RootsChat.Com

The current genetic genealogy tests have no medical data of any value: atDNA (Family Finder) just reads junk DNA that has no meaning for health; YSTRs are random variations of YDNA that have no medical value; YSNP testing (SNP packs and individual YSNP testing) no medical information; NGS testing (Big Y) - no medical data. The only test that could be used for medical purposes is the Whole Genome Sequencing - but the very small read length being used now is not enough to read medical data. However, sometime in the future, WGS testing will have much longer read lengths where medical data could be extracted. But testing companies are not going destroy their own business by selling this data to insurance companies. Also, the GINA law in USA prohibits usage of DNA for screening data and fines for violations would put most insurance companies out of business as well as the genetic genealogy company providing this information. So medical concerns are not an issue.

However, identification of individuals by law enforcement is a valid concern for some but it will not make any difference as your cousins will test - over 10,000,000 atDNA tests in the last few years with 40 to 60 % annual growth rare currently. The number of documented cases in the US is at least 50 to 100 where convictions have been obtained and there are dozens of law enforcement agencies creating departments for this kind of research which save significant amounts of costs as cold case files are extremely expensive to run and rarely produce results like atDNA does.

Here a some the brick walls that I have cracked: 1) my Pace line was traced back to early Jamestown but two different lines claimed to a son of one Jamestown descendant - YDNA clearly solved this issue. 2) my Brooks ancestor (b. 1765) and his brother were not included in extensive probates even though they lived in the same household, had marriage bonds connected them. DNA now suggests that these were adopted sons; 3) My Casey line arrived in South Carolina in the 1750s. Links to the VA Casey lines (rampant in Ancestry.com) were proved false by YDNA; out of the 20 lines tested to date - all but one line are closely related in the last 200 to 400 years; testing positive for FGC5639 means that you belong to this South Carolina line and testing positive for FGC5647 means that are related to the South Carolina line earlier than settlement of America; the YSTR mutation 460 (12 to 13) means you belong to the younger branch of FGC5639; 4) My John Tucker spouse revealed her parents with atDNA matches - revealing another two direct ancestors on my pedigree chart (have around 120 ancestors - this was the weakest part of my pedigree chart. I could write ten more pages of these kinds of discoveries that I have helped others with.

"Non-Paternity Event" is the original and most accepted term for NPE. It really means that the surname associated with the father is not consistent with YDNA results. There are many ways the transmission of surname from father to son may not track the YDNA transmission: 1) the most common is probably via adoption (children of neighbors/relatives killed by war, famine, disease, etc.) or young widow remarries and her children take on the surname of her second husband; 2) swearing an allegiance to a clan and taking on the clan surname; 3) due to the wealth of the mother, the father has to take on the surname of the mother in order to get blessing for marriage and received inheritance or gain favor from the wealthy; 4) Infidelity of the wife during marriage to husband; 5) rape of wife by slavery, conquest during wars, sexual crimes, etc.; 6) Changing of surnames - avoiding the law, did not like the surname and just changed it, etc.; 7) Some lords had bedding rights of new brides under their protection.

I've just checked NevGen but all it told me was that there is 100% probability that I'm R1b, which I knew already.
Harry

The YSNP prediction tools do catch around 50 % of the known more recent haplogroups but the other 50 % would take a tremendous amount of time to analyze and add. These YSNP prediction tools could predict 80 to 90 % of the YSNP branches in the 1,200 to 2,500 range, but it takes around an hour to prepare the data input for each haplogroup and there are literally hundreds of haplogroups with new ones being discovered daily.

I keep hoping that some vendor will come out with a better chip array test (other than the very dated and limited tests by Nat Geo and LivingDNA). This would eliminate the need for YSNP predictor tools for the most part since you would just have one $100 to $150 test to get you down to a more recent time frame. It really a shame that YSEQ, Full Genomes, Nat Geo, LivingDNA and FTDNA really have failed to come out with a decent list of chip array tests. These chip array tests could include 10,000 to 50,000 YSNPs for only $100 to $150. But all we have is the R1b SNP pack, followed by the L21 SNP pack, followed by the L226/M222/L555/etc. SNP pack, followed by YSEQ testing of individual private SNPS. Not the most economical approach even with today's technology.

At least 50 % of the time, you can skip the first two levels of SNP packs and go directly to the L226/CTS4466/M222/etc. SNP pack based on YSNP prediction. These three Irish haplogroups can now be predicted with 99 % accuracy with 67 markers when using two variables. Here is a YouTube on what is involved. It shows you how to create your own YSNP prediction EXCEL macro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD1HHb0Cwfs

Just a though but for anyone wanting to refine their haplogroup might a LivingDNA test be worth considering. I know they claim to have the most powerful chip on the market and when I had my test it did give more detail on my Y haplogroup taking it much further down the branch of my group than the Y67 test I had done previously did.

Just a thought and interested in any observations on this suggestion.

There are only two comprehensive chip tests left for YSNP testing - NatGeo and LivingDNA. The number of YSNPs included is pretty robust but the selection is very dated and primarily includes YSNPs from thousands of years ago - even though there are many more recent major branches available to include that were ignored. The NatGeo test is not a genealogical test - it is aimed at creating the older part of the tree of mankind. Unfortunately, LivingDNA keeps all the very old and non relevant YSNPs but did add another ten percent (but not that well researched).

It is really sad that no company that has chip array test has been updated properly in ten years - and that is forever in the genetic genealogy environment. YSEQ and Full Genomes (as well as LivingDNA) are really missing out coming out with a useful chip array test. The three levels of SNP pack tests from either FTDNA or YSEQ could be easily be replaced by several chip array tests that would be much more economical for getting to your more recent YSNP branches. R-L226 is only 1,500 years old and we now have 83 branches under L226. Between the three major primarily Irish haplogroups (with CTS4466 and M222 added), there are around 500 branches under these three haplogroups.

But the SNP pack approach is reaching its upper limit as L226 now has 1,200 known YSNPs (future branches to be discovered) but the SNP pack is limited to testing only 150 YSNPs. M222 has probably 5,000 YSNPs unique to M222, so 150 YSNPs does not even cover the known branches these days.

Thanks for that. I used your L21 SNP Predictor and it said I had a 95% chance of being DF41_S, DF41_N or L226. However, on further checking, my DYS values are quite different from those required to be any of those SNPs.

If I understand correctly, all those SNPs are R1b1a1b ... but I have tested R1b1a2a1a1b4, and now that I look at my results, I see I tested L226-. I'm L21+ and P312+, and that's it.

Harry

You should also try NevGen as well. Also, FTDNA has a L21 SNP pack which would test around 150 YSNPs below L21 to get you to the next level down.