GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1073069217


From: "Debby Peare" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Print Test Results -- it is still version 2.0
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:46:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
References: <3FF5B861.2020701@kerchner.com>


Ok... then it's undoubtably the 2.0 version.
But, I'm also scheduled for the 2.5 version
and as Mark Prince stated, those results are
expected in a week or two. I gather because
of the fact that my results of having unknown
S-SA to the family, a little NA and 6 (which only
3 or 4 is acceptable) failed markers.... is why
DNAPrint decided to do mine with the 2.5
version. If that is the case, then my results
from the 2.5 version will be VERY interesting
comparing it to my results as they are now
and will either lend credibility to my assumptions
or prove out you pessimists! LOL
I'm am assured by Mark that I'm scheduled to
receive the 2.5 results, so, we'll have to wait
until he has talked with DNAPrint as to when
it'll be! :-)

Warm Regards from Maine,
Debby Peare


-------Original Message-------

From:
Date: Friday, January 02, 2004 1:33:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Print Test Results -- it is still version 2.0

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



==============================
Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237


.

This thread: