Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265323534

From: "Charles Acree" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Using partial repeats and other imperfect markers
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:45:34 -0600

I've mentioned to this list before that our Acree Project at benefits extraordinarily from a distinctive partial repeat ("microvariant" or "fractional" value) at DYS 385b (13.2 - reported by SMGF to have a frequency of 0.00043), which is shared by four-fifths of our participants. We simply couldn't test at FTDNA, and our use of Y-Search is handicapped. As Andrew implies, if FTDNA had reported such values to its customers (instead of "rounding" them, for whatever short-sighted reason), many now-hidden patterns would have been revealed to haplogroup and geographical projects, as well as to surname projects. Al was wise to test elsewhere additionally. The problem is that, when FTDNA finally relents and widens its boxes, it's hard to imagine how it will possibly provide precise results to everyone retroactively. So many otherwise-satisfied customers are going to be pretty mad that they were shortchanged.

Charles Acree

Message: 12
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:43:33 -0800
From: Al Aburto <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Using partial repeats and other imperfect markers
for clades?
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

They keep saying partial repeats are on their list of things to provide
... but I'm afraid it may take some significant amount of time yet :-( ...
I tested with SMGF to see if I had any partial repeats :-) ...

> On 2/4/2010 12:59 PM, Lancaster-Boon wrote:
> Personally I have been waiting a long time for FT DNA to report partial
> repeats because think a lot of patterns will become clear in a stroke.
> Best Regards
> Andrew

This thread: