- 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 7:27Message 1 of 7 , Dec 3, 2012View SourceJust not in me to give $200 for a product the maker of which can’t provide straight answers.DoraSo we keep plugging away at it here and scoop them ;-)Cliff.
From: Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...>
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
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.
Bob Carpenter 6060
On 12/3/2012 9:35 AM, Aaron Salles Torres wrote:
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:
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.
- Hello, all I-M223 Y-Haplogroup Project members kit# 18187 (Anthony) and kit# 78983 (Eastin) (both belonging to the Cont2a subgroup) have uploaded their GenoMessage 2 of 7 , Dec 12, 2012View Source
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.
I-M223 Y-Haplogroup Project Administrator