Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big Y and New SNP Panels . . .

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by boutrosdu93 View Post
    so are the snps really the same or note? as the other member seemed to imply it'not the same testing methodology i'm confused...
    A SNP with the same name is the same SNP. However:

    - Some SNP panels reportedly include a few SNPs that are not usually covered by the Big Y.

    - The technology used by the SNP panels is reportedly different from that used by the Big Y, so experts or the well-to-do might have a reason to order both.

    The real difficulty is that FTDNA is not distinguishing between offering and advertising. An excellent example is the new Z283 SNP Pack. The product's content makes clear that:

    - Anyone predicted to belong to the R1a haplogroup should be able to order it.

    - Only those confirmed or predicted to belong to R1a-Z284 (or, arguably, R1a-M458) should see an advertisement for it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Anyone who has their Big Y results should go to a third party for interpretation of their results. The cost for this ranges from $40-$50 and will save you a great deal of frustration.

      As a side note, when I purchase something and the sales representative tries to sell me something I don't need during or after the fact….I remember this and go elsewhere the next time I make a similar purchase.

      Comment


      • #18
        to be clear . . .

        I am NOT being negative about the SNP panels, or packs I guess is the current denomination. I think in some circumstances they might present an useful option, if they are presented to fully informed customers who have not done SNP testing previously and are seeking a cost effective way to identify their most likely SNP lineage.

        I do not think that is being done at present. I realize that this is a fast changing science and business, and that it can be challenging to add new products while also keeping the present database and customer/project dashboards up to date. Still, making allowances for all that, the manner that these packs have been and are being presented is not ethically acceptable, in my most humble opinion.

        My other major objection continues to be the disconnect between the SNP trees, SNP packs and Big Y results. If the SNP packs offer results for SNPs downstream of identified SNPs on the trees of Big Y takers, and the status of those SNPS are within the Big Y test data, then the SNP trees of the Big Y takers should be updated to show that. This is closely related to my concern about how the packs are being presented to customers, as I feel that by not updating the trees FTDNA is in effect withholding information which may be crucial to the customers making informed decisions.

        Caveat emptor may be the common practice, but I'll always prefer emptor conscii. Esse informata emptor perussi eaque omnia facta esse sensit. Ethica concionatorum educandi perussi.

        Comment


        • #19
          The technology differences between sequencing and "SNP panels" is enough that one needs to acknowledge that placing a SNP or INDEL identified via NGS or Sanger sequencing onto a panel does NOTT mean that it will work on panel. Remember all of the failed SNPs in the Illumina chips that 23andMe used and in the Geno 2 chip? What is FTDNA's success rate for correct results from a panel?

          What I have not heard is how FTDNA validates the reporting of the SNPs placed onto a panel. They are not going to get all of the expected SNPs to work due to technical issues. In previous years FTDNA lab scientists would ask approval to run experimental tests on client samples to help validate new SNP primers. Have those types of requests for access to samples for the new SNPs been going out to the individuals who have them?

          I have a sinking feeling that FTDNA needs a lot of panel orders in order to figure out what is working before they return results to the client. That is technically very scary. We may still be a situation where we need to have individuals test elsewhere to confirm what is being seen on a SNP panel.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by wkauffman View Post
            The technology differences between sequencing and "SNP panels" is enough that one needs to acknowledge that placing a SNP or INDEL identified via NGS or Sanger sequencing onto a panel does NOTT mean that it will work on panel. Remember all of the failed SNPs in the Illumina chips that 23andMe used and in the Geno 2 chip? What is FTDNA's success rate for correct results from a panel?

            What I have not heard is how FTDNA validates the reporting of the SNPs placed onto a panel. They are not going to get all of the expected SNPs to work due to technical issues. In previous years FTDNA lab scientists would ask approval to run experimental tests on client samples to help validate new SNP primers. Have those types of requests for access to samples for the new SNPs been going out to the individuals who have them?

            I have a sinking feeling that FTDNA needs a lot of panel orders in order to figure out what is working before they return results to the client. That is technically very scary. We may still be a situation where we need to have individuals test elsewhere to confirm what is being seen on a SNP panel.
            I seem to recall that the first SNP panel there was a beta test. That seemed obvious.

            Are you saying that the other panels did not undergo such testing?

            W. (Mr.)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dna View Post
              I seem to recall that the first SNP panel there was a beta test. That seemed obvious.

              Are you saying that the other panels did not undergo such testing?

              W. (Mr.)
              I do not know..... I am curious what type of validation goes in BEFORE the panel is released for sale.

              Comment


              • #22
                I have had the same experience with chip technology in general.
                23andme and Geno 2.0 both reported erroneous results with regard
                to yDNA and mtDNA haplogroups.

                Comment

                Working...
                X