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

Re: Some Geno 2.0 Y-DNA Answers

Expand Messages
  • cstarks294
    Aaron, Mine has been at 80% DNA analysis complete and in QC for about a week and a half. This at least explains what is occurring. Thanks, Chuck Starks kit
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 3, 2012
      Aaron,
      Mine has been at 80% "DNA analysis complete" and in QC for about a week and a half. This at least explains what is occurring.
      Thanks,
      Chuck Starks kit 202943

      --- In I-M223@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Salles Torres <sallfertorr@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello, all
      >
      > I have written to Bennett and Elliott Greenspan, Thomas and Astrid Krahn regarding Geno 2.0 issues that were not clear to me as I did not participate in the FT DNA conference (I live in Brazil!!!).
      >
      > My main questions were regarding the fact that many key SNP's were excluded from the chip, as well as whether a revised tree
      > would be handed down to us from the Geno 2.0 team or if we'd continue to build the tree the way we've been doing it, with the collaboration of project members, ISOGG and FT DNA.
      >
      > Regarding the SNP's excluded from the chip,
      > just to name a few that are relevant to I-M223, for example, we [don't] find:
      >
      > Old-timers:
      > P78
      > M284
      > L484
      > L623
      > L147.4
      > L701
      > L703
      > L704
      > L801
      > L812
      > Z76
      > Newer
      > SNP's:
      > L1195
      > L1194
      > L1193
      > L1198
      > L1229
      > L1228
      > L1227
      > L1230
      >
      > I was informed that when ordering the chip, FT DNA requested that all SNP's known at that specific date were included. They were supposedly unaware whether a particular SNP was successfully added to the chip until they got the final product. As such, it is extremely important that we continue to contrast the information we get from Geno 2.0 with what we know from our Project (STR and SNP-wise). This is because we will get many downstream SNP's from Geno 2.0, but won't be able to know the upstream ones until we know an individual's FT DNA SNP results.
      >
      > Regarding the new tree, we will work together to build it. Geno 2.0 will not give us an official version of a tree, so we'll continue what we've done until now - testing key terminal SNP's in specific groups and comparing results until we know exactly where a certain SNP fits on the tree. At such point, we'll
      > submit this SNP to ISOGG and then work with FT DNA to update their ytree.
      >
      > The Geno 2.0 chip should be revised in a few months, so hopefully we'll get our key SNP's included then.
      >
      > On another front, results will be delayed for a few weeks, as they've been surprised with some results from specific haplogroups, including I, J and R (to read more, please visit: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/message/8866?) . There's apparently a lot of new information coming our way. That is very good news to us.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Aaron Torres
      >
    • Bobby Carpenter
      Hi Aaron, Thanks very much for this update. My test has been in QC since 8 Nov, and I was beginning to wonder what was happening. Actually, I thought that they
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 3, 2012
        Hi Aaron,
        Thanks very much for this update. My test has been in QC since 8 Nov, and I was beginning to wonder what was happening. Actually, I thought that they had started all over. The original test time for Stage 1 to Stage 4, was 17 Oct to 8 Nov.
        Again Thanks
        Bob Carpenter  6060

        On 12/3/2012 9:35 AM, Aaron Salles Torres wrote:  

        Hello, all

        I have written to Bennett and Elliott Greenspan, Thomas and Astrid Krahn regarding Geno 2.0 issues that were not clear to me as I did not participate in the FT DNA conference (I live in Brazil!!!).

        My main questions were regarding the fact that many key SNP's were excluded from the chip, as well as whether a revised tree would be handed down to us from the Geno 2.0 team or if we'd continue to build the tree the way we've been doing it, with the collaboration of project members, ISOGG and FT DNA.

        Regarding the SNP's excluded from the chip, just to name a few that are relevant to I-M223, for example, we [don't] find:

        Old-timers:
        P78
        M284
        L484
        L623
        L147.4
        L701
        L703
        L704
        L801
        L812
        Z76
        Newer SNP's:
        L1195
        L1194
        L1193
        L1198
        L1229
        L1228
        L1227
        L1230

        I was informed that when ordering the chip, FT DNA requested that all SNP's known at that specific date were included. They were supposedly unaware whether a particular SNP was successfully added to the chip until they got the final product. As such, it is extremely important that we continue to contrast the information we get from Geno 2.0 with what we know from our Project (STR and SNP-wise). This is because we will get many downstream SNP's from Geno 2.0, but won't be able to know the upstream ones until we know an individual's FT DNA SNP results.

        Regarding the new tree, we will work together to build it. Geno 2.0 will not give us an official version of a tree, so we'll continue what we've done until now - testing key terminal SNP's in specific groups and comparing results until we know exactly where a certain SNP fits on the tree. At such point, we'll submit this SNP to ISOGG and then work with FT DNA to update their ytree.

        The Geno 2.0 chip should be revised in a few months, so hopefully we'll get our key SNP's included then.

        On another front, results will be delayed for a few weeks, as they've been surprised with some results from specific haplogroups, including I, J and R (to read more, please visit: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/message/8866?) . There's apparently a lot of new information coming our way. That is very good news to us.

        Thanks,
        Aaron Torres


      • Dora Smith
        Wow, the test is pretty worthless if it does not even have M284! Tell me they didn’t know that SNP existed when they ordered the chip. Elliott Greenspan
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 3, 2012
          Wow, the test is pretty worthless if it does not even have M284!  
           
          Tell me they didn’t know that SNP existed when they ordered the chip.
           
          Elliott Greenspan specifically told me that they will be releasing a tree in a month or two.   He said it would contain the SNPs Geno 2 is using, not that it would come from Geno 2.
           
          It sounds like these people don’t even have their stories straight.
           
          Dora
           
           
          Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 5:59 PM
          Subject: Re: [I-M223] Some Geno 2.0 Y-DNA Answers
           
           

          Hi Aaron,
          Thanks very much for this update. My test has been in QC since 8 Nov, and I was beginning to wonder what was happening. Actually, I thought that they had started all over. The original test time for Stage 1 to Stage 4, was 17 Oct to 8 Nov.
          Again Thanks
          Bob Carpenter  6060

          On 12/3/2012 9:35 AM, Aaron Salles Torres wrote:

           

          Hello, all

          I have written to Bennett and Elliott Greenspan, Thomas and Astrid Krahn regarding Geno 2.0 issues that were not clear to me as I did not participate in the FT DNA conference (I live in Brazil!!!).

          My main questions were regarding the fact that many key SNP's were excluded from the chip, as well as whether a revised tree would be handed down to us from the Geno 2.0 team or if we'd continue to build the tree the way we've been doing it, with the collaboration of project members, ISOGG and FT DNA.

          Regarding the SNP's excluded from the chip, just to name a few that are relevant to I-M223, for example, we [don't] find:

          Old-timers:
          P78
          M284
          L484
          L623
          L147.4
          L701
          L703
          L704
          L801
          L812
          Z76
          Newer SNP's:
          L1195
          L1194
          L1193
          L1198
          L1229
          L1228
          L1227
          L1230

          I was informed that when ordering the chip, FT DNA requested that all SNP's known at that specific date were included. They were supposedly unaware whether a particular SNP was successfully added to the chip until they got the final product. As such, it is extremely important that we continue to contrast the information we get from Geno 2.0 with what we know from our Project (STR and SNP-wise). This is because we will get many downstream SNP's from Geno 2.0, but won't be able to know the upstream ones until we know an individual's FT DNA SNP results.

          Regarding the new tree, we will work together to build it. Geno 2.0 will not give us an official version of a tree, so we'll continue what we've done until now - testing key terminal SNP's in specific groups and comparing results until we know exactly where a certain SNP fits on the tree. At such point, we'll submit this SNP to ISOGG and then work with FT DNA to update their ytree.

          The Geno 2.0 chip should be revised in a few months, so hopefully we'll get our key SNP's included then.

          On another front, results will be delayed for a few weeks, as they've been surprised with some results from specific haplogroups, including I, J and R (to read more, please visit: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/message/8866?) . There's apparently a lot of new information coming our way. That is very good news to us.

          Thanks,
          Aaron Torres


        • Cliff. Johnston
          So we keep plugging away at it here and scoop them ;-) Cliff. ________________________________ From: Dora Smith To:
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 3, 2012
            So we keep plugging away at it here and scoop them ;-)
             
            Cliff.


            From: Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...>
            To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Mon, December 3, 2012 6:40:37 PM
            Subject: Re: [I-M223] Some Geno 2.0 Y-DNA Answers

             

            Wow, the test is pretty worthless if it does not even have M284!  
             
            Tell me they didn’t know that SNP existed when they ordered the chip.
             
            Elliott Greenspan specifically told me that they will be releasing a tree in a month or two.   He said it would contain the SNPs Geno 2 is using, not that it would come from Geno 2.
             
            It sounds like these people don’t even have their stories straight.
             
            Dora
             
             
            Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 5:59 PM
            Subject: Re: [I-M223] Some Geno 2.0 Y-DNA Answers
             
             

            Hi Aaron,
            Thanks very much for this update. My test has been in QC since 8 Nov, and I was beginning to wonder what was happening. Actually, I thought that they had started all over. The original test time for Stage 1 to Stage 4, was 17 Oct to 8 Nov.
            Again Thanks
            Bob Carpenter  6060

            On 12/3/2012 9:35 AM, Aaron Salles Torres wrote:
             

            Hello, all

            I have written to Bennett and Elliott Greenspan, Thomas and Astrid Krahn regarding Geno 2.0 issues that were not clear to me as I did not participate in the FT DNA conference (I live in Brazil!!!).

            My main questions were regarding the fact that many key SNP's were excluded from the chip, as well as whether a revised tree would be handed down to us from the Geno 2.0 team or if we'd continue to build the tree the way we've been doing it, with the collaboration of project members, ISOGG and FT DNA.

            Regarding the SNP's excluded from the chip, just to name a few that are relevant to I-M223, for example, we [don't] find:

            Old-timers:
            P78
            M284
            L484
            L623
            L147.4
            L701
            L703
            L704
            L801
            L812
            Z76
            Newer SNP's:
            L1195
            L1194
            L1193
            L1198
            L1229
            L1228
            L1227
            L1230

            I was informed that when ordering the chip, FT DNA requested that all SNP's known at that specific date were included. They were supposedly unaware whether a particular SNP was successfully added to the chip until they got the final product. As such, it is extremely important that we continue to contrast the information we get from Geno 2.0 with what we know from our Project (STR and SNP-wise). This is because we will get many downstream SNP's from Geno 2.0, but won't be able to know the upstream ones until we know an individual's FT DNA SNP results.

            Regarding the new tree, we will work together to build it. Geno 2.0 will not give us an official version of a tree, so we'll continue what we've done until now - testing key terminal SNP's in specific groups and comparing results until we know exactly where a certain SNP fits on the tree. At such point, we'll submit this SNP to ISOGG and then work with FT DNA to update their ytree.

            The Geno 2.0 chip should be revised in a few months, so hopefully we'll get our key SNP's included then.

            On another front, results will be delayed for a few weeks, as they've been surprised with some results from specific haplogroups, including I, J and R (to read more, please visit: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/message/8866?) . There's apparently a lot of new information coming our way. That is very good news to us.

            Thanks,
            Aaron Torres


          • Dora Smith
            Just not in me to give $200 for a product the maker of which can’t provide straight answers. Dora From: Cliff. Johnston Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 7:27
            Message 5 of 7 , Dec 3, 2012
              Just not in me to give $200 for a product the maker of which can’t provide straight answers.
               
              Dora
               
               
              Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 7:27 PM
              Subject: Re: [I-M223] Some Geno 2.0 Y-DNA Answers
               
               

              So we keep plugging away at it here and scoop them ;-)
               
              Cliff.
               

              From: Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...>
              To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Mon, December 3, 2012 6:40:37 PM
              Subject: Re: [I-M223] Some Geno 2.0 Y-DNA Answers

               

              Wow, the test is pretty worthless if it does not even have M284!  
               
              Tell me they didn’t know that SNP existed when they ordered the chip.
               
              Elliott Greenspan specifically told me that they will be releasing a tree in a month or two.   He said it would contain the SNPs Geno 2 is using, not that it would come from Geno 2.
               
              It sounds like these people don’t even have their stories straight.
               
              Dora
               
               
              Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 5:59 PM
              Subject: Re: [I-M223] Some Geno 2.0 Y-DNA Answers
               
               

              Hi Aaron,
              Thanks very much for this update. My test has been in QC since 8 Nov, and I was beginning to wonder what was happening. Actually, I thought that they had started all over. The original test time for Stage 1 to Stage 4, was 17 Oct to 8 Nov.
              Again Thanks
              Bob Carpenter  6060

              On 12/3/2012 9:35 AM, Aaron Salles Torres wrote:

               

              Hello, all

              I have written to Bennett and Elliott Greenspan, Thomas and Astrid Krahn regarding Geno 2.0 issues that were not clear to me as I did not participate in the FT DNA conference (I live in Brazil!!!).

              My main questions were regarding the fact that many key SNP's were excluded from the chip, as well as whether a revised tree would be handed down to us from the Geno 2.0 team or if we'd continue to build the tree the way we've been doing it, with the collaboration of project members, ISOGG and FT DNA.

              Regarding the SNP's excluded from the chip, just to name a few that are relevant to I-M223, for example, we [don't] find:

              Old-timers:
              P78
              M284
              L484
              L623
              L147.4
              L701
              L703
              L704
              L801
              L812
              Z76
              Newer SNP's:
              L1195
              L1194
              L1193
              L1198
              L1229
              L1228
              L1227
              L1230

              I was informed that when ordering the chip, FT DNA requested that all SNP's known at that specific date were included. They were supposedly unaware whether a particular SNP was successfully added to the chip until they got the final product. As such, it is extremely important that we continue to contrast the information we get from Geno 2.0 with what we know from our Project (STR and SNP-wise). This is because we will get many downstream SNP's from Geno 2.0, but won't be able to know the upstream ones until we know an individual's FT DNA SNP results.

              Regarding the new tree, we will work together to build it. Geno 2.0 will not give us an official version of a tree, so we'll continue what we've done until now - testing key terminal SNP's in specific groups and comparing results until we know exactly where a certain SNP fits on the tree. At such point, we'll submit this SNP to ISOGG and then work with FT DNA to update their ytree.

              The Geno 2.0 chip should be revised in a few months, so hopefully we'll get our key SNP's included then.

              On another front, results will be delayed for a few weeks, as they've been surprised with some results from specific haplogroups, including I, J and R (to read more, please visit: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/message/8866?) . There's apparently a lot of new information coming our way. That is very good news to us.

              Thanks,
              Aaron Torres


            • Aaron Salles Torres
              Hello, all I-M223 Y-Haplogroup Project members kit# 18187 (Anthony) and kit# 78983 (Eastin) (both belonging to the Cont2a subgroup) have uploaded their Geno
              Message 6 of 7 , Dec 12, 2012
                Hello, all

                I-M223 Y-Haplogroup Project members kit# 18187 (Anthony) and kit# 78983 (Eastin) (both belonging to the Cont2a subgroup) have uploaded their Geno 2.0 results to FT DNA. From that, we would conclude that Eastin is CTS1977+, whereas Anthony would be CTS6433+.

                However, when one checks their raw files, we see that neither show any mutations at these sites. This makes one wonder about the reliability of the reporting system.

                Best regards,
                Aaron Torres
                I-M223 Y-Haplogroup Project Administrator
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.