GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127930417


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:00:17 EDT


Rounding of partials doesn't appear to apply in my case.

FTDNA said my DYS464 = 15, 15, 15, 17
DNA-F said my DYS464 = 15, 15, 17, 17

There is no sign of partials in the extended DYS464
electropherogram that DNA-Fingerprint sent me.

Jim T

> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert Stafford <>
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464,
> DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
>
> In some earlier posts, people indicated that FTDNA rounds
> partials. It would be a good idea to contact them about this
> and find out exactly what they do, since it would affect
> matches with SMGF and comparisons with other firms.
>
> Bob Stafford


List,

I am a complete novice but if different labs get different results on the
same person.. how often does this happen? This would seem to be a serious
problem if folks are paying for tests that cost a pretty good chunk of money and
then may receive a false or partially inaccurate 12,25,37, 43 or whatever
marker result. If the labs are over booked, does that make the ones testing the
samples work too fast and not have proper controls over results? Too much
pressure? Do some labs have better testing methods and history of accuracy? Are
samples prone to some inaccuracy depending on how and when you take them and mail
them in and handle them? If so, what approximate percent of error exists in
the total folks that have been tested at the labs?
Anyway, I think EACH person tested deserves to get as accurate result as
is possible at ANY lab for their payment and for their family line. I hope all
of us would agree on that principle. The question is what is the ACTUAL
accuracy of reporting? I know the labs must have some data feedback on retests done
and reassignment of a persons marker results. In most industries there is
some amount of error. I imagine it is hard to find a perfect quality company. So
I hope if/when something does not "look right" or inconclusive results are
seen that the time will be taken to get it right. I also know that frustrates
some folks being tested because of extra time and concern. If I receievd
different results on similar tests at two different labs I sure would be asking why.
Some of us may have a genealogy group with only one person in the
surname available to be tested (the line is full of descendants, but the surname
males are few now to be found or not know where they are living or if living
will not agree to be tested), so whatever their results are is what the whole
research surname group is going by for early ancestry etc...
I know that labs indicate they do alternate/second vial tests and
further tests if they see inconclusive results or even send out a new kit for a
complete new sample. Still if we see different results on the same person by two
different labs, that is a a problem as I see it. Maybe I am misinterpreting
what is being said in this. Maybe the method of rounding could effect the
results. I am not up on this part but it seems to me that if detail breakdown test
done accurately showed a 15.3 and it is agreed that this is the correct
result/nomenclature and most accurate way to show the result shouldn't this be the
standard the labs use? If the result for a critical marker was shown as 15 or 16
or 17 instead of 15.3 couldn't that effect the meaning of the persons
haplotype or halpogroup?

Ed


This thread: