GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1073068129


From: Charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Print Test Results -- it is still version 2.0
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:28:49 -0500
References: <23453-3FF5AC05-8492@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net> <3FF5B004.000003.01680@computer>
In-Reply-To: <3FF5B004.000003.01680@computer>


Debby,

Count the actual number of markers listed in the genotype list, not the
range of the numbers identified. You cannot determine the number of
markers you were tested for by subtracting the lower number marker ID
from the higher number marker ID, since not all markers in that range
were tested. Only the specific numbers ID's listed were tested. If you
only have 71 or so markers with results (or with FL's) then you have
received the BGA DNAPrint results based on the 2.0 version of the test,
but with the new reporting format. If you received the 2.5 version of
the test it would show a list of 175 markers with determined results or
FL's listed, not 71'ish marker results as in the genotype table you
received. Your test was undoubtedly still with version 2.0.

Charles


Debby Peare wrote:
>
> Sorry about not responding to this earlier.
> I had to go check and it's unclear.
> My markers start with #958 and go
> to #1146 which is 188 markers.
> But, only 74 of those markers are showing
> a value or a "fl". So, I called Mark Prince
> to ask him to clarify if ALL of those markers
> were tested and they are only showing 74
> of them, or.... if they only tested those 74
> and thus being done by the 2.0 version.
> And if the latter, then are the 2.5 results
> enroute? He has to ask DNAPrint and
> as soon as he gets the answer, he'll let
> me know and I'll then let y'all know! :-)
>
> Debby
>
> Mary:
>
> As I told Charles, in a private e-mail, I assumed the 2.5 test was given
> to Debby based on her posting of 22 Dec 2003, 13:01 PM, wherein she said
> she was getting the "new test," NOT the "new format." We'll just have
> to wait for her to tells us what her "new test" was--2.0 or 2.5.
>
> Ray Whritenour


This thread: