Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Geno 2.0 Y-Results

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

  • Geno 2.0 Y-Results

    Hope you don't mind another Geno Thread... I want to see all the new results and the other threads have become too large and cluttered.

    My Geno 2 results came back as R-Z306 which is only a couple steps down from U106. (I was hoping to go further)
    After transfer, FTDNA has me as R-U106

    I should start donations for a WTY... lol

  • #2
    Haplo label Geno provides is not always accurate

    The Haplogroup Label The Geno 2.0 test shows is not always your terminal SNP. We have found a number of individuals who actually are derived for SNPs below their label.

    If you have not already done so, you may want to join the U106 Project. We have created a spreadsheet to examine Geno 2.0 tests for members, and are uncovering a treasure trove of information.

    Comment


    • #3
      Are you looking at your results on your FTDNA Y haplotree page, or on the SNPs page from a project that you are a member of?

      I gather that the SNPs reported by FTDNA only reflect those that are also currently in its SNP test menu, thus you may only see a subset of your full Geno 2 SNP list, whereas those listed in a project will be the full set.

      Also, +1 for joining the U106 project, if not already a member.

      Comment


      • #4
        I did notice my list of known SNPs on FTDNA now... I'm not too familiar with them but it does look like there are a couple past what NatGeo has me at, and quit a few past U106 (if they are in order from most recent to most distant)

        My raw data from Geno is not available for download yet,

        FTDNA's Known SNP's
        Z381+ Z307+ Z306+ Z156+ Z148+ V9+ V205+ V189+ V186+ U106+ P310+ P297+ P295+ P286+ P285+ P284+ P283+ P282+ P281+ P280+ P245+ P244+ P243+ P242+ P240+ P238+ P237+ P236+ P235+ P233+ P232+ P230+ P229+ P228+ P226+ P207+ P187+ P166+ P160+ P159+ P158+ P151+ P148+ P146+ P145+ P141+ P14+ P138+ P136+ P135+ P132+ P131+ P128+ M94+ M89+ M526+ M45+ M42+ M343+ M294+ M207+ M168+ M139+ L82+ L768+ L721+ L594+ L585+ L566+ L552+ L52+ L517+ L516+ L515+ L51+ L506+ L502+ L500+ L498+ L493+ L483+ L482+ L478+ L477+ L471+ L470+ L468+ L407+ L389+ L366+ L350+ L278+ L23+ L16+ L151+ L150+ L15+ L132+ L11+

        I have tried to join the U106 group but along with many other features since the upgrade, it's not working

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that list simply reconfirms your terminal SNP to be Z306. The only "new" SNP below Z306 that I'm aware of at the moment is PF4142.

          It's still early days; there may be others in your or other men's data just waiting to be analyzed.

          What a nuisance that the Join Projects function isn't working for you (although it is for me). Please keep trying.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Neves View Post
            I have tried to join the U106 group but along with many other features since the upgrade, it's not working
            The easiest way is to log into your FTDNA account and go to the project website at http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u106/. Then click on the link labelled "Join Project" at the top of the page. Just give us the information requested about your paternal line and you'll be approved.

            The other way to join is to log into your FTDNA account. Then click on the "Join" link, which is in the submenu under "Projects" at the top of the page. This sends you to a page with various categories of projects. Scroll down to the category titled "Y-DNA HAPLOGROUP PROJECTS" and click on the letter "R." This sends you to another page with various haplogroup projects starting with the letter "R." Click on the link labelled "R1b-U106 Y-DNA." Then fill out the information about your paternal line on the page you're sent to and send the join request.

            Those are the only two ways I know to join a project. Which did you try and what was the problem that stopped you from joining?

            Comment


            • #7
              Just wanted to mention that when looking at the results generated by the Geno 2 test do not pay attention to the groups they claim are closest to you.
              You must look at the reference groups. My supposedly closest groups were Danish and Greek. I am basically a 50/50 split between Northern European and Med. (all the European SW asian results are almost idetical at 16 to 17 %).
              I am much closer to the German group than what was offered.

              Comment


              • #8
                Geno groups

                @brunemj
                I would like to know why are they not getting it right? They actually corrected mine after 3 weeks from German to Bulgarian and I now see I am closer to Romanian next and Tuscan and Greek are a tie for me for third Ref pop. I think they have bugs to work out. They are creating more mystery in their results than giving us answers. When you have to twist and stretch to make something fit....not a good thing!!! No matter , I am just going to keep smiling and keep scratching my head trying to figure things out!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Geno 2.0 Results

                  I'm not sure about this, but I don't think there is a direct correlation between our ethnicity percentages and those of the reference populations. In other word, I think it may be misleading to look simply for those with the closest percentages to you. I am guessing that the correlation is deeper, and based on the best fit to the specific SNPs that are present in those reference populations.

                  Jim

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Geno

                    @jbarry
                    You are probably right but when they changed my original result to Bulgarian which matched my results almost to a T.....I wonder. Hope more chime in with their results to see if most are happy with this test!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well my family is fairly homogeneous from France to Quebec in 1650 . It is also well documented due to detailed records the French Catholics keep. I know there can be surprises in peoples ancestry but Danish or Greek? Well perhaps mine will change to.

                      @auntsha hi cuz. I will do more reading at their web site and perhaps find out more about this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Geno 2

                        @brunemj
                        Thank you. !

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why does Nat Geo use a different naming convention than FTDNA

                          I know they are going away from the longhand names. But in the Geno 2 stories they list the longhand version of your haplogroup instead of your terminal SNP.
                          Geno lists me as R1B1A1CBC3E
                          FTDNA lists me as R1b1a2a1a1a3a1

                          Dont they (NatGeo & FTDNA) both refer to the YCC tree?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Neves View Post
                            Hope you don't mind another Geno Thread... I want to see all the new results and the other threads have become too large and cluttered.

                            My Geno 2 results came back as R-Z306 which is only a couple steps down from U106. (I was hoping to go further)
                            After transfer, FTDNA has me as R-U106

                            I should start donations for a WTY... lol
                            Re Walk Through Y....I have done the test and 2 new SNP were found. [L1252 & L1253]...The important tern here is new SNP I have found it hard to get men form my haplogroup and family name group to test the new SNP even at +-$30. I am not saying my new SNP value is meaningless because it is not. But it's value would be much greater is others could see the value of testing for it. It appears to be the J1c3d Scottish Graham SNP but only more SNP testing will prove that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Neves View Post
                              Why does Nat Geo use a different naming convention than FTDNA

                              I know they are going away from the longhand names. But in the Geno 2 stories they list the longhand version of your haplogroup instead of your terminal SNP.
                              Geno lists me as R1B1A1CBC3E
                              FTDNA lists me as R1b1a2a1a1a3a1

                              Dont they (NatGeo & FTDNA) both refer to the YCC tree?
                              Unfortunately, It looks like NatGeo is basing their tree only on the SNPs they are testing (and actually, only on those SNPs which are producing results, as there are a small number of probes/SNPs which are failing).

                              For instance, under R1b, P312 and L48 are not on the chip, and Z301 (which is above L48) is producing false negative results for people who are known to be positive for it.

                              Because of these missing SNPs, the long haplogroup name from NatGeo is seriously flawed in many instances. For instance, they are currently listing 12 subclades of U106 (What they call R1B1A1C) which is causing them to use the letters A, B & C (for 10, 11 & 12).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X