## How likely is it that ftDNA made a mistake about my y-haplogroup?

6

1

I bought a National Geographic Geno 2.0 kit, tested by FamilyTreeDNA, and it says that I am of haplogroup that is very statistically unlikely for where my family is from.

ftDNA did not check any SNPs for the sibling branches to the Haplogroup. Could they have made a mistake?

1I saw your note, I didn't see PIFI in the history.. and think the question is applicable as I think there is a misunderstanding of a lot of the information that comes from genetic tests and what to make of the results. I agree some of the info was extraneous but believe the question itself of value and would add the Haplogroup information for background but leave out the other family stuff back into the question. Though you as the original asker I believe can delete it if you so choose. – CRSouser – 2017-03-22T20:32:27.607

3

Welcome to G&FH.SE! While you are waiting for an answer, you can find some links to basic information in my answer to the question Generational Loss of Data with DNA Testing in the section marked Resources.

– Jan Murphy – 2015-04-21T06:22:26.603

4

I'm by no means an expert, but given that the second test confirmed the result in question from the first, I would be inclined to accept the answer as valid, unless both tests/testers are known to have a high rate of mistakes, in which case you may wish to re-test.

In terms of the intriguing result, it's possible that what you think you know about your family's history and the genetic results are both true.

Your family may well have emigrated where and when you think, but further back in mistier parts of your family tree, your ancestors had to have immigrated to the place your family would later emigrate from, and sometimes our more adventurous ancestors did so from very far afield indeed.

[Prof. Brian Sykes, Seven Daughters of Eve] reports identifying unmistakably Polynesian DNA in an Edinburgh schoolteacher, Korean DNA signatures in Norwegian fishermen and African DNA in a white dairy farmer in rural England. Two fishermen on a remote Scottish island turned out to share Siberian ancestry — but one by way of Finland, the other via Brazil.

http://www.salon.com/2001/08/06/eve_2/

0

Geno 2.0 is obsolete. NG offers to buy new test, GENO 2.0 NG. Now it is processed in different lab - not FTDNA, but Helix. I don't know how new version of test is better or worse than old. But it is interesting fact that NG changes the lab.

Also I think that you are right and ftDNA could make a mistake. Why? Because import of GENO 2.0 data is full of errors. For example, Geno 2.0 claims that you have one particular SNP. What does it mean? It means that you have different base than ancient reference sequence. But from that time scientists have revised the reference sequence and it happens that you have this mutation nomore!!! So you need to double-check your data manually! Brrrrr. It is just disaster. What does ftDNA offer? They push you to order the simplest Y-DNA12 test (just to get involved, $59.00 via project) and then you will be able to get BigY test ($575), which will test all known positions in different way, than GENO2.0. And it will allow you to get upgrades of information of your position on Y tree with time. But the investments in these test are enormous. I can't say that they are cheap.

P.S. so for me, I ordered FGS Y-Elite. Still awaiting results...