Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265320565

From: jim berry <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA admits to errors in many mtDNA sequences
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:56:05 -0500
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>

I don't recall having seen an email notification of this from FTDNA, either individually as a customer or as Project Admin so that we can correct our websites. Last fall or anytime.

Did I just miss it?

jim berry

On Feb 4, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Ian Logan wrote:

> List
> For anyone who wishes to follow this saga .....
> 'We' now have 2 emails from FTDNA - which do appear to contradict each other.
> Does anything more need to be said just at the moment ?
> But just to make one point .... I understand FTDNA make a FASTA file from
> the list of mutations; so if this list is wrong then the FASTA file will also be wrong.
> Ian
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Eileen Krause Murphy" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:34 AM
> To: .....
> Subject: RE: On how to proceed ...
> Hello all,
> I am writing to clarify as there seems to be some confusion about this
> problem. There was not an error in the lab, nor was there an error in the
> sequencing. There was a software problem which labeled these insertions for
> many customers as 524.1C 524.2A instead of 524.1A 524.2C or 523.1C 523.2A,
> either of which would have been correct. All of these were normalized in
> October to 523.1C 523.2A during our updates that converted everyone to the
> same nomenclature.
> E-mail any time,
> Eileen Krause Murphy
> Family Tree DNA
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Thomas Krahn" <>
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:40 AM
> To: .....
> Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA admits to errors in many mtDNA sequences
> Dear Jan,
> It is important that you need to distinguish "erroneous" from reporting
> in non- standard format.
> The sequences didn't have errors (since FTDNA also supplied the correct
> FASTA sequence files), but they were just reported in a way that doesn't
> comply the current nomenclature. By the time these sequences were
> reported the current standard wasn't even fully established.
> This is of course no excuse for keeping the wrong nomenclature in
> searchable databases. That's why FTDNA has invested a lot of time to
> re-investigate old sequences to bring them up to date to the current
> nomenclature.
> It is also important that you realize that the current mtDNA
> nomenclature is definitely still not the ultimate solution. There are
> still some "opinion" related loci that are inconsistently reported so
> that you need to force software algorithms to make exceptions so that
> they are called like the nomenclature standard requires it. The
> nomenclature standard is from a evolutionary standpoint (relating to the
> actual biochemical mutation pathway) sometimes complete nonsense. Future
> developments will not use any nomenclature system for comparison but
> they will simply compare full sequences (e.g. in FASTA format) with each
> other. This will soon make nomenclature discussions obsolete.
> Like in every kindergarten the tiny small mtDNA molecule is highly
> discussed with strong emotional attitude. Maybe when the mtDNA
> researchers grow up and start understanding the global scope of total
> genomic context they will learn that the nomenclature is not the only
> interesting issue that can be learned from the mitochondrial genome ;)
> I hope this helps,
> Thomas


Graveyards & Gravestones

Berry Bibles Project

Berry Family DNA Project

Berry Family DNA blog

This thread: