical.  Am I wasting my time looking at this?

            If anyone is curious I will send the excel file without names so that you can see the data. 

            See what you do when you are retired and the crafts shops are closed

            Bob Michelson

          • A. J. Levin
            Hello Bob, Family Finder rounds off segments to the nearest block, so these regions have the appearance of identicality, but may not be exactly identical. In
            Message 5 of 7 , Dec 20, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Bob,

              Family Finder rounds off segments to the nearest block, so these regions have the appearance of identicality, but may not be exactly identical.

              In any case, 3.18 cM is a very low amount, and unless you know that you are recently related to someone or your block of this size is adjacent another larger one, I would pay very little attention to any segment under about 6-8 centimorgans.

              Finally, it's definitely not a waste of time to analyze the data this way for larger blocks. I have overlapping segments with a known maternal second cousin, and with a suspected paternal 4th cousin once or twice removed (we share an unusual surname). By looking at the overlap by region, I can establish which side of the chromosome pertains to which side of my family. This may also be useful if you have uploaded to gedmatch.com.

              Best,

              A.J. Levin
            • Robert Michelson
              Thanks for your reply. I do have a number of people with 8 or more cM matches and the largest 19.6 is identically matched with three of us. Bob Michelson
              Message 6 of 7 , Dec 20, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for your reply.  I do have a number of people with 8 or more cM matches and the largest 19.6 is identically matched with three of us.

                Bob Michelson



                From: A. J. Levin <aj_levin@...>
                To: Ashkenazi-Q@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 12:08:17 PM
                Subject: [Ashkenazi-Q] Re: Manipulating my Family Finder results in Excel

                 

                Hello Bob,

                Family Finder rounds off segments to the nearest block, so these regions have the appearance of identicality, but may not be exactly identical.

                In any case, 3.18 cM is a very low amount, and unless you know that you are recently related to someone or your block of this size is adjacent another larger one, I would pay very little attention to any segment under about 6-8 centimorgans.

                Finally, it's definitely not a waste of time to analyze the data this way for larger blocks. I have overlapping segments with a known maternal second cousin, and with a suspected paternal 4th cousin once or twice removed (we share an unusual surname). By looking at the overlap by region, I can establish which side of the chromosome pertains to which side of my family. This may also be useful if you have uploaded to gedmatch.com.

                Best,

                A.J. Levin


              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.