GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1267117079


From: Al Aburto <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Hello Mr. Krahn
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:57:59 -0800
References: <4B866DA9.7020808@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B866DA9.7020808@comcast.net>


I would recommend the 9 SMGF STRs which are not tested FTDNA's 67 marker
set, since these have been tested widely by SMGF and many show up on
Ysearch. The set consists of (all found in FTDNA's "advanced orders"):
DYS461, DYS462, A10, DYS635, 1B07, DYS441, DYS445, DYS452, and DYS463. I
might also add in DYS710.

After that there is the (FTDNA "advanced orders") Y-STR DNA-FP Panel 9.
There are 10 different Y-STRs in this panel.

What would be most helpful perhaps would be for FTDNA to form an even
larger Y-STR set than the current 67 set, an 87 marker set for example.
Al


> On 2/25/2010 4:31 AM, Bonnie Schrack wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I agree with your recommendation that more SNPs and STRs be used,
> certainly. Since other SNPs aren't yet available, I've been thinking
> that the hundreds of families who have very similar haplotypes even at
> the 67-marker level, might want to try testing some of the Advanced
> Order STR markers you've made available.
>
> Could you, and others on the list (perhaps from R1b) who have experience
> with them, recommend which additional STRs might be the most useful for
> splitting large groups who have similar haplotypes? Should they look
> particularly at some palindromic markers, or would some of the
> fast-mutating markers in the other panels be the first ones to try?
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> Bonnie
>


This thread: