Quote:
Originally Posted by penguin
I know what you mean. When I first started 2.75 years ago, there were only 2 other T5s. Now there's 62.
I don't know what the growth function looks like since they began - would be fun to see that graph.
It is great that more Hg Ts have been tested in the HVR, resulting in more T5s. My wife is one of those 62, that you mention (mitoSearch 6QVCU). I, also, have her listed as 6KBQM (T2). She was initially listed as T5, by FTDNA based on her 16153A, as do the other 61 of you.
However, when her FGS (Full Genome Sequence) results came back, FTDNA changed her designation to T2. This is because the published papers for FGS Hg T results only separate Ts into T1 and T2. She matches the FGS T2 markers, 11812G and 14233G.
The fact that the definition for FGS T2 is entirely different than the definition for HVR1 T2 seems to not be very important at FTDNA. Only last week, I received another assurance that this issue is on the list to be addressed in a future revision to FTDNA's website. This has been going on since her FGS results came back in Dec 2006.
I would encourage all you mtHg Ts (especially T5s), that can afford the cost, to get the FGS test. You would be contributing to filling a real gap in the data of this new science that we all find so fascinating.
Floyd Oakes
Co-Administrator
OAK Family DNA Project
Originally Posted by penguin
I know what you mean. When I first started 2.75 years ago, there were only 2 other T5s. Now there's 62.
I don't know what the growth function looks like since they began - would be fun to see that graph.
It is great that more Hg Ts have been tested in the HVR, resulting in more T5s. My wife is one of those 62, that you mention (mitoSearch 6QVCU). I, also, have her listed as 6KBQM (T2). She was initially listed as T5, by FTDNA based on her 16153A, as do the other 61 of you.
However, when her FGS (Full Genome Sequence) results came back, FTDNA changed her designation to T2. This is because the published papers for FGS Hg T results only separate Ts into T1 and T2. She matches the FGS T2 markers, 11812G and 14233G.
The fact that the definition for FGS T2 is entirely different than the definition for HVR1 T2 seems to not be very important at FTDNA. Only last week, I received another assurance that this issue is on the list to be addressed in a future revision to FTDNA's website. This has been going on since her FGS results came back in Dec 2006.
I would encourage all you mtHg Ts (especially T5s), that can afford the cost, to get the FGS test. You would be contributing to filling a real gap in the data of this new science that we all find so fascinating.
Floyd Oakes
Co-Administrator
OAK Family DNA Project
Comment