Genetic testing

[cgthornton1]

Good enough for me! ...but I would emphasize two things: (1) the quality, knowledge & willingness of the people on this forum to share their time, resouces & experiences to further the cause just for the asking is amazing! I owe a great deal to this forum...just trying to give back! (2) The DNA is nothing more than a tool; moral & privacy issues aside, it is nothing without the rudimentary research more familiar to traditional genealogists...but it is a fantastic tool that when used properly, with an open mind, has the ability to dramatically impact the quality & direction of genealogical investigations...and it's a whole lotta fun!
-cgt

[arthurk]

This is probably a question for Dr Chuck, but others can feel free to read and comment on it.

I had a DNA analysis done a few years ago, but since then the lab that I tested with has adjusted the values associated with some of the markers to take account of new standards - twice. This means I now have 3 printouts of the results they hold for me, all different. (Quite apart from this, I am aware that different labs use different standards, so comparing the figures from one lab with those from another isn't exactly straightforward.)

Soon after testing I submitted my results to my own lab's public database, and as I have become aware of the adjustments I have kept them up to date. But does everyone else do that? I doubt it. So - if I am comparing my figures with someone else's, how can I tell for sure whether they match or not? And should I submit multiple copies of my results, each following a different standard?

The admin of my surname project tells me that he's trying to keep all the offline project data up to date, but he says (rightly, I think) that he can't alter what people have uploaded to a public database - which unfortunately seems to mean that with each change in reporting protocol the database becomes less useful as a comparison tool. Any thoughts?

Arthur

[tony vines]

Positively my last word on this thread subject (famous last words - boom boom). In Vanessa's response she quotes from my last post but the words in blue typeface are not mine.

[v.wells]

They're mine. Sorry if I confused the issue. And I am not saying anything more about DNA!

[cgthornton1]

arthurK,
Based on your offline comments I believe what you're talking about is nothing more than a change in the "presentation" of the data; the data itself has NOT changed, simply the order of the results in the dataset. You can confirm this by comparing the actual values themselves for any given marker. They did this to enhance the ability to migrate data from one database to another...NO VALUES HAVE CHANGED! This is nothing more than an attempt to standardize display of the information to facilitate comparisons.

In the old days (a few weeks ago) the order of the markers on FTDNA was different than on Sorensen...so if you wanted to compare information, you had to do it manually...it was VERY painful! The change simply facilitates such comparisons. Hope this helps!
Best,
Chuck

[arthurk]

Actually the values HAVE changed. I've sent the results off to Chuck for further comments - watch this space!

Arthur

[tony vines]

Wow Arthurk, you've become someone else overnight! Do you also fly a Tardis?

[cgthornton1]

I had a DNA analysis done a few years ago, but since then the lab that I tested with has adjusted the values associated with some of the markers to take account of new standards - twice. This means I now have 3 printouts of the results they hold for me, all different. (Quite apart from this, I am aware that different labs use different standards, so comparing the figures from one lab with those from another isn't exactly straightforward.)

Soon after testing I submitted my results to my own lab's public database, and as I have become aware of the adjustments I have kept them up to date. But does everyone else do that? I doubt it. So - if I am comparing my figures with someone else's, how can I tell for sure whether they match or not? And should I submit multiple copies of my results, each following a different standard?

The admin of my surname project tells me that he's trying to keep all the offline project data up to date, but he says (rightly, I think) that he can't alter what people have uploaded to a public database - which unfortunately seems to mean that with each change in reporting protocol the database becomes less useful as a comparison tool. Any thoughts?

First, I reviewed arthurK's results [Tony, sorry, he's still the same guy!]. What he is referring to is a consequence of a publication by the International Society for Forensic Genetics:

Gusmão L, et al. DNA Commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG): An update of the recommendations on the use of Y-STRs in forensic analysis. Forensic Sci Int. 2006 Mar 10;157(2-3):187-97.

"The ISFG is an international association promoting scientific knowledge in the field of genetic markers analyzed for forensic purposes. The ISFG [was] founded in 1968 and represents more than 1100 members from over 60 countries.... Scientific recommendations on relevant forensic genetic issues are developed and published by experts....The ISFG has published numerous recommendations addressing important topics to help establishing scientific standards in particular for new typing methods and genetic marker systems."
-Taken ver batim from the ISFG website for informational purposes (isfg.org/).

The purpose of this Society and its publications is to facilitate standardization of scientific information related to (in this instance) Y-chromosome typing of STR-markers. The recommendations of this Society are developed over many years as more scientific information is gathered about a particular subject. In the aforementioned publication the molecular structure of several STR markers was further defined & refined. This resulted in a modification to arthurK’s Y-chromosome signature.

The main point here is that if the testing companies that maintain the Y-chromosome databases ALL follow these recommendations, then everyone will be comparing apples-with-apples and oranges-with-oranges. So, to your point regarding the usefulness of the information, the changes were designed to facilitate the usefulness of the information.

In regard to your specific situation, as long as your original testing company represents your signature as seen in your latest update, your information in their database is current. As it relates to your having manually provided that information to a different company (i.e., database), if your information in the secondary database isn’t the same as seen in the latest update, then you will need to have that changed. The only person that can do that is the Administrator. I suggest you draft an eMail that describes the reason for the change, provide your new signature, and then summarize exactly what changes need to be made…make it as easy as possible (it should take less than a minute). He/she may want you to simply un-join and then rejoin the project…what ever works. But until your signature is accurately posted (i.e., identical to the latest update), you may not find the matches you want!

In regard to my previous comment, their more recent publication spoke to the presentation of the dataset as I described…it was fairly recent, which is why I thought that was what you were talking about.

Hope this helps!
-cgt

[arthurk]

Phew - thanks, Chuck. It's a bit technical for me, but basically I gather I should carry on reporting my results according to the latest version published by the lab that tested me. (I think I've already done this - and as far as the public database is concerned I think I can do this myself without troubling admin.) Of course I can't do anything about the way other people report their results, so it looks like it's still going to be a bit hit-and-miss.

Connected with this, do you know if all labs now follow the same standard, so that if I were to input my results in another lab's public database it would be comparing like with like?

Thanks for all your help,
Arthur