GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-03 > 1046531518


From: OrinWells <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS454 & DYS455: Different Scores from FTDNA & RG
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 07:11:58 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20030301091335.36825.qmail@web41215.mail.yahoo.com>


I am not a representative of Relative Genetics, but I have seen no real
evidence that they have anyone really monitoring this list and this issue
was addressed to them in January to which Diahan Southard responded with
the following short explanation.

"Yes, we realize we are reporting differently. It is a difference in
nomenclature because the published data is ambiguous."

I think this is likely to remain a standoff between these two labs for a
while. If FTDNA is basing their nomenclature on the research of Dr.
Hammer, which I believe is the case, I can't see them changing anytime soon
and we don't know what Relative Genetics is basing theirs on. They are at
a point now where they each probably have several thousand samples reported
with these values and are probably going to be reluctant to change the
horse in midstream. And poor Alastair Greenshields can't adjust his system
one direction or the other until the two labs synchronize to the same
standard reporting nomenclature.

As far as impact to surname studies is concerned, there is probably little
impact as long as the study continues using the same lab for their
processing. If they have used both labs at different times, then they have
a problem. But for comparing data between the labs using a common open
database such as ybase.org (at 735 samples as of this morning) this
presents a problem because samples will differ by two markers where they
shouldn't and will present false matches in other cases. This, in effect,
reduces the number of common markers to 14 from 16.

I think we may need to have Alastair incorporate some sort of note to this
effect. Ideally if he could put in an adjustment when doing the matching
that would either step up the RG values or step down the FTDNA values it
would possibly temporarily solve that issue. Alternatively, when a match
is detected between the two labs a note when the other lab data is brought
up indicating this difference would be helpful. The problem is I don't
think Alastair has addressed the lab identification yet. The only way
currently is if he sees the submitter has more than 25 markers the lab must
be Relative Genetics (except for a few); if the matching lab sample has 25
or less markers it must be FTDNA (except for a few) and if the matching
sample has less than XX (the number at which FTDNA introduced DYS454/455),
the problem does not exist.


At 01:13 AM 3/1/2003 -0800, David Faux wrote:

>In comparing the overlapping loci I find that for DYS454 FTDNA reports a
>score of 11; RG a value of 10. Similarly for DYS455 - FTDNA = 11; RG = 10.
>
>Both cannot be correct. There must be a calibration problem or some other
>type of factor which is distorting the results provided by one (or both?)
>labs.
>
>I am requesting that a representative from each of these companies comment
>on this perceived problem.


Orin R. Wells
Wells Family Research Association
P. O. Box 5427
Kent, Washington 98064-5427
<>
http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html
Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb

This thread: