DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-12 > 1325254760
From: "Marie Kerr" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] off list: Ulster
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:24:30 -0500
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4EFD635C.email@example.com>
My thinking is that 111 must be better than 67 or 37 if perhaps a single
marker points to recent migration patterns. These upper markers might even
identify which are more (or less) mutable than others in a time sense and/or
a genealogical sense.
Perhaps if more people had the 111 test done we would find interesting,
heretofore unknown pointers. There are those on the list who clearly want
to connect to relatives "over there" and I suspect the deeper analysis might
point to the marker(s) that might be unique, say, to the Golden name, rather
than the other names that match my father at some -level at 111.
In any case, certainly there should be nuggets of knowledge within the outer
bands. That's why I personally would like to see more people tested to 111.
Lowering the price would surely help.
Marie Golden Kerr (James J. Golden)
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: [R-M222] off list: Ulster
I don't necessarily believe that 111 markers are for everyone. I think it
is a choice. These are the reasons which have been presented to me:
1. exact or very close matches at 37 and/or 67 and want to see if those
matches hold up with better resolution.
2. no compelling matches in the first 12 --25 markers but pick up matches at
37 or more which are more compelling 3. interest in the dna research where
111 markers are preferred.
My understanding of the 111 marker up-grades from FTDNA is that they do not
necessarily recommend it unless there is a question regarding very recent
relatedness -- by recent, the last 4 generations (I think the figure was)
which would be indicated primarily by exact or exceptionally close matches
at 67 markers.
There are some groups who believe that the 111 markers are useful in looking
for down stream SNP. I don't know what the reasoning is...perhaps they have
found some that way.
I've seen some chatter on some of the lists suggesting the usefulness of it
analytically, I believe, in those looks using ASD & simulations.
I've had conversations with several others using other methods who feel that
even 67 markers does not reveal anything more than 37 markers will for many
or most analysis.
You've had a lot of experience with analysis and you and I have discussed
this as well. I believed you then and I have no reason to doubt your
reasoning now. The analysis you helped me with, we used 37 markers for all
of it and the several different methods from McGee to Howard to the ASD
produced similar results with the exception that the ASD estimates were
shorter and indeed comparisons genealogically too short when considering the
lineages of those who had them. Sandy's Similation estimates using 67 were
compatible with McGee and Howard. I was impressed that three different
methods produced basically the same results.
Reasons I've heard from those who choose not to up-grade mirror your
reasons, their matches at 37 or 67 are not compelling enough in their
opinion to warrant it, and the expense of the up-grade.
Others I've spoken with who have up-graded have suggested that they haven't
learned anything new and it did not help with their analytical endeavors
In short I'm neither for or against. It is dependent on goals and/or
endeavors and how pertinent the up-grade may be in regard to those. Susan
On 12/30/2011 12:35 AM, wrote:
> In a message dated 12/29/2011 9:24:05 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> We need to analyze the data for patterns and links (link analysis)
> and I
> think we need to analyze only the names (kits) that have gone to the
> 111-marker level (or other deep testing). Only these, which
> presently are
> the best data we have, may point to more than conjecture. Does
> someone have
> the entire dataset? Or can someone tell me where to find it?
> I guess I should respond to this too since I'm one who hasn't
> upgraded past the 37 marker level. The reason is at 37 markers we can
> easily identify a McLaughlin cluster to which I belong which has a
> little over 20 members, all matching the same off modal marker
> values. 25 markers isn't enough but at 37 the cluster is clear as a
> bell and nothing is gained (in my opinion) at 67 markers (we have nine
> of those). We do not have a single 111 marker set in the project so
> if we had to confine our attention to that level we would drop out of
> the picture completely. There are lots of other surname projects out
> there that can also be identified on the basis of 37 markers.
> I myself am not sure more is always better. Sometimes it's just more.
> Now if someone could identify a truly helpful marker in the new 111
> set that would benefit M222 as a whole I think I'd change my mind
> quickly and upgrade.
R1b1c7 Research and Links:
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message