Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A question about the order SNP's are tested during the Deep Clade Test?

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

  • A question about the order SNP's are tested during the Deep Clade Test?

    I ordered the Deep clade test back in October, and am currently waiting for results My question is, does anyone know the order SNP's are tested in the R1b group? Is it set, random, maybe effected by matches from your y-str markers?

  • #2
    How are the Deep Clade results posted?

    Strawfoot,
    Thanks for posting. I'm also waiting for Deep Clade results. It's batch 393 and a little early for the final results. The R1b group is good.
    Wouldn't it be nice if snps results were posted to our haplotree in near real time? Maybe they are. Current information on Deep Clade is slim with all the Geno 2.0 noise.
    Anybody had a Deep Clade lately and could fill us in?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Strawfoot View Post
      I ordered the Deep clade test back in October, and am currently waiting for results My question is, does anyone know the order SNP's are tested in the R1b group? Is it set, random, maybe effected by matches from your y-str markers?
      From observation at a distance, I'd say that their deep clade test regime is largely based on your haplotype (STRs) from which your haplogroup would have been predicted already, presumably the R1b you mentioned.

      Just how FTDNA proceeds from there is a mystery to me and I don't know if they have ever disclosed it, but if you have tested a significant number of STRs, then I'd say that FTDNA could pick a reasonable starting point based on their analysis of similar haplotypes in their huge database.

      One point to note: FTDNA's deep clade test is still based on their now very much out-of-date haplotree, so the "terminal" SNP they find for you will most likely be a long way upstream from where you can subsequently test using the individual SNP menu. This is especially the case if your are found to be under the one of the major nodes such as U106 or P312.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you for the reply. I think you're probably right. So far my test order has been:

        L176.2- L193- L20- M228.2-

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Strawfoot View Post
          Thank you for the reply. I think you're probably right. So far my test order has been:

          L176.2- L193- L20- M228.2-
          It seems from those 4 that they are hunting around under P312. Interestingly, ISOGG has M228.2 classified as "private", that is, found in only a couple of men so far, so they have taken it off their tree for the time being (the ISOGG tree is much more current that FTDNA's).

          How many STRs have you been tested for so far?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gtc View Post
            It seems from those 4 that they are hunting around under P312. Interestingly, ISOGG has M228.2 classified as "private", that is, found in only a couple of men so far, so they have taken it off their tree for the time being (the ISOGG tree is much more current that FTDNA's).

            How many STRs have you been tested for so far?
            So far only 12, but at the 12 marker level I have only 18 exact matches (8 of which are the Pierce/Pearse family)

            My family, the Eppersons, tend to be E1b1, but I came back predicted R1b (One other Epperson has as well, but he is 1-2 steps away on 5 markers)

            I also, according to the R-17-14-10 admin, am predicted L371+ which I will have to order separate if it turns out to really be relevant.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Strawfoot View Post
              So far only 12, but at the 12 marker level I have only 18 exact matches (8 of which are the Pierce/Pearse family)

              My family, the Eppersons, tend to be E1b1, but I came back predicted R1b (One other Epperson has as well, but he is 1-2 steps away on 5 markers)

              I also, according to the R-17-14-10 admin, am predicted L371+ which I will have to order separate if it turns out to really be relevant.
              It beats me why they don't hit the big branch nodes first like P312 then L21.

              I suppose you're aware that FTDNA's CEO has said that they will be phasing out deep clade testing in favor of Geno 2 ... which takes what I term a shotgun approach against many thousands of SNPs at the one time.
              Last edited by gtc; 22 December 2012, 11:38 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have heard that is going on, it turns out you can convert your deep clade to the Geno 2.0 for about 15 USD, so once I have my results from this I will likely get that upgrade next. Soon after I plan to upgrade to at least a 37str test.

                I was very surprised P312 and U106 were not the first 2 tested, and that it was testing such odd clades before, like you mentioned, L21, etc.
                Last edited by Strawfoot; 23 December 2012, 12:49 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Strawfoot View Post
                  I have heard that is going on, it turns out you can convert your deep clade to the Geno 2.0 for about 15 USD, so once I have my results from this I will likely get that upgrade next.
                  Not quite. You can transfer your STR results to the National Genographic database for a one time fee of $15. That simply gives them access to your data. The Geno 2.0 SNP test costs $199.95.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gtc View Post
                    Not quite. You can transfer your STR results to the National Genographic database for a one time fee of $15. That simply gives them access to your data. The Geno 2.0 SNP test costs $199.95.
                    I misunderstood. More than likely I'll just order individual downstream SNP's after my deep clade results then.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Strawfoot View Post
                      So far only 12, but at the 12 marker level I have only 18 exact matches (8 of which are the Pierce/Pearse family)

                      My family, the Eppersons, tend to be E1b1, but I came back predicted R1b (One other Epperson has as well, but he is 1-2 steps away on 5 markers)

                      I also, according to the R-17-14-10 admin, am predicted L371+ which I will have to order separate if it turns out to really be relevant.
                      Interesting! The surnames are phonetically close, the haplos not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tomcat View Post
                        Interesting! The surnames are phonetically close, the haplos not.

                        I'm currently trying to explain it via paper trail but have not found anything concrete.

                        There are 4 Epperson origin stories (That I've Heard)

                        My grandfather passed me an origin story of Swedish roots, and I have found Swedish Eppersons working mines with my G-G-G-Grandfather William Epperson.

                        The most common (And most ludicrous) is this story involving a French Duke (Jean-Louis de la Valette d'Epernon) and his son, the son fleeing France to England. He is a documented historical figure with multiple biographies, and none mention my descendant or the "Wife" he took, even though he was still married, and dates do not match up. I mention it here simply because it's so commonly believed. I could go farther into the dis-merit of this explanation but you get it.

                        The next most common, which is entirely possible, is that my family (Or at least one branch) is descended from an orphan found at the church in Epperstone, Nottinghamshire, England. I have also found documents from the 1600's from Headon Parish nearby that has many Epperson births, marriages, etc.

                        Lastly, many people say the Eppersons, like the Appersons, are Welsh. This explanation lines up well with my problem, because the root name in this case would be Ap Pearson/Parson, Ap being the Welsh equivalent of Mc/Mac to denote "Son of"

                        Here is one of the situations that DNA genealogy has done something paper Genealogy can not. Me and one of the E1b1 Eppersons both claimed to be descended from a man named Littleberry Epperson, but obviously only one of us can be. My link was really weak, I don't have a father for my last for sure ancestor Richard Epperson. I had thought it Littleberry because of their close proximity and Littleberry having a son named Richard. Anyway, my point is DNA genealogy is important, because paper trails can lie.
                        Last edited by Strawfoot; 23 December 2012, 11:52 AM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X