GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-06 > 1150240801


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Posting of New Results - DYF406
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:20:01 -0600
References: <008801c68f3e$29e5d3f0$6400000a@eldonathome>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eldon Wade" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: [DNA] Posting of New Results - DYF406


> Ken,
>
> When EA reported the result of 3 they said that it was not the actual
> repeat
> count but a calibrated number that would be consistent with the Kayser
> report. I am assuming that FTDNA reported the actual repeats.
>
> Eldon

But I still don't see the connection with what EA did and what FTDNA might
have done? In fact, from our experience we can't extrapolate from what one
testing company does to another on the short term.

I have the "temporary" EA result also for DYF406, which is a low number.
What it means with regard to more widely used standards, I still wait to be
told.

With four markers in FTDNA's new panel being reported differently than other
labs have, I don't know why for DYF406 I should assume FTDNA's numbers will
prevail or be soon changed as well? I guess if no one questions them, after
a while we can then assume they are the final numbers.

Ken



This thread: