Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Batch 133 created

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by robe3b
    Still no results for my Deep SNP-E3b test.
    Batch 133.
    Test ordered on 12/20/2005.
    Due 02/08/2006.
    Maybe they're waiting for a mutation to happen in your batch?



    Just kidding!

    Comment


    • #62
      Encore pas de résultats de l'analyse pour déterminer à quelle sous-division de l'haplogroupe E3b j'appartiens.
      L'analyse a été commandée le 20 décembre 2005, et les résultats auraient dû être delivrés le 8 février 2006.
      Quatre-vingt-treize jours d'attente. C'est pas mal hein ?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Victor
        Maybe they're waiting for a mutation to happen in your batch?



        Just kidding!
        Maybe I'm both M78 and M81

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by robe3b
          Maybe I'm both M78 and M81
          As long as the results don't come back as M-666 everything is fine

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Victor
            As long as the results don't come back as M-666 everything is fine
            Please, Victor, 78 plus 81 make 159. I must be E3b M159.

            Comment


            • #66
              Non sono ancora disponibili i resultati dell' analisi per accertare a quale sotto-aplogruppo E3b appartengo.
              Li aspettavo per il 8 Febbraio.
              Mannaggia la miseria !

              Comment


              • #67
                Deep SNP-E3b delayed results:

                Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo

                Comment


                • #68
                  Deep SNP-E3b delayed results

                  DON'T LET BATCH 133 FADE INTO OBLIVION.

                  Test ordered: 12/20/2005

                  Results expected: 02/08/2006

                  Still waiting without reasonable explanation: 05/22/2006


                  P.S. Postcoholics, please refrain from posting in this section during a few minutes.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by robe3b
                    Deep SNP-E3b delayed results

                    DON'T LET BATCH 133 FADE INTO OBLIVION.

                    Test ordered: 12/20/2005

                    Results expected: 02/08/2006

                    Still waiting without reasonable explanation: 05/22/2006


                    P.S. Postcoholics, please refrain from posting in this section during a few minutes.

                    THIS IS HERE TO HELP PEOPLE NOT FOR ENTERTAINMENT

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by robe3b
                      Still waiting without reasonable explanation: 05/22/2006
                      What did FTDNA respond when you emailed them? Or are you saying that FTDNA has not responded to your emails recently at all?

                      You do need to send email--you cannot just sit quietly and wait, once the due date has passed. It is clear that a lot of deep-subclade and mtDNA tests are failing, and it is also clear that some re-runs of these tests are falling through the cracks. You need to send email to make sure that yours is not one of the crack-fallers.

                      In the olden days, FTDNA used to say that a re-run took an additional 2 weeks. It is now becoming clear that a re-run of a deep-subclade or mtDNA test takes about 6 weeks more. Another testing company has strongly hinted that different equipment and procedures are optimized for different kinds of tests. FTDNA's equipment and procedures appear to be highly optimized for ySTR tests, whereas other companies use equipment and procedures optimized for clade classification or mtDNA testing. However, both convenience and price encourage us to do all of our DNA-test 'shopping' in one place.
                      Last edited by lgmayka; 22 May 2006, 05:18 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Rob, this is what the scientist that heads our lab says about those delayed results:
                        As I have indicated some time ago, biology is a plus or minus 3% activity (I lecture on this topic in my courses). This results from a lot of factors, including but not limited to species variability, the liability of biological materials, and the empirical nature of most biological assays, that is, instead of spending months or years working out the optimal conditions for a particular assay, biologists generally go with what works most of the time and press on. Bottom line, a 3% failure rate is inherent, that, is 30 out of every 1,000 assays (genomic, enzymatic, whatever) will misbehave in some way. I believe, by working on the optimization of assays, implementing robotics, and clever applications of computing technologies, and hiring high quality people we can reduce the failure frequency to less than 2%, but am not sanguine that we can do much better than that in less we do everything in triplicate (or more) and invest hugely in optimization. I can tell you that in my own research, we often repeat tests 8 to 16 times (statistically one should average 2 to the nth power, 2, 4, 8, 16 etc), but never do better than plus or minus 3% (often worse). Nevertheless, I am committed to push as far below 2% as possible. Note that hospital clinical labs would kill for a 2% error frequency (false positives and false negatives for example, which are often in the 5-10% range). I know how painful it is to deal with the 2% or so of customers the get caught up in the reality of the process, but it is inherent to the technology (as is medicine). I believe that we (the scientific community) and you (the business community) need to do a much better job of educating the public to the realities of genetic testing, clinical testing in general, drug side effects (which are typically in the 3-5% range), etc. If we do this, we will have done a significant public service and reduced substantially the number of unhappy customers.
                        Max Blankfeld
                        Vice-President and COO @ Family Tree DNA
                        A Gene by Gene Company

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Is your lab scientist claiming that FTDNA's failure rate on deep-subclade and mtDNA tests is only 5%?

                          In my own case: I ordered both HVR1 and HVR2 mtDNA tests. Email from FTDNA indicates--if I understand it correctly--that HVR1 actually comprises 2 tests, plus a third test for establishing haplogroup. Of these 4 tests, 3 have failed and need to be re-run, apparently resulting in a multi-week delay. (Hints seem to imply a delay of up to 6 weeks.)

                          Yet FTDNA itself admits that my own cells are not to blame, because FTDNA had no problem whatsoever getting results on my yDNA tests--well ahead of schedule!

                          I do understand the possibility that different equipment and procedures are optimized for different products. But I must be skeptical of the claimed 5% failure rate on mtDNA. I also wish, wistfully, that FTDNA could institute a mechanism to update our Web pages with realistic due dates. Mine still says 5/3 for the mtDNA tests, even though all indications point to an actual result date closer to 6/9. (The cell sample was received at FTDNA on 3/7.)

                          Once again, I do not mean to "start trouble." In fact, just the opposite--I am attempting to reduce customers' expectations down to the level of FTDNA's current performance (perhaps under an unexpectedly large load of orders from National Geographic subscribers).
                          Last edited by lgmayka; 22 May 2006, 06:13 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X