FGS results

[cacio]

For instance, Ian Logan lists about 20 H6 sequences in his webpage. With a full sequence, you can perhaps place yourself within this tree.

http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/discussion/gifs/H6_gif.htm

cacio

[JuanCarlos]

For instance, Ian Logan lists about 20 H6 sequences in his webpage. With a full sequence, you can perhaps place yourself within this tree.

http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/discussion/gifs/H6_gif.htm

cacio

Thank you, Cacio. Will the FGS help to pinpoint the geographical origin, in a more precise way, of my maternal line?

I've read in their announcement that Behar will use the data, without names, as part of a new mtdna study.

[cacio]

I don't know much about H or its subgroups. In general, it depends. The FGS gives all the mutations. Perhaps there is a mutation that is found only in one geographic area - I have not checked where these sequences come from. To determine something, however, one needs very many observations. Right now, as far as I've seen, there are only 10 or so H6, so they are probably not enough to see anything. But with time and with more people testing, it is possible that further patterns start to emerge.

As usual, not very many people have tested the FGS yet - so the database is relatively small. But again, with time, it will get bigger. The FGS tests the whole thing - so you'll never have to test again. If a further subgroup is defined, you can always check where you fit.

cacio

[Deirwha]

FGS numbers

I found it interesting that GenBank shows 6 FGS matches for me within genealogical time frame while FT DNA shows 1. I am aware of a privately held match that may or may not be on GenBank. I know this is set up in a way to maintain privacy and am not looking to disturb that. My question is, since GenBank's data entry method differs from FT DNA, is it possible that the standards for what constitutes a match differs? Or, alternatively, I may be misreading GenBank. Of the better than 30 that turn up as some level of match, 6 are at the level of 16565 out of 16569 bases, which, as I understand it, is a genealogically relevant level.

[Johnserrat]

As I understand it, FTDNA will only show perfect matches on FGS. I know of one person who is just one private mutation away from a complete match with me but is only shown as a HVR I and II match.

John

[Deirwha]

As I understand it, FTDNA will only show perfect matches on FGS. I know of one person who is just one private mutation away from a complete match with me but is only shown as a HVR I and II match.

John

Thanks, John

That would explain 4 of the 6 matches then.

[darroll]

You can tell the program how close of a match you want..
I only use group 11.

[Deirwha]

Thanks

You can tell the program how close of a match you want..
I only use group 11.

I may try that.

[JuanCarlos]

My FGS results were supposed to have arrived June 1, but today is the 4th and nothing yet. How long does it usually take, in terms of weeks?

[Darren]

The lab is now getting in the majority of batch 300-302 for the FGS. We expect to have most of 303 by next week and 304 beginning next week and into the following.

-Darren Marin
Family Tree DNA

[Deirwha]

when you receive your FGS

consider GenBank. It has opened up a whole new word of info for me. On FT DNA (not complaining mind you) I have one public FGS. On GenBank I have 7 in genealogical time frame ... and the good news is that I know of 6 closer matches than are yet on GenBank. Suddenly I have an entirely new picture of the geographical distribution of results that are close in genealogical time frame. It is absolutely fascinating, adding 1 from Portugal, 1 from Spain, and 5 from Finland to a mix that already had 2 from Sicily, 1 from Germany, 1 from Hungary, and 1 from the Bahamas (Public) and another from the Bahamas (private).

[tomcat]

...My question is, since GenBank's data entry method differs from FT DNA, is it possible that the standards for what constitutes a match differs? Or, alternatively, I may be misreading GenBank. Of the better than 30 that turn up as some level of match, 6 are at the level of 16565 out of 16569 bases, which, as I understand it, is a genealogically relevant level.

Genealogical relevance of a four base pair difference depends on whether those base pairs are in the HVR or not. The coding region is assumed to have a mutation rate slower than the HVR's. Also I closely mis-match a bunch of C's of diverse geographical origins on HVR 2, so I assume that HVR 2 is somewhat slower than HVR 1.

[Deirwha]

Thanks, however

Genealogical relevance of a four base pair difference depends on whether those base pairs are in the HVR or not. The coding region is assumed to have a mutation rate slower than the HVR's. Also I closely mis-match a bunch of C's of diverse geographical origins on HVR 2, so I assume that HVR 2 is somewhat slower than HVR 1.

Thanks, tomcat. I had found that out in the 10 weeks since I posted the first message. I posted a follow up message the other day to mention some of what I had learned and how valuable posting to GenBank had turned out to be (in some of the first posts I had declined to post to GenBank because I had misunderstood a message I had received from FT DNA). So I thought it would be good to circle back and post the benefits of posting after I had cleared up my misunderstanding of FT DNA's position. That I did. The next poster called me "rude" for describing what I had learned as a result of the GenBank post on this page instead of GenBank's web site. Therefore I referred this poster to the first three messages to point out that this had been the subject of the thread all along.

If FT DNA has any problems with this, and I rather doubt they do, then I do not object to the thread locking. I do object to being called "Pal" and "rude" in a thread I started because of questions concerning GenBank, was about GenBank throughout, and which I only supplemented by updating folks on what I had learned.

[JuanCarlos]

The lab is now getting in the majority of batch 300-302 for the FGS. We expect to have most of 303 by next week and 304 beginning next week and into the following.

-Darren Marin
Family Tree DNA

Thank you for the information. My batch is 304.

[JuanCarlos]

consider GenBank. It has opened up a whole new word of info for me. On FT DNA (not complaining mind you) I have one public FGS. On GenBank I have 7 in genealogical time frame ... and the good news is that I know of 6 closer matches than are yet on GenBank. Suddenly I have an entirely new picture of the geographical distribution of results that are close in genealogical time frame. It is absolutely fascinating, adding 1 from Portugal, 1 from Spain, and 5 from Finland to a mix that already had 2 from Sicily, 1 from Germany, 1 from Hungary, and 1 from the Bahamas (Public) and another from the Bahamas (private).

Thanks for the info. What country is GenBank located in?