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

Re: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Re: Understanding my DYS464x result?

Expand Messages
  • John S Walden
    RE If I m understanding your second possibility correctly, then I would be c,c,c,c at DYS464?? Is that a possible outcome? Yes that is a possible outcome
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 1, 2012
      RE "If I'm understanding your second possibility correctly, then I would be "c,c,c,c" at DYS464??
      Is that a possible outcome? "

      Yes that is a possible outcome and that has been seen before
      I have never seen 15c, 17c before
      John W
    • Kopfjäger
      Hi Bill, I just saw your results this weekend. Like John says, I would send an e-mail to FTDNA about it. The same thing happened to me when I tested 464X,
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 1, 2012
        Hi Bill,

        I just saw your results this weekend. Like John says, I would send an e-mail to FTDNA about it. The same thing happened to me when I tested 464X, except I had a 15c-17g result. FTDNA is pretty fast about getting back to you about it. If you do happen to be 15c-17c, that would be very interesting indeed.

        Our Z255+ McMahon also received his 464X result and is CCGG.


        Neal

        --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@...> wrote:
        >
        > If I'm understanding your second possibility correctly, then I would be "c,c,c,c" at DYS464??
        > Is that a possible outcome? Or am I understanding the notation all wrong? I thought the options were c,c,c,g ("default" if you will) or c,c,g,g as often found in those of us that are Z255+. If c,c,c,c is a possible outcome, how common is that? Already being "null" at 448, I sure hope I don't turn out to have other null values! The matching system, however it works, just ignores you if you have a null value!
        >
        > Per Margaret's advice, I will wait until Kirsten weighs in on this, but I think you're right: I need to take this up with FTDNA.
        >
        > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, John S Walden <JohnSWalden@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Bill wrote " my DYS464x test and the report says: "15c-17c" "
        > >
        > > A request for clarification to FTDNA is in order for this
        > >
        > > Since the DYS464x test is a better test of 464 marker I can see two
        > > possible answers
        > >
        > > 1) The first test was wrong and should have been scored as 15-17
        > > -null-null- and is now scored as 15c-17c
        > > 2) The 2nd report is incomplete and should have reported 15c-15c-17c-17c
        > >
        > > A review of the test results should give you the answer
        > > John W
        > >
        >
      • prenderw
        OK. Sent off query to FTDNA this morning. Hopefully, it s just a clarification of reporting. Per my experience when I asked them to double check my DYS448
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 1, 2012
          OK. Sent off query to FTDNA this morning. Hopefully, it's just a clarification of reporting. Per my experience when I asked them to double check my DYS448 null value, it took 8-9 weeks (reassuring me that they DID retest it).

          FWIW: Per that 448 null value, BTW, in trying to research that, I stumbled on an article on Medline from the FBI lab about null at that particular marker (448), that suggested that they are more common than might be expected and may be due to an anomaly or artifact of testing (false "null", proximity to where the chain splits or something).
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18581127

          I sent FTDNA the reference as a reason for my concern. When they replied, they assured me I was a true null value at that marker.



          --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, Kopfjäger <jarl.downing@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Bill,
          >
          > I just saw your results this weekend. Like John says, I would send an e-mail to FTDNA about it. The same thing happened to me when I tested 464X, except I had a 15c-17g result. FTDNA is pretty fast about getting back to you about it. If you do happen to be 15c-17c, that would be very interesting indeed.
          >
          > Our Z255+ McMahon also received his 464X result and is CCGG.
          >
          >
          > Neal
          >
          > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@> wrote:
          > >
          > > If I'm understanding your second possibility correctly, then I would be "c,c,c,c" at DYS464??
          > > Is that a possible outcome? Or am I understanding the notation all wrong? I thought the options were c,c,c,g ("default" if you will) or c,c,g,g as often found in those of us that are Z255+. If c,c,c,c is a possible outcome, how common is that? Already being "null" at 448, I sure hope I don't turn out to have other null values! The matching system, however it works, just ignores you if you have a null value!
          > >
          > > Per Margaret's advice, I will wait until Kirsten weighs in on this, but I think you're right: I need to take this up with FTDNA.
          > >
          > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, John S Walden <JohnSWalden@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Bill wrote " my DYS464x test and the report says: "15c-17c" "
          > > >
          > > > A request for clarification to FTDNA is in order for this
          > > >
          > > > Since the DYS464x test is a better test of 464 marker I can see two
          > > > possible answers
          > > >
          > > > 1) The first test was wrong and should have been scored as 15-17
          > > > -null-null- and is now scored as 15c-17c
          > > > 2) The 2nd report is incomplete and should have reported 15c-15c-17c-17c
          > > >
          > > > A review of the test results should give you the answer
          > > > John W
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • prenderw
          I heard from FTDNA, and apparently I m DYS464: 15c, 17c, -,-. Another 2 alleles deleted apparently (I m null @ DYS 448 also). They made a very strange
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 25, 2012
            I heard from FTDNA, and apparently I'm DYS464: 15c, 17c, -,-. Another 2 alleles deleted apparently (I'm null @ DYS 448 also). They made a very strange comment about the missing allele, had it been present, confirming my R1b status???? I don't understand that, so maybe someone could explain? The full text of the FTDNA reply is below:

            Hello William,

            Thank you for contacting Family Tree DNA. I spoke with our lab director to determine why there appeared to be a discrepancy in your DYS464 results. You possess a deletion on your Y chromosome that has resulted in there only being 2 allele values for DYS464. This is not reflected by the Standard Y-STR Results page due to formatting restrictions placed on our website. By default it displays a minimum of 4 copies for DYS464. A lot of this stems from the fact that it is difficult to differentiate between a result of 15-17 and 15-15-17-17 because they both peak at the same point so the deletion can be overlooked by the more cursory (relatively speaking) analysis of our standard Y-STR testing.

            The deeper DYS464x testing that you did is able to report this deletion. It is possible that one of these deleted alleles was the G-type allele that would have confirmed your association with haplogroup R1b.

            Regards,

            Taylor
            Information Specialist
            Family Tree DNA


            Comments, clarifications, interpretations, etc. gratefully received!
            Bill Prendergast




            --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@...> wrote:
            >
            > OK. Sent off query to FTDNA this morning. Hopefully, it's just a clarification of reporting. Per my experience when I asked them to double check my DYS448 null value, it took 8-9 weeks (reassuring me that they DID retest it).
            >
            > FWIW: Per that 448 null value, BTW, in trying to research that, I stumbled on an article on Medline from the FBI lab about null at that particular marker (448), that suggested that they are more common than might be expected and may be due to an anomaly or artifact of testing (false "null", proximity to where the chain splits or something).
            > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18581127
            >
            > I sent FTDNA the reference as a reason for my concern. When they replied, they assured me I was a true null value at that marker.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, Kopfjäger <jarl.downing@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi Bill,
            > >
            > > I just saw your results this weekend. Like John says, I would send an e-mail to FTDNA about it. The same thing happened to me when I tested 464X, except I had a 15c-17g result. FTDNA is pretty fast about getting back to you about it. If you do happen to be 15c-17c, that would be very interesting indeed.
            > >
            > > Our Z255+ McMahon also received his 464X result and is CCGG.
            > >
            > >
            > > Neal
            > >
            > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > If I'm understanding your second possibility correctly, then I would be "c,c,c,c" at DYS464??
            > > > Is that a possible outcome? Or am I understanding the notation all wrong? I thought the options were c,c,c,g ("default" if you will) or c,c,g,g as often found in those of us that are Z255+. If c,c,c,c is a possible outcome, how common is that? Already being "null" at 448, I sure hope I don't turn out to have other null values! The matching system, however it works, just ignores you if you have a null value!
            > > >
            > > > Per Margaret's advice, I will wait until Kirsten weighs in on this, but I think you're right: I need to take this up with FTDNA.
            > > >
            > > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, John S Walden <JohnSWalden@> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Bill wrote " my DYS464x test and the report says: "15c-17c" "
            > > > >
            > > > > A request for clarification to FTDNA is in order for this
            > > > >
            > > > > Since the DYS464x test is a better test of 464 marker I can see two
            > > > > possible answers
            > > > >
            > > > > 1) The first test was wrong and should have been scored as 15-17
            > > > > -null-null- and is now scored as 15c-17c
            > > > > 2) The 2nd report is incomplete and should have reported 15c-15c-17c-17c
            > > > >
            > > > > A review of the test results should give you the answer
            > > > > John W
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Kopfjäger
            Hi Bill, I m glad FTDNA got back to you. I am not sure what they meant about your 464X result being used to determine your placement in Haplogroup R1b - unless
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 29, 2012
              Hi Bill,

              I'm glad FTDNA got back to you. I am not sure what they meant about your 464X result being used to determine your placement in Haplogroup R1b - unless they are talking about the CCCG that is the norm in R1b, while GGGG is found in all other haplogroups.

              In short, you have a deletion on your yDNA that results in a 15-17 reading on 464X. You are the first one who has this deletion to date, so very unique, to say the least! I am not sure what this means, or if it has something to do with your null value on DYS448. It is interesting, nevertheless.


              Neal

              --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@...> wrote:
              >
              > I heard from FTDNA, and apparently I'm DYS464: 15c, 17c, -,-. Another 2 alleles deleted apparently (I'm null @ DYS 448 also). They made a very strange comment about the missing allele, had it been present, confirming my R1b status???? I don't understand that, so maybe someone could explain? The full text of the FTDNA reply is below:
              >
              > Hello William,
              >
              > Thank you for contacting Family Tree DNA. I spoke with our lab director to determine why there appeared to be a discrepancy in your DYS464 results. You possess a deletion on your Y chromosome that has resulted in there only being 2 allele values for DYS464. This is not reflected by the Standard Y-STR Results page due to formatting restrictions placed on our website. By default it displays a minimum of 4 copies for DYS464. A lot of this stems from the fact that it is difficult to differentiate between a result of 15-17 and 15-15-17-17 because they both peak at the same point so the deletion can be overlooked by the more cursory (relatively speaking) analysis of our standard Y-STR testing.
              >
              > The deeper DYS464x testing that you did is able to report this deletion. It is possible that one of these deleted alleles was the G-type allele that would have confirmed your association with haplogroup R1b.
              >
              > Regards,
              >
              > Taylor
              > Information Specialist
              > Family Tree DNA
              >
              >
              > Comments, clarifications, interpretations, etc. gratefully received!
              > Bill Prendergast
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@> wrote:
              > >
              > > OK. Sent off query to FTDNA this morning. Hopefully, it's just a clarification of reporting. Per my experience when I asked them to double check my DYS448 null value, it took 8-9 weeks (reassuring me that they DID retest it).
              > >
              > > FWIW: Per that 448 null value, BTW, in trying to research that, I stumbled on an article on Medline from the FBI lab about null at that particular marker (448), that suggested that they are more common than might be expected and may be due to an anomaly or artifact of testing (false "null", proximity to where the chain splits or something).
              > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18581127
              > >
              > > I sent FTDNA the reference as a reason for my concern. When they replied, they assured me I was a true null value at that marker.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, Kopfjäger <jarl.downing@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Hi Bill,
              > > >
              > > > I just saw your results this weekend. Like John says, I would send an e-mail to FTDNA about it. The same thing happened to me when I tested 464X, except I had a 15c-17g result. FTDNA is pretty fast about getting back to you about it. If you do happen to be 15c-17c, that would be very interesting indeed.
              > > >
              > > > Our Z255+ McMahon also received his 464X result and is CCGG.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Neal
              > > >
              > > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > If I'm understanding your second possibility correctly, then I would be "c,c,c,c" at DYS464??
              > > > > Is that a possible outcome? Or am I understanding the notation all wrong? I thought the options were c,c,c,g ("default" if you will) or c,c,g,g as often found in those of us that are Z255+. If c,c,c,c is a possible outcome, how common is that? Already being "null" at 448, I sure hope I don't turn out to have other null values! The matching system, however it works, just ignores you if you have a null value!
              > > > >
              > > > > Per Margaret's advice, I will wait until Kirsten weighs in on this, but I think you're right: I need to take this up with FTDNA.
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, John S Walden <JohnSWalden@> wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Bill wrote " my DYS464x test and the report says: "15c-17c" "
              > > > > >
              > > > > > A request for clarification to FTDNA is in order for this
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Since the DYS464x test is a better test of 464 marker I can see two
              > > > > > possible answers
              > > > > >
              > > > > > 1) The first test was wrong and should have been scored as 15-17
              > > > > > -null-null- and is now scored as 15c-17c
              > > > > > 2) The 2nd report is incomplete and should have reported 15c-15c-17c-17c
              > > > > >
              > > > > > A review of the test results should give you the answer
              > > > > > John W
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • William & Sherryl Prendergast
              Neil: Thanks for commenting. Naturally, I m into this Y-DNA business because I m trying to find some region based similarities, or even individual matches, to
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 31, 2012
                Neil:  

                Thanks for commenting.  Naturally, I'm into this Y-DNA business because I'm trying to find some region based similarities, or even individual matches, to give me some clues to my male line, which is the most mysterious of my 4 grand-parent lines.  I'm feeling frustrated by this "null" (448)and "deletion" (464) anomaly stuff, and trying to find out how to assess the significance of it.  

                Apparently, it's  a mutation, like any other, but I'm wondering if there's evidenced based reasons to believe that these sort of mutation(s), from the more typical Y STR patterns,  are likely to be of more recent origin than the typical STR count differences or  many SNP changes, some of which I gather are near genealogic times.  

                I'm wondering that  because I'm wondering if it's reasonable for me to look for  near matches by filling in nominal values for the missing markers (as Margaret tried for me when we only knew I was 558 null) and then look at how I match up otherwise with people.  Or should I be looking first and foremost for people with 448 nulls and only 2 alleles on 464, and then seeing how we otherwise match up?   Obviously, it sounds like I'm not going to be finding too many of the latter!!  Maybe none from what you're saying.

                I guess another way to phrase my question it to say that I'm questioning what range of generational time MIGHT the occurrence of these deletions fall into?  Or it that, like any "atypical" event, just an entirely random event that could have happened in ANY generation and has no known probability of occurrence?

                I don't necessarily expect that you've got a ready answer to my question, but I'm wondering where I might go to try to find one.  My inclination is toward not spending much more time or expense on Y chromosome genealogy until I have some kind of a feel for the answer.  Any guidance most sincerely appreciated.

                Bill Prendergast

                From: Kopfjäger <jarl.downing@...>
                Reply-To: <Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com>
                Date: Monday, October 29, 2012 6:12 PM
                To: <Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Re: Understanding my DYS464x result?

                 

                Hi Bill,

                I'm glad FTDNA got back to you. I am not sure what they meant about your 464X result being used to determine your placement in Haplogroup R1b - unless they are talking about the CCCG that is the norm in R1b, while GGGG is found in all other haplogroups.

                In short, you have a deletion on your yDNA that results in a 15-17 reading on 464X. You are the first one who has this deletion to date, so very unique, to say the least! I am not sure what this means, or if it has something to do with your null value on DYS448. It is interesting, nevertheless.

                Neal

                --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@...> wrote:
                >
                > I heard from FTDNA, and apparently I'm DYS464: 15c, 17c, -,-. Another 2 alleles deleted apparently (I'm null @ DYS 448 also). They made a very strange comment about the missing allele, had it been present, confirming my R1b status???? I don't understand that, so maybe someone could explain? The full text of the FTDNA reply is below:
                >
                > Hello William,
                >
                > Thank you for contacting Family Tree DNA. I spoke with our lab director to determine why there appeared to be a discrepancy in your DYS464 results. You possess a deletion on your Y chromosome that has resulted in there only being 2 allele values for DYS464. This is not reflected by the Standard Y-STR Results page due to formatting restrictions placed on our website. By default it displays a minimum of 4 copies for DYS464. A lot of this stems from the fact that it is difficult to differentiate between a result of 15-17 and 15-15-17-17 because they both peak at the same point so the deletion can be overlooked by the more cursory (relatively speaking) analysis of our standard Y-STR testing.
                >
                > The deeper DYS464x testing that you did is able to report this deletion. It is possible that one of these deleted alleles was the G-type allele that would have confirmed your association with haplogroup R1b.
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Taylor
                > Information Specialist
                > Family Tree DNA
                >
                >
                > Comments, clarifications, interpretations, etc. gratefully received!
                > Bill Prendergast
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@> wrote:
                > >
                > > OK. Sent off query to FTDNA this morning. Hopefully, it's just a clarification of reporting. Per my experience when I asked them to double check my DYS448 null value, it took 8-9 weeks (reassuring me that they DID retest it).
                > >
                > > FWIW: Per that 448 null value, BTW, in trying to research that, I stumbled on an article on Medline from the FBI lab about null at that particular marker (448), that suggested that they are more common than might be expected and may be due to an anomaly or artifact of testing (false "null", proximity to where the chain splits or something).
                > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18581127
                > >
                > > I sent FTDNA the reference as a reason for my concern. When they replied, they assured me I was a true null value at that marker.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, Kopfjäger <jarl.downing@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Hi Bill,
                > > >
                > > > I just saw your results this weekend. Like John says, I would send an e-mail to FTDNA about it. The same thing happened to me when I tested 464X, except I had a 15c-17g result. FTDNA is pretty fast about getting back to you about it. If you do happen to be 15c-17c, that would be very interesting indeed.
                > > >
                > > > Our Z255+ McMahon also received his 464X result and is CCGG.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Neal
                > > >
                > > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "prenderw" <nesika52@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > If I'm understanding your second possibility correctly, then I would be "c,c,c,c" at DYS464??
                > > > > Is that a possible outcome? Or am I understanding the notation all wrong? I thought the options were c,c,c,g ("default" if you will) or c,c,g,g as often found in those of us that are Z255+. If c,c,c,c is a possible outcome, how common is that? Already being "null" at 448, I sure hope I don't turn out to have other null values! The matching system, however it works, just ignores you if you have a null value!
                > > > >
                > > > > Per Margaret's advice, I will wait until Kirsten weighs in on this, but I think you're right: I need to take this up with FTDNA.
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, John S Walden <JohnSWalden@> wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Bill wrote " my DYS464x test and the report says: "15c-17c" "
                > > > > >
                > > > > > A request for clarification to FTDNA is in order for this
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Since the DYS464x test is a better test of 464 marker I can see two
                > > > > > possible answers
                > > > > >
                > > > > > 1) The first test was wrong and should have been scored as 15-17
                > > > > > -null-null- and is now scored as 15c-17c
                > > > > > 2) The 2nd report is incomplete and should have reported 15c-15c-17c-17c
                > > > > >
                > > > > > A review of the test results should give you the answer
                > > > > > John W
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >

              • marosjor
                Hi Bill, I can understand your frustration with the yDNA results you are getting. I notice that your DYS464 results are still listed as 15-15-17-17 in your
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 31, 2012
                  Hi Bill,

                  I can understand your frustration with the yDNA results you are getting. I notice that your DYS464 results are still listed as 15-15-17-17 in your standard y-STR results although 15c-17c are the values given in your advanced Y-STR Marker results. I presume your matches at Family Tree DNA are still based on the 15-15-17-17 values. I would advise that you continue to look for matches based on markers excluding DYS448 as the null value throws matches out by a g.d. of 18 approx.

                  Regards,
                  Margaret


                  --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, William & Sherryl Prendergast <nesika52@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Neil:
                  >
                  > Thanks for commenting. Naturally, I'm into this Y-DNA business because I'm
                  > trying to find some region based similarities, or even individual matches,
                  > to give me some clues to my male line, which is the most mysterious of my 4
                  > grand-parent lines. I'm feeling frustrated by this "null" (448)and
                  > "deletion" (464) anomaly stuff, and trying to find out how to assess the
                  > significance of it.
                  >
                  > Apparently, it's a mutation, like any other, but I'm wondering if there's
                  > evidenced based reasons to believe that these sort of mutation(s), from the
                  > more typical Y STR patterns, are likely to be of more recent origin than
                  > the typical STR count differences or many SNP changes, some of which I
                  > gather are near genealogic times.
                  >
                  > I'm wondering that because I'm wondering if it's reasonable for me to look
                  > for near matches by filling in nominal values for the missing markers (as
                  > Margaret tried for me when we only knew I was 558 null) and then look at how
                  > I match up otherwise with people. Or should I be looking first and foremost
                  > for people with 448 nulls and only 2 alleles on 464, and then seeing how we
                  > otherwise match up? Obviously, it sounds like I'm not going to be finding
                  > too many of the latter!! Maybe none from what you're saying.
                  >
                  > I guess another way to phrase my question it to say that I'm questioning
                  > what range of generational time MIGHT the occurrence of these deletions fall
                  > into? Or it that, like any "atypical" event, just an entirely random event
                  > that could have happened in ANY generation and has no known probability of
                  > occurrence?
                  >
                  > I don't necessarily expect that you've got a ready answer to my question,
                  > but I'm wondering where I might go to try to find one. My inclination is
                  > toward not spending much more time or expense on Y chromosome genealogy
                  > until I have some kind of a feel for the answer. Any guidance most
                  > sincerely appreciated.
                  >
                  > Bill Prendergast
                  >
                  > From: Kopfjäger <jarl.downing@...>
                  > Reply-To: <Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Date: Monday, October 29, 2012 6:12 PM
                  > To: <Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Re: Understanding my DYS464x result?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hi Bill,
                  >
                  > I'm glad FTDNA got back to you. I am not sure what they meant about your
                  > 464X result being used to determine your placement in Haplogroup R1b -
                  > unless they are talking about the CCCG that is the norm in R1b, while GGGG
                  > is found in all other haplogroups.
                  >
                  > In short, you have a deletion on your yDNA that results in a 15-17 reading
                  > on 464X. You are the first one who has this deletion to date, so very
                  > unique, to say the least! I am not sure what this means, or if it has
                  > something to do with your null value on DYS448. It is interesting,
                  > nevertheless.
                  >
                  > Neal
                  >
                  > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:Beatty_Byrnes_DNA%40yahoogroups.com> , "prenderw" <nesika52@>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I heard from FTDNA, and apparently I'm DYS464: 15c, 17c, -,-. Another 2
                  > alleles deleted apparently (I'm null @ DYS 448 also). They made a very strange
                  > comment about the missing allele, had it been present, confirming my R1b
                  > status???? I don't understand that, so maybe someone could explain? The full
                  > text of the FTDNA reply is below:
                  > >
                  > > Hello William,
                  > >
                  > > Thank you for contacting Family Tree DNA. I spoke with our lab director to
                  > determine why there appeared to be a discrepancy in your DYS464 results. You
                  > possess a deletion on your Y chromosome that has resulted in there only being 2
                  > allele values for DYS464. This is not reflected by the Standard Y-STR Results
                  > page due to formatting restrictions placed on our website. By default it
                  > displays a minimum of 4 copies for DYS464. A lot of this stems from the fact
                  > that it is difficult to differentiate between a result of 15-17 and 15-15-17-17
                  > because they both peak at the same point so the deletion can be overlooked by
                  > the more cursory (relatively speaking) analysis of our standard Y-STR testing.
                  > >
                  > > The deeper DYS464x testing that you did is able to report this deletion. It is
                  > possible that one of these deleted alleles was the G-type allele that would have
                  > confirmed your association with haplogroup R1b.
                  > >
                  > > Regards,
                  > >
                  > > Taylor
                  > > Information Specialist
                  > > Family Tree DNA
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Comments, clarifications, interpretations, etc. gratefully received!
                  > > Bill Prendergast
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:Beatty_Byrnes_DNA%40yahoogroups.com> , "prenderw" <nesika52@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > OK. Sent off query to FTDNA this morning. Hopefully, it's just a
                  > clarification of reporting. Per my experience when I asked them to double check
                  > my DYS448 null value, it took 8-9 weeks (reassuring me that they DID retest it).
                  > > >
                  > > > FWIW: Per that 448 null value, BTW, in trying to research that, I stumbled
                  > on an article on Medline from the FBI lab about null at that particular marker
                  > (448), that suggested that they are more common than might be expected and may
                  > be due to an anomaly or artifact of testing (false "null", proximity to where
                  > the chain splits or something).
                  > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18581127
                  > > >
                  > > > I sent FTDNA the reference as a reason for my concern. When they replied,
                  > they assured me I was a true null value at that marker.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:Beatty_Byrnes_DNA%40yahoogroups.com> , Kopfjäger <jarl.downing@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Hi Bill,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I just saw your results this weekend. Like John says, I would send an
                  > e-mail to FTDNA about it. The same thing happened to me when I tested 464X,
                  > except I had a 15c-17g result. FTDNA is pretty fast about getting back to you
                  > about it. If you do happen to be 15c-17c, that would be very interesting indeed.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Our Z255+ McMahon also received his 464X result and is CCGG.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Neal
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:Beatty_Byrnes_DNA%40yahoogroups.com> , "prenderw" <nesika52@> wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > If I'm understanding your second possibility correctly, then I would be
                  > "c,c,c,c" at DYS464??
                  > > > > > Is that a possible outcome? Or am I understanding the notation all
                  > wrong? I thought the options were c,c,c,g ("default" if you will) or c,c,g,g as
                  > often found in those of us that are Z255+. If c,c,c,c is a possible outcome,
                  > how common is that? Already being "null" at 448, I sure hope I don't turn out
                  > to have other null values! The matching system, however it works, just ignores
                  > you if you have a null value!
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Per Margaret's advice, I will wait until Kirsten weighs in on this, but
                  > I think you're right: I need to take this up with FTDNA.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:Beatty_Byrnes_DNA%40yahoogroups.com> , John S Walden <JohnSWalden@>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Bill wrote " my DYS464x test and the report says: "15c-17c" "
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > A request for clarification to FTDNA is in order for this
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Since the DYS464x test is a better test of 464 marker I can see two
                  > > > > > > possible answers
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > 1) The first test was wrong and should have been scored as 15-17
                  > > > > > > -null-null- and is now scored as 15c-17c
                  > > > > > > 2) The 2nd report is incomplete and should have reported
                  > 15c-15c-17c-17c
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > A review of the test results should give you the answer
                  > > > > > > John W
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.