Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Failed YDNA test -- no new sample

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

  • Rheiner
    replied
    Originally posted by KATM View Post
    Whether this sub-forum is for gripes or not, there is at least one section of the FTDNA Forum guidelines which should be followed. I think respect toward other forum members is important.
    Like this one? In forum threads, keep topics relevant to the original post.

    Leave a comment:


  • KATM
    replied
    Whether this sub-forum is for gripes or not, there is at least one section of the FTDNA Forum guidelines which should be followed. I think respect toward other forum members is important.

    Leave a comment:


  • loobster
    replied
    Originally posted by Rheiner View Post
    As for "Mr. W.," I repeat my earlier note. Please don't respond to my posts:
    "No more assistance from you, please. Thx."
    These are Public Forums for all to read and learn from. You can just skip his responses. Others of us are finding them very informative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    replied
    As for "Mr. W.," I repeat my earlier note. Please don't respond to my posts:
    "No more assistance from you, please. Thx."

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    replied
    Well, Bartarl260, thank you for trying to be thoughtful. Bless your heart. Remember: This forum is for gripes.

    I find these parts of your response inappropriate:

    "That you don't like the answer isn't our problem, its yours."

    "you should"

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    @bartarl260, thank you!

    To those readers who either might be in a similar situation (receiving unexpected results) or read this thread proactively (for example trying to estimate their testing budget), let me outline most common possible scenarios. In alphabetical order:
    1. contamination at the source,
    2. FTDNA error in processing,
    3. surname discontinuity,
    4. unusual and not yet scientifically investigated DNA combination.
    Re 1. This one is the most difficult to diagnose and handle, since we are asking someone to test and have no control over the actual process. Assuming goodwill of everybody involved, a possible source of contamination could be the person helping an elderly tester. Getting another testing kit from FTDNA or testing elsewhere might not be helpful. Using blood samples and the custody chain might suddenly look meaningful, but is clearly an overkill for a part-time hobbyist like me. Extremely gentle and polite talk about the process might reveal something without scaring away or offending the cousin.

    Re 2. Mistakes (also software bugs) or contamination can occur at any stage, so that avenue cannot be excluded. Finding the problem spot and retesting (preferably more than once...) might take many months at any DNA testing company. Thus, while waiting, looking at other sources of discrepancy between the expected and the received results might offer substantial time savings.

    Re 3. NPE is only one of possibilities, legal (official) name change is another one that can often be seen in (paper) genealogy. I occasionally post my list of well known scenarios. If the change had happened centuries ago, it might have been forgotten by now. Another test would substantially help in establishing the facts. Another test does not mean repeating the same type of the test at FTDNA or elsewhere, but for example adding Family Finder to Y DNA testing (or Y DNA testing to some unexpected Family Finder results!). However, that also means more people need to be tested.

    As a side note, there is a class of NPEs that is not uncovered by Y DNA testing. That is when Y DNA of the biological father is substantially similar to that of the nominal father. Listing in the relationship to the father from the paper trail: son (more likely with his stepmother, than his mother), father, grandfather, brother, cousin (even a distant one!).

    Re 4. When I recall the early days of DNA testing, that was quite common. Percentagewise the numbers are definitely down, however, I would not be surprised to learn that the absolute numbers are higher or that they are more complex to handle. Testing elsewhere and getting another test of the same type, but one that utilizes different process would at least help in establishing that the numbers (for STRs or SNPs) are correct. Testing more people with expected similar Y DNA is also extremely helpful (establishing their likely relationship by using paper trail and Family Finder is a highly recommended prerequisite). Yes, Big Y could be considered.


    Where does the ISOGG recommendation fit in the above? Nowhere! It is one of the fundamental rules present in many industries (measure twice, cut once) and in the scientific research. It might even help with establishing that one is faced with the first scenario from the above list, if another company is using a spit sample.


    Where does my recommendation of testing a well-chosen single SNP from the expected haplotree fit in the above?

    If the result is negative (i.e. the tester is not in the expected haplotree):
    1. systematic contamination cannot be excluded,
    2. FTDNA starts being the least likely scenario,
    3. becomes the most likely scenario,
    4. cannot be entirely excluded, since there could be circumstances when a detection of a single particular SNP is difficult, testing one above or below could be considered.

    If the result is positive (i.e. the tester is in the expected haplotree):
    1. contamination when taking the first sample cannot be excluded,
    2. FTDNA becomes the most likely source of the problem,
    3. does not need to be considered,
    4. Y DNA of the tester could be different in such a way that the currently used haplotree assignment standards do not give correct results.


    Although FTDNA would not incorporate any third party test results, if I were disputing their results, I would kindly inform them of my third party test results.



    Mr. W.
    Last edited by dna; 22nd March 2019, 08:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bartarl260
    replied
    Originally posted by Rheiner View Post
    "Because mistakes happen" is what started this thread. Remember? It's for gripes. And my complaint is that I can have no confidence in a test that, on its face, is flawed. Do you know what Haplogroup F is? Look it up.

    Can you really not tell that your comment adds nothing to the conversation?
    It was a support to what you've already been told. That you don't like the answer isn't our problem, its yours. FTDNA may have screwed up, although you seem to be unclear on if it is a lab(testing) problem or a software (test result data processing) problem. Stuff happens, it's a valid thing to have a complaint about. Assuming you're not getting upset about a valid test result.

    Your options going forward are to contact customer support to see if it's a computer glitch, or test other family members who should have near matching results and see if they do or do not match(just be on the alert for NPEs). Or to test yourself a second time at another testing company. I just happened to mention that ISOGG actually suggests testing with a second lab anyway.

    The odds of a family member having a test accidentally get screwed up in the exact same way, or that a second lab is going to screw up your results in the exact same way are astronomically bad. So if the additional tests agree with your initial results, you have your answer. If the results disagree, I'm sure FTDNA would like to be alerted to that discovery as well so they can check their QC processes.

    In many respects, you should want to verify the results even if you didn't suspect something was wrong with the initial test. Although I can understand the frustration at having something happen to underline why this is a good practice to adhere to.

    "Trust, but verify."

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    replied
    "Because mistakes happen" is what started this thread. Remember? It's for gripes. And my complaint is that I can have no confidence in a test that, on its face, is flawed. Do you know what Haplogroup F is? Look it up.

    Can you really not tell that your comment adds nothing to the conversation?

    Leave a comment:


  • bartarl260
    replied
    Originally posted by Rheiner View Post
    Yes, we do seem to use "different research methodologies." Your research methodologies may accept at face value a conclusion that a Swiss native is haplogroup F. Your research methodologies may even include paying for inaccurate tests.

    Mine do not.
    Then do some additional testing in a second lab, it actually is the standard for ISOGG to act on most things. Because mistakes happen, even in the best of labs.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    @Rheiner, we just use different research methodologies. When I am faced with anything unusual, I plan on extending testing by using a different test (or tests), etc.

    The problem could be with a sample or something with the FTDNA process or procedures, then an expensive independent test not only gives you a piece of mind, but also its results help in choosing the further direction.


    Mr. W.
    My apologies to the readers of this thread. The wording should have been an inexpensive independent test !

    YSEQ is selling individual SNP tests for eighteen dollars each.


    Mr. W.

    Leave a comment:


  • The_Contemplator
    replied
    I remember back in 2017, a couple of Big Y tested members in a surname project had their haplogroup designations updated from R-P312 to F-M89, while their Big Y matches had a R-BY### type haplogroup. It was right after one of their haplogroup updates. Even by looking at the data, they were obviously not from F but from R. (Yes, I know technically they are part of F-M89 as all R's are descendants of F-M89.) I reported it and they told me: "The F-M89 designation for these accounts are a result of a system glitch that occurred." They corrected the issue.

    I heard of at least another one out there with the same issue (R to an F haplogroup). Perhaps there was an upstream SNP that was not found by the Big Y and the system handled it as if it was necessary for the R haplogroup designation. Though that is just speculation. I've seen a number of other Big Y testers in that group and I haven't seen that error pop up again with their cluster.

    The tests are not inaccurate. The programmed system on the other hand can bring about some odd issues if it has some flaws that no one has run across.

    I don't know the specific test you had this person take. If it was an STR test, the haplogroup is only predicted. Pretty well, but perhaps this STR haplotype was very uncommon and was confused for another. There are still some testers today that receive the free backbone SNP pack test to determine the haplogroup as theirs can't be predicted accurately. If the test was a SNP test or the Big Y, then you would see the list of SNPs that would point to the true haplogroup designation even if FTDNA's system missed it on its own.

    Also, Mr. W., did not say he takes things at face value. His previous post clearly states he would extend testing. That is not taking things at face value. That is additional testing to help prove or disprove the initial testing.

    I knew of a situation of someone getting the wrong (unexpected) haplogroup. His family tree and surname pointed to a specific R haplogroup, but he got an E haplogroup with few low level matches and none at Y37. I told him he may have had an NPE in his lineage at some point, perhaps even centuries ago. I suggested testing a distant cousin. He knew of none, so he went with a first cousin. I told him it was better than nothing but a distant one would likely be needed. The cousin did not match him (or his haplogroup). I suggested testing a different first cousin. He did and that one matched the earlier cousin tested. He was the odd man out. I suggested testing a brother, he had none. So he went with autosomal testing of himself and a sister. The result was half-siblings. The conclusion was his father was not his biological father.

    I did do some quick searches for F and there were mentions of a few found in places they are usually not found like Portugal and Netherlands. Though there is a very limited number of testers in that haplogroup compared to others, so lots of questions for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    replied
    Yes, we do seem to use "different research methodologies." Your research methodologies may accept at face value a conclusion that a Swiss native is haplogroup F. Your research methodologies may even include paying for inaccurate tests.

    Mine do not.

    No more assistance from you, please. Thx.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    @Rheiner, we just use different research methodologies. When I am faced with anything unusual, I plan on extending testing by using a different test (or tests), etc.

    The problem could be with a sample or something with the FTDNA process or procedures, then an expensive independent test not only gives you a piece of mind, but also its results help in choosing the further direction.


    Mr. W.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    replied
    Close -- Batch 926. Maybe you're on to something.
    Originally posted by bartarl260 View Post
    Were you in test batch 925 by any chance? A kit I was tracking had erroneous STR results in that batch which probably only was caught as quickly as it was due to a BigY test also being underway which didn't agree with the initial STR results. In that case they went from E-M35 to R-Z280+ which is "just a tiny bit of a difference." Not reassuring when errors occur, but as it probably coincided with the transition from Y500 to Y700, I could imagine a few lab miscues slipped through.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheiner
    replied
    Congratulations, Mr. W. You have completely missed the point.

    Please look up Haplogroup F. It's not about the lack of a connection. It's about the absurdity of the result.

    Originally posted by dna View Post
    You wrote likely relatives, and not that you are sure of that.

    Two mislabelled vials do not seem to be likely, so I understand FTDNA actions.


    On the other hand, I tend to use scientific approach, and I would use YSEQ to test for the SNP that defines the major haplogroup you are expecting, since F is ancestral to many popular European haplogroups. That would be a very cheap confirmation or disapproval of your hypothesis (and FTDNA lab results).


    Mr. W.

    P.S.
    I might have thought differently, but nowadays I add Family Finder when ordering Y DNA and mtDNA tests. And I have asked my family to retroactively add Family Finder to all the older kits.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X