Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FGS Matches

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

  • FGS Matches

    Today my FGS results were posted and wouldn't you know there was a single FGS match in my mtDNA match listings.

    So I eagerly checked the mtDNA FAQ and there was no interpretive statement for FGS matches like those found for low & high resolution matches -eg, ... When they also share the same haplogroup it indicates a possible connection. A match on HVR1 and HVR2 has a 50% chance of a common ancestor within twenty-eight generations. That is about 700 years.

    Then I tried searching the forum for "FGS Matches" and found nothing.

    Is an FGS match that rare that there's no FAQ for what a FGS match means, and there's no discussion in the forums?

    Anyone have any information or personal experience with an FGS match?

  • #2
    Originally posted by wighty44 View Post
    Today my FGS results were posted and wouldn't you know there was a single FGS match in my mtDNA match listings.

    So I eagerly checked the mtDNA FAQ and there was no interpretive statement for FGS matches like those found for low & high resolution matches -eg, ... When they also share the same haplogroup it indicates a possible connection. A match on HVR1 and HVR2 has a 50% chance of a common ancestor within twenty-eight generations. That is about 700 years.

    Then I tried searching the forum for "FGS Matches" and found nothing.

    Is an FGS match that rare that there's no FAQ for what a FGS match means, and there's no discussion in the forums?

    Anyone have any information or personal experience with an FGS match?
    I have at this point a single FGS match. The first point to take into account is how few people have done an FGS. I suspect that one point is enough of an explanation. There is a whole big wide world out there waiting for you to convince it of the value of an FGS. The second point is my FGS match did NOT match me on both HVR1 and HVR2. So, tell that little vulture inside your head (also in mine) to have patience. Not to kill yet.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Deirwha View Post
      I have at this point a single FGS match. The first point to take into account is how few people have done an FGS.
      Yes, I understand that point. I believe that last time I looked at the FTDNA stats only ~5% of the mtDNA samples had been submitted for the FGS.
      ...The second point is my FGS match did NOT match me on both HVR1 and HVR2.
      I'm not sure I follow this. Do you mean that the name shown for the FGS match was not also listed in your HVR1 & 2 match lists?

      In my case the person listed on my FTDNA mtDNA FGS Matches is also listed in my HVR1 & 2 match tables.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by wighty44 View Post
        Yes, I understand that point. I believe that last time I looked at the FTDNA stats only ~5% of the mtDNA samples had been submitted for the FGS.I'm not sure I follow this. Do you mean that the name shown for the FGS match was not also listed in your HVR1 & 2 match lists?

        In my case the person listed on my FTDNA mtDNA FGS Matches is also listed in my HVR1 & 2 match tables.
        Correct. My FGS match also matched me on HVR1 but not HVR2. To be technically accurate, I have another match out there about whom I am aware but her results are "private." I am not sure whether or not this third person matches me at HVR1 and 2. I also have 3 HVR 1 AND 2 matches who (at least as of yet) do not match me on an FGS, assuming it has been reported. Some of the markers involved in testing can be lengthy and a number of analomies occur. There are also "private" markers that turn up on FGS that seem to be unique to one or two people. The specific markers involved would require analysis. I have seen the analysis provided my match, which applies pretty well to me as to her. In short, there are nuances here that I had not expected with MT DNA. But they are there with mine at least, T1b. I am not knowledgable enough to hazzard an opinion just how the analysis works with yours, but I am now very aware it is not as cut and dried as I once believed.

        The single most important fact remains how few out there have done the FGS.

        Comment


        • #5
          No FGS matches...

          I am an H1a1 and I have absolutely no FGS matches. So you are ahead of me! I have 18 low resolution matches (HVR 1) and 4 high resolution (HVR 1 and 2) matches. One of the high resolution matches did a FGS but she doesn't match me. There are only 10 other people who are H1a1's.. Good luck...

          Maria

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Maria_W View Post
            I am an H1a1 and I have absolutely no FGS matches. So you are ahead of me! I have 18 low resolution matches (HVR 1) and 4 high resolution (HVR 1 and 2) matches. One of the high resolution matches did a FGS but she doesn't match me. There are only 10 other people who are H1a1's.. Good luck...

            Maria
            Thanks, and I understand your frustration(?).

            Besides my FGS match, I have 987 low & 11 high resolution matches. The one time I was in contact with one of the high resolution matches there was no apparent family connection. While I realize one must exist, it had to be in the past where we could not identify the link.

            I'm hoping the FGS match (also listed in both the low & high Res. listings) may prove different. Yet, I'd still like to know from FTDNA what the probability is with an FGS match...

            Comment


            • #7
              HVR1 and FGS match without HVR2 matching

              There are two possibilities.

              Either the person didn't check the HVR2 box on their personal page, or more likely the following:

              IF you either one of you has 309.1C in HVR2, and the other does not, FTDNA does not count it as a "High Resolution" match.

              That is unfortunate, because 309.1C can and has been shown to differ between a mother and her child. It by no means always do that, but it can.

              It is the only HVR2 marker that you can "almost ignore".

              Does this fit your scenario?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Deirwha View Post
                Correct. ...I am not knowledgable enough to hazzard an opinion just how the analysis works with yours, but I am now very aware it is not as cut and dried as I once believed.
                In this regard we are both in the position. Which is why I've asked FTDNA for information comparable to what they've provided for the low & high resolution matches.

                Personally, I feel it was an oversight on their part not to already have it in their mtDNA FAQ - regardless of how few FGS analyses have been performed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hello Everyone,

                  A Full Sequence match would yield a 50% chance of a common ancestor within the past 5 generations and a 90% chance within the past 16 generations. There is a comparison table in the certificate packet that is mailed out with the results.

                  -Darren Marin
                  Family Tree DNA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    TMRCA with FGS match

                    Originally posted by Darren View Post
                    Hello Everyone,

                    A Full Sequence match would yield a 50% chance of a common ancestor within the past 5 generations and a 90% chance within the past 16 generations. There is a comparison table in the certificate packet that is mailed out with the results.

                    -Darren Marin
                    Family Tree DNA
                    The information pertinent to my public match and I would fit within that time frame. I am thinking TMRCA approximately 1780-1825.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Fgs

                      Hi ; Are there any other FGS databases , ( other than FamilyTree ) where one can enter results ..? KAT.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by kat View Post
                        Hi ; Are there any other FGS databases , ( other than FamilyTree ) where one can enter results ..? KAT.
                        YES! One can have one's FGS posted to GenBank an NIH site where FGS are available to researchers. Once your results are posted you can search for matches to others posted. There is a thread on this topic in the Mitosearch forum. Here's a link to getting posted:
                        http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Darren View Post
                          Hello Everyone,

                          A Full Sequence match would yield a 50% chance of a common ancestor within the past 5 generations and a 90% chance within the past 16 generations. There is a comparison table in the certificate packet that is mailed out with the results.

                          -Darren Marin
                          Family Tree DNA
                          Thanks for the reply, and perhaps this information will also become an entry in the FTDNA mtDNA FAQ...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Fgs

                            Thank you ..Tomcat....KAT

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Darren View Post
                              Hello Everyone,

                              A Full Sequence match would yield a 50% chance of a common ancestor within the past 5 generations and a 90% chance within the past 16 generations. There is a comparison table in the certificate packet that is mailed out with the results.

                              -Darren Marin
                              Family Tree DNA
                              I would very much like to see an update on those numbers (and how they were derived in the first place). I was a very early customer, back in the days when there weren't very many FGS available in the literature or in your internal database, and the numbers haven't been revised in the three years since then. Perhaps it's time to take a fresh look?

                              I don't feel entirely comfortable with the original numbers, as they seem to be based on a rather high mutation rate. But I really don't have an alternative to propose. I've done a number of custom reports for people who have obtained their FGS, and there are some cases where the coding region is an exact match to the founder of a haplogroup, perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. On the other hand, there are cases where people have mutations that have never been observed before, so there's quite a range.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X