1051FTDNA BIG Y SNP test
- Nov 12, 2013Hi Everyone,I have just pulled some comments from the Yahoo R1b U106 list re the new comprehensive SNP test offered by FTDNA. Charles Moore is an admin for the R1b U106 project and also a member of the ISOGG haplogroup SNP team.The BIG Y is now the FTDNA replacement test for the very, very, very old and outdated DEEP CLADE HAPLOGROUP TEST. GENO 2.0 is also outdated. Some of us have jumped over to BritainsDNA and ordered their CHROMO2 test which is better than GENO 2.0, but has less SNPs and is less expensive than the new BIG Y. Of course the most expensive SNP test is the Full Y.The ISOGG link below provides a comparison of the various tests. Read up on each, follow list comments and make an informed decision on which tests to purchase. I'll update info when I find out more.To my knowledge only one kit in our Gillespie project has ordered CHROMO2 and that kit is in Group 2. I am not aware of any Gillespies that have ordered the FULL Y. So far, no Gillespies have ordered the BIG Y. As BIG Y is ordered through FTDNA all admins are informed of any test purchases. I don't know about GENO 2.0 until there is a result transfer. I don't know about CHROMO2 or FULL Y orders unless testees tell me.Cheers,ConnieBELOW FROM YAHOO R1B U106 LIST --Essentially, Big Y should take nearly everyone other than extremely close relatives, off in your own personal direction. The question will be how you match up with others much more distant, in order to form a branch arrangement. A bunch of new SNPs for you, in and of themselves, will be useless.This is essentially what Bennett meant, I think, when he said "we think that is ISOGG's job".Be careful what you wish for.So, what each Big Y tester in our group is going to want to do, is to check Don's quickly growing list, as we go along, and find which other person on his Big Y list is closest to you. When both results arrive, we are going to need to compare the results of you and your closest other tester, somehow, to see which SNPs you share, and which are your own.Same concept as FG. The best thing to do is going to be to pair up with someone else in your same branch group.The test is somewhat over-advertised as including 25,000 known SNPs. But essentially, forget that, because it is not its purpose. The purpose is to discover NEW SNPs on YOUR line of descent. So, essentially it is WTY TIMES 30. It is not as all inclusive as an FG test, and we are concerned about what sort of Analysis product will be produced, which will be critical to our ability to figure out what it all means. Otherwise, this test could result in complete chaos.My guess is that someone will invent a tool to analyze these results, once the results arrive. Right now, we are all shooting in the dark. And of course, the sale deadline will expire before any results arrive. Isn't that clever?Well, the price is right. As long as the result actually is something other than a sea of useless unmatchable SNPs, that might not necessarily meet quality standards.So, there are a lot of issues, as has been discussed already over the last several days, and I doubt if very many of them will be resolved before December 1, but we will all have to do our best to keep everyone informed.FG is more expensive, although it could possibly become less expensive over time. But at least with that one, and thanks significantly to the Analysis reporting that Greg developed for them, we know we are getting a consistent quality comparable product, that Don and I and others actually know how to analyze.With Big Y, we are just going to have to see what happens.But as for frustrated people with a parade of negative SNP test results, those days are over. You WILL have new SNPs on Big Y or FG. That is a near certainty. Whether they are Quality SNPs, or whether we can figure out how to organize them into a coherent branch system and show you who you are closest to, THAT is another question, and THAT is actually the REAL question, the one that really matters.CharlesTo: "R1b1c U106-S21" <R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:49:48 PMSubject: RE: Re: [R1b1c_U106-S21] RE: RE: Big Y-DNA List UpdateBig Y-DNA List # 6Cockburn: U106 (Z18>L257?)Parke Snavely: U106>L48>L200Blackwell: U106>L48>L693Dave Crenshaw: U106>L48>L47>Z160 (Z159)Drew Scott: U106>Z9>CTS10893Don Byars: U106>Z1>CTS7080>FG800Don Byars---In firstname.lastname@example.org, <cdmo29@...> wrote:One concern worth mentioning is Analysis.It isn't clear to me anyway, what sort of analysis or organization of results will be coming with Big Y.Although FG is obviously more expensive, at least we got great value for our money in terms of the high quality Comparison Analysis provided by Greg Magoon, with more Analysis products in the Expectation pipeline.I agree with Debbie's compliment of the intrepid Don Byars. The Forum will want to pay close attention to Don as we go along, since he has Geno and FG results, and has ordered both Chromo and Big Y. Don and I discussed and agreed on an approach to comparing FG results, and I continue to be happy with our Analysis Results from FG, via Greg. It will be interesting to hear what Don, Clinton, and others have to say about their Chromo results, and also what Don will have to say about his Big Y results.Don has a special interest beyond his own, since I asked him to designate his new tree as the "official" R1b-U106 tree. So, we will all need to pay attention to Don on Tree and SNP test comparison issues, as we go forward. He also rec'd a nice compliment from Greg on his tree, which is equivalent to a gold star on this issue.Anyway, I am sure the parade of news and commentary re Big Y will continue right up to the Nov 30 Sale Expiration. But Analysis is important at this level of testing. We will need to compare on a variety of bases. FG is better re Coverage, Big Y is better re Cost, and I would say FG will undoubtedly be better re Analysis. Quality and other issues are hanging. Stay tuned on this issue.Debbie is very good at reporting on these sorts of issues, as are Roberta, CeCe, and Tim J. It will be very helpful to hear what they have to say as we move towards the end of this month, when people will need to make as well informed a decision as they can.CharlesOn Nov 11, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Charles Moore <cdmo29@...> wrote:Elliott Greenspan reports that Big Y has the capability to test 18 million nucleotides, which is 2/3 of the total possible. They did not want to present it that way, because it can't consistently do that.As I said earlier, we all need to continue to accumulate and share info about this new test. If you want to be among the earliest in line for results, then go ahead and order. Otherwise, a good approach would be to wait until almost the end of November, then order it if it sounds good to you at that time.We are undoubtedly going to continue to receive plus and minus commentary here in the days ahead, just as we have in the past few minutes. Sit back, take it all in, and make your decision before the end of November.From a financial standpoint, my thought is that waiting until after November is not a good idea. The percentage increase in price on December 1 is extremely high. So put it on a credit card and you will be better off than if you wait past November.As I reported in response to Mike W's question that I submitted, Elliott did essentially say that the positive SNPs will be posted as the Geno ones are. This is helpful, but I don't consider it to be an overwhelming advantage vs Chromo or FG, partly because my view is that the FTDNA lab has always been a quality testing facility, but it's reporting system is another matter altogether, and there is that very complicated little point exactly in between them where things sometimes (not often) go haywire.CharlesOn Nov 10, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Charles Moore <cdmo29@...> wrote:WTY may have tested as many as 800,000 nucleotides.Big Y tests 10 million.It seems to me that a very rough but reasonable guess would be a new SNP every million on average. So I would imagine this test has the potential to find 5 to 15 new SNPs in each person tested.Others who have thoughts abt this are requested to comment.