Kerchner Surname Y-DNA Lab Merge Project
Merged Results From 11 DNA Testing Organizations
Nine Commercial Companies and Two Non-Profit Foundations.
Merged Test Results for 88+ YSTR Markers, Various YSNP Tests, and BGA Tests

Plus comments about the 7 plus years process to get to this point in time, i.e., 2007.
Note: As of 2011 many, many more markers are available from one lab and the need for testing
via multiple labs to achieve test results for large numbers of markers is no longer necessary.


Merged Lab Test Results From Testing At:
DYS & SNPs by FamilyTreeDNA in 2001-2004, DYS by Ancestry.com marketing Relative Genetics' Test in 2002,
DYS by Relative Genetics in 2003, DYS by DNAHeritage Using a European Lab in 2003,
DYS by Sorenson Foundation in 2002-2004, DYS by Sorenson Genomics in 2004, DYS by Biotex GmbH in 2005,
DYS & SNPs by National Geographic Genographic Project in 2005, DNAPrint/AncestrybyDNA BGA Tests in 2003-2005,
DYS/DYF from DNA-Fingerprint of Germany in 2005, and EthnoAncestry SNP and YSTR Tests in 2005-2006

In December 2005 my Kerchner family found to be S28+, a new YSNP discovered by Dr. Wilson
In April 2006, Kerchner family YSNP found by Dr. Wilson of EthnoAncestry.com
YSNP named S48, aka Kerchner SNP, was found by Dr. James Wilson of EthnoAncestry.com.
The Kerchner YSNP, or aka the K1 SNP, is located in flanking region of DYS441 for the Kerchner family.
This previously unknown YSNP was causing "Nulls/No Data" for the Kerchner family depending on which primer
was used and some other families at that marker with some primers at some testing labs.
See marker 49 in tables below and comments 12 and comment 23 for more details.
In 2006 it was confirmed from FTDNA the Kerchner family also has a "Null" at DYS 425. See comment 24 below.


In merging the results from multiple Genetic Genealogy YSTR marker testing organizations I had to rearrange the YSTR markers since each lab orders the markers differently. Thus the arrangement order of the YSTR markers below does not match either labs order. These tables are a merger of the results from multiple labs. But I have indicated in the tables which markers are used by which organization and which markers are shared in common by the various labs. The tables are kind of busy at this point. But if you study them you will figure out my code. Note: In the first table below are the 12 markers used in the initial test. That test is now known as the low resolution 12 marker test and it is still offered by FamilyTreeDNA. Cheek cell swabs were submitted to the commercial companies and a blood sample was submitted to the non-profit Sorenson Foundation. And interestingly, the 2005 submission to Biotix was done via submitting a glob of chewed sugarless chewing gum and the 2005 submission to EthnoAncestry was done using saliva spit into a specialized collection vial. The technology used in this field is progressing every year.

Merged Y-DNA DYS YSTR Markers 1-12.
The First 12 Markers Tested in 2001, aka the Low Resolution Test.
DYS Locus Allele Values/DYS Marker STR "Repeats" Numbers.
DYS Markers Shown with an "F" are Markers Used by FamilyTreeDNA.com.
DYS Markers Shown with an "A" are Markers Used for Ancestry.com by Relative Genetics in 2002.
DYS Markers Shown with an "R" are Markers Reported by Relative Genetics in 2003.
DYS Markers Shown with a "D" are Markers Used by DNAHeritage.com.
DYS Markers Shown with an "S" are Markers Used by the Sorenson Foundation (SMGF).
DYS Markers Shown with a "G" are Marker Results Reported by Sorenson Genomics.
DYS Markers Shown with a "B" are Marker Results Reported by Biotix GmbH.
DYS Markers Shown with an "N" are Markers Used by National Geographic Society Genographic Project.
DYS Markers Shown with a "K" are Markers Used by DNA-Fingerprint in Germany.
DYS Markers Shown with a "L" are Markers Used by Ethno-Ancestry in the United Kingdom.

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

 

Kit#

Participant's
Surname
Spelling

Immigrant Ancestor
per Research
and Henry Number

DYS
385a






F&A&R
D&S&G
B&N&K

DYS
385b






F&A&R
D&S&G
B&N&K

DYS
388






F&A&R
D&S&G
B&N&K

DYS
389-1






F&A&R
D&S
G&N

DYS
389-2






F&A&R
D&S
G&N

DYS
390






F&A&R
D&S
G&N

DYS
391






F&A&R
D&S
G&N

DYS
392






F&A&R
D&S
G&N

DYS
393






F&A&R
D&S
G&N

DYS
394
aka
19




F&A&R
D&S
G&N

DYS
426






F&A&R
D&S
G&N

DYS
439
aka
Y GATA
A4
(2)

F&A&R
D&S
G&N

Geographic Locale
Of Participant

577

Kerchner

tested at
F&A&R&D
S&G&B&N&K
for this
panel

ADAM1
11221782

11 (unsorted) at F&R&D
S&G&N
B&K

B/11 at A

16 (sorted)
Kittler
Protocol
at K

16 (unsorted) at F&R&D
S&G&N
B&K

G/16 at A

11 (sorted)
Kittler
Protocol
at K

12
also 12
at K

13

29 at F&R&D
S&G

16 at N
Note: 13+16=29

24

11

13

13

14 at
F&A
D&G

+1=15 at
SMGF

12

12

Pennsylvania

816

Karchner

tested at
F&A&R only

ADAM1
11528111

11

16

12

13

29

24

11

13

13

14

12

12

Ohio

581

Karriger

tested at
F&A&R only

See Note
(6) Below
4th Table

FREDK
14A25111

11 at F

B/11 at A

15 at F

F/15 at A

12

13

28

24

11

13

13

14

12

12

Michigan
Cells with In Process in them, if any, indicates we are still awaiting test results.
Cells with NT in them, if any, indicates that the person was not tested for that marker.

Merged Y-DNA DYS YSTR Markers 13-24.
DYS Locus Allele Values/DYS Marker STR "Repeats" Numbers.
DYS Markers Shown with an "F" are Markers Used by FamilyTreeDNA.com.
DYS Markers Shown with an "A" are Markers Used for Ancestry.com by Relative Genetics in 2003.
DYS Markers Shown with an "R" are Markers Reported by Relative Genetics in 2003.
DYS Markers Shown with a "D" are Markers Used by DNAHeritage.com.
DYS Markers Shown with an "S" are Markers Used by the Sorenson Foundation (SMGF).
DYS Markers Shown with a "G" are Marker Results Reported by Sorenson Genomics.
DYS Markers Shown with a "B" are Marker Results Reported by Biotix GmbH.
DYS Markers Shown with a "K" are Markers Used by DNA-Fingerprint in Germany.

 

 

 

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

 

Kit
Number

Participant's
Surname
Spelling

Immigrant Ancestor
per Research
and Henry Number

DYS
447


F&R&S

DYS
448


F&S&G

DYS
449


F&S

DYS
454


F&R&S&G

DYS
455


F&R&S&G

DYS
458


F&S&G

DYS
459a


F&S&G&K

DYS
459b


F&S&G&K

DYS
464a

(4)
F&G&B&K

DYS
464b

(4)
F&B&K

DYS
464c

(4)
F&G&B&K

DYS
464d

(4)
F&B&K

Geographic Locale Of Participant

577

Kerchner

tested at
F&A&R&D
S&G&B&K

ADAM1
11221782

26

19 at F&G

+3=22 at
SMGF

30

11

11

17

8

10

15

15c at Biotex

15

15c at Biotex

16

16c at Biotex

16

16g at Biotex

Pennsylvania

816

Karchner

tested at
F&A&R only

ADAM1
11528111

26

19

31

11

11

17

8

10

15

15

16

16

Ohio

581

Karriger

tested at
F&A&R only

FREDK
14A25111

26

19

30

11

11

17

8

10

15

15

16

16

Michigan
Cells with In Process in them, if any, indicates we are still awaiting test results.
Cells with NT in them, if any, indicates that the person was not tested for that marker.

Merged Y-DNA DYS YSTR Markers 25-36.
DYS Locus Allele Values/DYS Marker STR "Repeats" Numbers.
DYS Markers Shown with an "F" are Markers Used by FamilyTreeDNA.com.
DYS Markers Shown with an "A" are Markers Used for Ancestry.com by Relative Genetics in 2002.
DYS Markers Shown with an "R" are Markers Reported by Relative Genetics in 2003.
DYS Markers Shown with a "D" are Markers Used by DNAHeritage.com.
DYS Markers Shown with an "S" are Markers Used by the Sorenson Foundation (SMGF).
DYS Markers Shown with a "G" are Marker Results Reported by Sorenson Genomics.
DYS Markers Shown with a "B" are Marker Results Reported by Biotix GmbH.
DYS Markers Shown with a "K" are Markers Used by DNA-Fingerprint in Germany.

 

 

 

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

 

Kit
Number

Participant's
Surname
Spelling

Immigrant Ancestor
per Research
and Henry Number

DYS
437




F&A&R
D&S&G

DYS
438




F&A&R
D&S&G

DYS
460




F&A&R
D&S

DYS
461




A&R
D&S&G

DYS
462




A&R
D&S&G

DYS
GGAAT
1B07



A&R
S&G

DYS
YCA
IIa



F&A&R
S&G

DYS
YCA
IIb



F&A&R
S&G

DYS
Y
GATA
A10


A&D&R
S&G

DYS
Y
GATA
C4
aka
DYS635
A&D&R
S&G

DYS
Y
GATA
H4

(3)
F&A&R
D&S
G&K

DYS
425




D&F

Geographic Locale
Of Participant

577

Kerchner

tested at
F&A&R&D
S&G&B&K

ADAM1
11221782

15

12

11

12 at
A&R&D&S

+1=13 at G

11

10

19 at F&R&D&S&G

D/19 at A

22 at F&R&D&S&G

G/22 at A

13

23

11 at F

+1=12 at R&D&S
G&K
27/12 at A

12 at D in 2003. Now surmised to be an error by D.

Null predicted by DYF371X test at DNA-FP in 2005

Null verified by F in 2006

See comment 24 below

Pennsylvania

816

Karchner

tested at
F&A&R only

ADAM1
11528111

15

12

11

12

11

10

19

22

13

23

11 at F

+1=12 at R
27/12 at A

NT

Ohio

581

Karriger

tested at
F&A&R only

FREDK
14A25111

15

12

11

12

11

10

19 at F&R

D/19 at A

22 at F&R

G/22 at A

13

23

11 at F

+1=12 at R
27/12 at A

NT

Michigan
Cells with In Process in them, if any, indicates we are still awaiting test results.
Cells with NT in them, if any, indicates that the person was not tested for that marker.

Merged Y-DNA DYS YSTR Markers 37-50.
DYS Locus Allele Values/DYS Marker STR "Repeats" Numbers.
DYS Markers Shown with an "F" are Markers Used by FamilyTreeDNA.com.
DYS Markers Shown with an "S" are Markers Used by Sorenson Foundation (SMGF).
DYS Markers Shown with a "G" are Marker Results Reported by Sorenson Genomics.
DYS Markers Shown with a "B" are Marker Results Reported by Biotix GmbH.
DYS Markers Shown with a "K" are Markers Used by DNA-Fingerprint in Germany.

 

 

 

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

 

Kit
Number

Participant's
Surname
Spelling

Immigrant Ancestor
per Research
and Henry Number

DYS
456


F&G

DYS
607


F

DYS
576


F

DYS
570


F&B&K

DYS
CDYa


F

DYS
CDYb


F

DYS
442


F&G

DYS
444


G

DYS
445


G

DYS
446


G

DYS
452


G

DYS
463

(7)
S&G&B&K

DYS
441


G&K&S

DYS
643


B&K

Geographic Locale
Of Participant

577

Kerchner

tested at
F&S&G&B&K

ADAM1
11221782

16

15

18

17

36

37

12

12

12

13

11

22 at G
24 at S
24 at B&K

13 at K&S

FL at G
Kerchner SNP
See Comment 23

10

Pennsylvania

816

Karchner

tested at
F only for
these markers

ADAM1
11528111

16

15

17

17

36

37

12

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

FL at G
Kerchner SNP
See Comment 23

NT at K

NT

Ohio

581

Karriger

tested at
F only for
these markers

FREDK
14A25111

16

15

17

17

36

37

12

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

FL at G

NT at K

NT

Michigan
Cells with In Process in them, if any, indicates we are still awaiting test results.
Cells with NT in them, if any, indicate the person was not tested for that marker.
Cells with FL in them, if any, indicate the lab failed to get results for that marker.

Merged Y-DNA DYS & DYF YSTR Markers 51-63.
DYS Locus Allele Values/DYS Marker STR "Repeats" Numbers.
DYS Markers Shown with a "K" are Markers Used by DNA-Fingerprint in Germany.

 

 

 

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

 

Kit
Number

Participant's
Surname
Spelling

Immigrant Ancestor
per Research
and Henry Number

DYS
413a


K

DYS
413b


K

DYS
725a


K

DYS
725b


K

DYS
725c


K

DYS
725d


K

DYS
726


K

DYF
385S1a


K

DYF
385S1b


K

DYF
399S1a


K

DYF
399S1b


K

DYF
399S1c


K

DYF
434


K

Geographic Locale
Of Participant

577

Kerchner

tested at
F&S&G&B&K

ADAM1
11221782

23

23

31

31

31

32

12

10

11

20

23

24.1

9

Pennsylvania

816

Karchner

tested at
F only for
these markers

ADAM1
11528111

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

Ohio

581

Karriger

tested at
F only for
these markers

FREDK
14A25111

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

Michigan
Cells with In Process in them, if any, indicates we are still awaiting test results.
Cells with NT in them, if any, indicate the person was not tested for that marker.
Cells with FL in them, if any, indicate the lab failed to get results for that marker.

Merged Y-DNA DYS & DYF YSTR Markers 64-81.
DYS Locus Allele Values/DYS Marker STR "Repeats" Numbers.
DYS Markers Shown with an "L" are Markers Used by Ethno-Ancestry in the United Kingdom
All DYS Markers Shown in This Table were Tested by EthnoAncestry in the United Kingdom.

 

 

 

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

 

Kit
Number

Participant's
Surname
Spelling

Immigrant Ancestor
per Research
and Henry Number

DYS
522

L

DYS
589

L

DYS
575

L

DYS
594

L

DYS
638

L

DYS
487

L

DYF
406S1

L

DYS
549

L

DYS
494

L

DYS
533

L

DYS
636

L

DYS
481

L

DYS
556

L

DYS
505

L

DYS
490

L

DYS
578

L

DYS
531

L

DYS
641

L

Geographic Locale
Of Participant

577

Kerchner

tested at
EthnoAncestry

ADAM1
11221782

11

2*

10

10

11

10

3*

13

10

12

11

17

11

11

11

9

12

10

Pennsylvania

816

Karchner

not tested
for these markers

ADAM1
11528111

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

Ohio

581

Karriger

not tested
for these markers

FREDK
14A25111

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

Michigan
Cells with In Process in them, if any, indicates we are still awaiting test results.
Cells with NT in them, if any, indicate the person was not tested for that marker.
Cells with FL in them, if any, indicate the lab failed to get results for that marker.
Cells with * after the allele value indicates the number is not the actual allele repeat count.
Actual allele repeat count is still being determined by EthnoAncestry.com.

YSNP (Y-chromosome Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) Haplogroup (Deep Ancestry Markers) Tests
YSNPs shown with an "F" were tested via FamilyTreeDNA.com.
YSNPs shown with a "N" were reported via the National Geographic Society Genographic Project.
YSNPs shown with an "E" were tested via EthnoAncestry.com.
YSNPs shown with a "D" were tested via DNAHeritage.com

Kit
Nbr

Participant's
Surname
Spelling

Immigrant Ancestor
per Research
and Henry Number

YSNP M207

YSNP M173

YSNP M343

YSNP P25

YSNP M269

YSNP M37

YSNP M18

YSNP M73

YSNP M65

YSNP M126

YSNP M153

YSNP M160

YSNP M222

YSNP M167
(SRY2627)

YSNP Test Verfied Haplo- group per PhyloTree Charts

YSNP S21

YSNP S28

YSNP S48

Geographic Locale
Of Participant

577

Kerchner

YSNP tested
at F&N&E

ADAM1
11221782

M207+ by F

M173+ by F

M343+ by F&N&D

P25+ by F&D

M269+ by F&E&D

M37- by E&D

M18- by F

M73- by F

M65- by F&E&D

M126- by F&E&D

M153- by F&E&D

M160- by F&E

M222- by F

M167- (SRY2627-) by F&E&D

R1b1c* per FTDNA 2005 chart

R1b1c10 per ISOGG 2006 chart

see comment (19)

S21-
by E

S28+
by E

see comment (19)

S48+
by E

see comment (23)

Pennsylvania

Ancestral Origins
German

816

Karchner

Not YSNP Tested

ADAM1
11528111

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

Ohio

581

Karriger

Not YSNP Tested

FREDK
14A25111

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

Michigan
Cells with In Process in them, if any, indicates we are still awaiting test results.
Cells with NT in them, if any, indicate the person was not tested for that marker.
Cells with FL in them, if any, indicate the lab failed to get results for that marker.


Notes for above tables:
1. Cells with In Process in them, if any, indicates we are still awaiting test results or the person was not tested for that marker.
2. Revelations in this new industry in 2002 revealed that DYS439 and Y GATA A4 were the same marker with two different names. In 2002 Ancestry.com was reporting results for DYS439 and Y GATA A4 as two separate markers in their initial suite of 24 markers. Therefore, the results in 2002 for Ancestry.com were for 23 different markers, not 24 as initially promoted by Ancestry.com in 2002.
3. Relative Genetics, the testing lab used by Ancestry.com in 2002, has adjusted the initial allele value results for marker Y-GATA-H4. The allele values for this marker as of October 2002 were shifted 15 points lower than initially reported, i.e., an allele value of 27 becomes 12 under the new nomenclature for that marker. However, as of Jan 2004, Ancestry.com is still showing the old nomenclature higher range values in many of their customers online results pages. Ancestry.com has apparently not adjusted their old data which they received from Relative Genetics in 2002 to show the new lower range nomenclature data for GATA H4 which is now being used by Relative Genetics and other labs. I decided to show both numbers for GATA H4 for continuity purposes for now. But it appears that the lower range is becoming the industry standard range for GATA H4. Thus Ancestry.com should have adjusted their old data by this time. On Feb 3 2004 FamilyTreeDNA.com started reporting results for the GATA H4 marker. Kits 577 and 816 got an 11 from FamilyTreeDNA.com at this marker while Relative Genetics and DNAHeritage.com reported it as a 12 for this marker. Others online have reported this 1 point difference between labs too. Probably the difference is the result of a nomenclature difference between labs. This has been brought to the attention of the labs. Hopefully it will be clarified soon.
4. Allele values for markers DYS 464 a-d were adjusted down by count of one on each marker on 19 May 2003 by FamilyTreeDNA due to a lab nomenclature change for those markers. FamilyTreeDNA announced this nomenclature change in their website and notified all surname project administrators. The allele values shown in these tables reflect this change.
5. Kits 577 and 816 were known to be 5th cousins from traditional genealogical research. The match for 34 of 35 markers tested for both of them verifies their traditional genealogical research that they share a recent common male ancestor.
6. Kits 581 and 577 were suspected as being related from traditional genealogical research. Kit 581 and Kit 577 matched for 33 of 35 markers tested for both of them. This fact and sharing the same/similar surname in early PA records and living in the same area of colonial PA when they arrived in PA in the mid 1700's indicates they probably shared a recent common male ancestor back in Germany. Since the immigrants did not interact closely in church baptism or legal records in early PA, they were probably not brothers. But they could have been 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th cousins. They probably came from the same area of Germany. So while the initial 12 markers gave us a weak match the additional testing yielded matches at many more markers and supports the surmise that they probably were related, probably in the last 300-350 years.
7. DYS463 has nomenclature issues. The discoverer's nomenclature used by Biotix and the NIST and the forensic community results in an allele two counts higher than the nomenclature used by Sorenson Genomics, and apparently DNAHeritage.com. Thus the allele value was 22 for kit 577 when tested by Sorenson Genomics and it was 24 when tested by Biotix.


Additional Comments

Comment 1: Number of markers. When I started using this new tool of Genetic Genealogy in 2001 the 12 marker test from FamilyTreeDNA.com was the best commercial test available to amateur genealogists. After thousands of people were tested in various early surname projects, it became apparent that the 12 marker test had insufficient resolution to prevent many false positives from random matches and also some false negatives from not having enough information. It also did not provide enough information to differentiate between the various related branches within a surname project. It did not have enough resolving power. About a year later 25 and 26 marker tests were introduced. This higher resolution tests greatly reduced the resolving power issues experienced in the 12 marker test. These new tests were called the high resolution tests. The original 12 marker test became known as the low resolution test. The 12 marker test haplotype is also the test used to estimate one's anthropological haplogroup for those only interested in that information. Prior to 2004 to dramatically increase resolving power, i.e. obtaining data for 35 markers, one had to be tested at multiple labs. That is what I did with this project. But using multiple labs for surname projects introduced marker nomenclature issues in the data as the various competing labs still have not adopted consistent nomenclature standards for certain markers. Resolving power progress continues. In 2004 FamilyTreeDNA increased its suite of markers to 37. At this point in time for surname projects I recommend that people start with a minimum of the 25 marker test because of its higher resolving power. The more markers the better. If your project group can afford to start right off with the 37 marker test then do it. In my opinion the minimum test to use for a surname project is the 25 marker test.

Comment 2: Early Cryptic Codes and Nomenclature Standards (or lack thereof) Issues - Over the last four years things have evolved in this new industry. When FamilyTreeDNA.com, the Genetic Genealogy industry commercial labs pioneer, first began offering in the last half of 2000 its 12 marker Y chromosome test (now called the low resolution test) to genealogists, they initially did not provide the actual allele values but instead provided "scores". According to FamilyTreeDNA this was done to protect details of the nomenclature used for some new markers discovered by Dr. Hammer of the University of AZ in order to give Dr. Hammer time to publish his work. After Dr. Hammer published his research circa March 2002 FamilyTreeDNA dropped the practice of using "scores" and started providing the actual allele values. Then when Ancestry.com entered the market in 2002 marketing a test from Relative Genetics they too initially did not report actual allele values for all the markers but were using "cryptic letters" for the results for four markers instead of numbers. This use of proprietary scores and cryptic letters did not make it easy early on to compare haplotype results between labs and testing companies. Early customers such as I kept urging the testing companies to stop using "coded" results since use of proprietary coding of test results did not aide in the direct comparison and standardization of results from lab to lab in this new industry. Ancestry.com/Relative Genetics ultimately released the numeric values for these cryptic letter DYS marker allele values. Conversion/adjustment tables for converting these early "scores" and "cryptic letters" are found online at Ybase.org and Ysearch.org. In the test results tables in my project pages I now show the actual allele values for all markers. But I have continued to show the cryptic letters initially reported by Ancestry.com and the equivalent numeric allele values subsequently released by Ancestry.com/Relative Genetics since the last time I checked Ancestry.com's online data for me they still were using the cryptic letters in their online reports. But overall, significant progress by the testing companies towards standardization was made in this new industry by eliminating these cryptic codes. For the last two years or so most testing companies now provide the actual Y-STR allele values which allows comparison of results from one testing company with the results of another testing company. But lack of world-wide nomenclature standards continue to plague this industry and makes direct comparison of haplotype results from one lab with another not possible without allele value adjustments on certain markers. This causes much confusion and false conclusions for newbies to this nascent industry of Genetic Genealgy. More nomenclature issues keep popping up. These new nomenclature issues and the lack of industry wide standards is discussed in other comments below.

Comment 3: Sampling method and ID. Separate cheek cell swab samples were collected from three participants and sent to both FamilyTreeDNA.com and Ancestry.com. However, in the tables I only used the FamilyTreeDNA.com kit number ID's to identify individuals in order to allow easy identification and cross-reference of the individual test results in these merged tables on this page with the results for those same participants in the original FamilyTreeDNA.com test results tables displayed in the Y-DNA Project Home Page and for the Ancestry.com Results Page. For this project, due to costs involved, I have been the only one tested by the third and newest testing company, DNAHeritage.com, again via submitting new cheek cell swab samples to that company. For the Sorenson Foundation project a blood sample was drawn by a representative from their organization at a genealogical conference in April 2002. The sample submitted to Biotix in 2005 was done with chewed sugarless gum.

Comment 4: As soon as people started using mutliple labs and tried to directly compare haplotype results from the varous labs, nomenclature (repeat counting) issues for certain markers surfaced. Some people early on called these "calibration" issues. But in retrospect it appear these problems were all related to nomenclature issues. Relative Genetics started using markers DYS454 and DYS455 some time after I received my results as part of my the second independent lab test project May 2002. Relative Genetics initially provided verbally the results for these markers to participant 816 in the tables and then upon my phone call to them, for the other two testees in my project tested by them. Relative Genetics initially reported they obtained 10's for the allele values for these markers when FamilyTreeDNA obtained 11's. For the tables I initially only reported the results for FamilyTreeDNA for markers DYS454 and DYS455 since that company's lab (the University of AZ) developed the markers and thus has the most experience in testing for these markers and for defining the correct nomenclature. During that time frame these two markers were "new-to-their offering" for Relative Genetics. In my telephone conversations with Relative Genetics about this difference they at first could not give me a clear explanation as to why their lab was reporting a different allele value at markers DYS454 and DYS455 than FamilyTreeDNA was. Back then I was not as knowledgeable about the nomenclature issues and they seemed not to be able to explain the differences. Others, and then eventually Relative Genetics staff, have told me that Relative Genetics initially was using a different protocol for counting the repeats than the protocol used by the discoverer of these markers, the University of AZ. Eventually this difference which was being reported at these two markers was resolved. But getting Relative Genetics to clearly explain these differences in values in their website and in the reports provided to their customers, current ones and previous ones, was at times like pulling teeth. They were the newbies in using those two markers and they needed to explain clearly in their website and in their reports and to people who previously received results from them why they were reporting different numbers for these two markers than the University of Arizona, which is the lab which discovered and wrote the nomenclature and protocols for testing for these markers. In March of 2003 I was contacted directly by Relative Genetics indicating they were going to set up a Family Group Project for the three members of my surname project who were tested via Ancestry.com and provide a report of their test results directly to me. Thus we gained test results from Relative Genetics directly which added three more marker results not used by Ancestry.com's panel of markers. As of 17 April 2003 I learned that Relative Genetics was in the process of updating their database, and also the database of Ancestry.com customers, to adopt the discoverer/standard nomenclature and protocols for markers for DYS454 and DYS455. They have notifyied various public Y chromosome databases of the change. As of April 2003 it looked like this protocol/nomenclature issue was resolved and the two largest commercial Y-STR Genetic Genealogy testing organizations in the USA were now using standardized protocols and nomenclature making data from both companies easily compared and interchangeable. But as you will see in subsequent comments that as new markers were introduced and new testing organizations entered this new field of Genetic Genealogy the nomenclature issues would come back to haunt we customers again. I am sure the "feedback" provided by myself and other members of this project who were tested by the two independent labs, and by members in other projects, about the lack of standardization on some markers between these two organizations and the use of cryptic numbers and letters instead of the actual allele values, had a lot to do with bringing about the changes and improvements that have occured over the last few years. Progress is being made. Genetic Genealogy is becoming a very effective new tool for solving some genealogical puzzles where traditional methods have not yielded enough evidence to come to a conclusion as to whether a relationship exists between two families or not. Here are some example Success Stories from our own project.

Comment 5: In May 2003 a nomenclature issue surfaced but was quickly resolved. Effective 19 May 2003 the allele values for DYS 464 a-d have been adjusted down by one count each by FamilyTreeDNA due to a change in the University of Arizona lab nomenclature for markers DYS 464 a-d. The allele values shown in the tables as of May 2003 now reflect the allele values using the latest nomenclature for that marker.

Comment 6: In November 2003 a new company located in England named DNAHeritage.com (DH) entered the market. They initially offered a 21 marker test which was being processed by a university lab in Europe. All except one of their markers are markers which are used by either FamilyTreeDNA (FTDNA) or Relative Genetics (RG). The only unique marker this 21 marker suite offered was DYS425. In order to evaluate this new company and obtain the results for this additional marker I submitted my cheek cell sample to them. The results for the 20 markers used by DH shared in common with FTDNA and/or RG yielded results which exactly matched the results obtained in the prior tests. Thus testing of my Y chromosome by three independents companies has shown that these Y chromosome DNA Y-STR tests are now accurate, repeatable, reliable, and the results are interchangeable for the most part from test company to test company. In April 2004 DNAHeritage.com introduced an impressive new 43 marker test. The lab work is being done by Sorenson Genomics, Inc., of the USA. Thus DNAHeritage.com is truly an international venture with the home office in England and the lab work being done in the USA. I have not been tested by the new 43 marker test and thus cannot comment about this newest test.

Comment 7: As of December 2003 I believe that the accuracy of the results from all three commercial companies that I have used are all reliable and dependable. Other factors to consider are the convenience of their service, length of time in the business of DNA testing for genealogy purposes, openness as to their testing process and genetics laboratory doing the actual lab tests, full-service product offerings from one initial sample, i.e., being able to get mtDNA or other DNA tests results from the same company without having to resubmit a new sample, availability of free storage of your DNA sample for many years to allow future testing as new tests are announced, experience and customer friendliness of the staff, the ability to call them on the phone and get easily connected quickly to a real live knowledgeable person to talk to about your results, number of markers ... the more the better but at least 25 are needed in my opinion, and of course the price. Also, one should consider the tools and help provided in their website for the individual customer and Group Administrators. Overall, in my experience after being tested by three commercial DNA testing lab service companies, I would rank them as follows: FamilyTreeDNA.com, DNAHeritage.com, and Relative Genetics. My recommendation to anyone considering having a DNA test done for genealogical purposes is to use FamilyTreeDNA.com. That is the company I use for my surname projects. The vast majority of people tested for Genetic Genealogy purposes have used FamilyTreeDNA.com. For more information on DNA testing for genealogical purposes visit my DNA Testing Info & Resources help webpage.

Comment 8. In December 2003 FamilyTreeDNA increased their marker suite to 37 markers including 7 new markers which are not used by the other two labs. This increased the number of unique markers available to 43 by being tested by the three labs used in this project. At this point in this nascent industry, it is my opinion that anyone starting a Genetic Genealogy surname project should start with the 25 marker test. The low resolution 12 marker test was the best we had back in 2000. But to minimize false positive random matches and false negative signals it is better to use 20 or more DYS markers in a surname project.

Comment 9. In February 2004 a new standardization issue arose when FamilyTreeDNA started releasing allele value results for marker GATA H4 which they had newly added to their suite of markers announced in December 2003. FTDNA is reporting allele values for GATA H4 which are 1 count lower than the other two companies, Relative Genetics and DNAHeritage.com. Probably the difference is the result of a nomenclature difference between labs. This has been brought to the attention of the labs. Hopefully it will be clarified soon. I have suggested to all three organizations that they should form an ad-hoc committee to address standardization issues for this nascent Genetic Genealogy industry, possibly with the assistance of Mr. John Butler of the National Institute of Standards and Technology which could then address DYS marker nomenclature standards.

Comment 10. In March 2004 another significant standardization issue arose. I learned that the results were finally available from a blood sample and six generation pedigree chart that I submitted in April 2002 to the Sorenson Foundation as part of their non-profit Molecular Genealogy Research Project, which is a huge world-wide Genetic Genealogy project being undertaken by them. They test you for free but do not directly tell you the results. But by searching their database using the data for myself obtained from my tests at commercial labs I was able to find my results in their database which was linked to my pedigree chart which was sanitized for privacy reasons and does not show people born after 1900. The results the Sorenson Foundation obtained for me matched on all markers once I made three adjustments to account for different marker nomenclatures being used by the Sorenson Foundation for markers DYS394/19, DYS448, and GATA H4. The Sorenson Foundation gets a repeat count one count higher at DYS394/19 and GATA H4 and three counts higher at DYS448 than does FamilyTreeDNA. If you compare the Sorenson Foundation's results with those obtained via Relative Genetics and DNAHeritage adjustments need to be made at DYS394/19. So once again we have this recurring issue of different labs using different nomenclatures for counting the repeats at various markers. All the various labs, for profit and the non-profits, need to form an ad-hoc committee and establish some world-wide standards for each marker being used so that data can easily be compared between labs without adjustments. The various testing organizations should establish standards in this nascent industry before millions of people are tested. For a more detailed and scientific explanation of the ongoing problems with Y-STR nomenclature issues and lack of standards for certain Y-STR markers see page 147 and the section titled "Y-STR Nomenclature Issues" in this paper written in 2003 by Richard Schoske, a PhD candidate. The paper was reviewed by Dr. John Butler of NIST who is intimately involved with standards and technology. Hopefully in the near future Dr. Butler will address the ongoing lack of consistent nomenclature standards for certain Y-STR markers and maybe take a leadership role in attempting to resolve it.
COMMENT 11. In the summer of 2004 I was tested via Sorenson Genomics which provided testing for an additional 6 unique markers for which I previously had no results. Testing failed for one of those markers, marker DYS 441, yielding no result. Thus on a net basis I received allele values for 5 more markers. I have now been tested at 49 DYS markers and have received results and defined my haplotype to 48 markers by combining the results of the various labs and organizations which have tested me. Truly tremendous compared to the commercial offerings of 6-12 markers a short 3 years ago. When I inquired as to why I got no results for the marker DYS441 I was told that is was probably "bad primer" and that it happens sometimes.
COMMENT 12. January 2005. I contacted Sorenson Genomics about the failed results for DYS441. They told me that they would re-run my samples again in the next month or so and to try and get a result for DYS441. However, in March 2005 I learned that when they re-ran my sample (along with many others) due to a batch of "bad primer", as they described it, that they did not get a result for DYS441. They informed me they would no longer continue to try and get a result for me for DYS441 unless I paid a fee for another test.
COMMENT 13. In March 2005 it was learned that there is a nomenclature issue involving DYS463. The nomenclature used for my DYS463 marker test by Sorenson Genomics ("G" in the tables) yielded an allele value of 22. Since DNAHeritage.com uses Sorenson Genomics one would expect them to report a 22 for me too if I submitted a sample to them for that marker. However, Dr. Alan Redd's nomenclature, the discover of this marker, and which is the nomenclature used by Biotix and which is also in this case the NIST approved nomenclature used in the forensic community, and which is also used by the Sorenson Foundation Project ("S" in the tables), results in an allele value of two counts higher, i.e., 24. Thus using that nomenclature my DYS463 test, The Sorenson Foundation Project and Biotix reported an allele value result for me of 24. These continually developing nomenclature differences between various testing labs is going to cause many problems in comparing haplotypes in public databases unless they are resolved soon. By soon, I mean before we get hundreds of thousands and/or even millions of people tested with different nomenclatures being used for various markers.
COMMENT 14. In late March 2005 I was tested by Biotix GmbH in Germany for marker DYS385a,b using the new Kittler protocol for DYS marker 385a,b to determine the correct sequence order within my Y chromosome for this multi-copy marker. The current convention for commercial labs is to report them in numerical order, i.e., (low,high). Thus from the commercial labs my DYS385a,b results were reported as 11,16. However the new Kittler protocol test now allows one to learn the actual sequence. The Kittler protocol test of DYS385a,b performed by Biotix revealed that the actual sequence of the multi-copy markers DYS385a,b in my Y chromosome is (high,low), i.e., 16,11.
COMMENT 15: Also in late March 2005 I was tested for a 50th marker, DYS 643, by Biotix GmbH of Germany. The allele value was determined to be a 10.
COMMENT 16: In April 2005 I submitted my sample to the National Geographic Society Genographic Project. This non-profit research project uses FamilyTreeDNA.com's first panel of 12 markers. The allele values reported from this test in May 2005 exactly matched my prior 12 marker test results received directly from FamilyTreeDNA.com, as would be expected.
COMMENT 17: In May 2005 I had my sample on file at Biotix.de tested with their new DYS464a,b,c,d, (DYS464X) extended test. My results for DYS464a,b,c,d was reported previously by FamilyTreeDNA.com as 15, 15, 16, 16 in the usual low to high order. My DYS464X extended marker test results were reported by Biotix.de as 15c, 15c, 16c, 16g.
COMMENT 18: In Oct 2005 I received results from DNA-Fingerprint.com for several more markers including two new "DYF" markers named DYF385S1 and DYF399S1. Note these are not the typically named DYS markers. This naming convention is new to me. I am told they are multi-copy markers but have a new naming prefix. Feel free to correct me and/or educate me more on the new DYF named markers
COMMENT 19: On 30 Sep 2005 I ordered the R1b "the Works" YSNP extended haplogroup testing package from EthnoAncestry.com. On 2 Nov 2005 I received some initial YSNP test results via a "partial report" email. On 8 Dec 2005 I received the remaining YSNP test results and was sent my "full report table" for the "the Works" YSNP tests results via email. From this extended YSNP testing I am now determined to be R1b1c* per the 2005 PhyloTree Chart which translates to be R1b3* on the earlier 2003 PhyloTree Chart. In addition EthnoAncestry.com tested me for the newly discovered YSNPs S21 and S28. It was learned that I am S21- which was not in and of itself unexpected. However on 21 Dec 2005 I was advised by EthnoAncestry.com that as a coutesy I was selected to be S28 tested and found to be S28+. As of that date I was only the second S28+ individual detected in the Genetic Genealogy commnity. The other being Dr. David Faux, President of EthnoAncestry.com. In 2006 ISOGG's new PhyloGenetic Tree designates S28+ as being indicative of being in haplogroup R1b1c10.
COMMENT 20: On 23 Jan 2006 I received my YSNP multiplex package test results from DNAHeritage.com of the UK. They subcontract the testing to Marligen in Maryland USA. Their YSNP results confirmed what prior YSNP tests reported. I am R1b1c*.
COMMENT 21: On 24 Jan 2006 I received my test results for YSTR marker DYS441 from DNA-FingerPrint.com. I had previously received a FAILED (FL) result for that marker via testing at Sorenson Genomics to which they attributed that FL to be from "bad primer". Last year with Null results and all the chatter about family/private SNPs I asked Thomas Krahn at DNA-FP if he could consider adding DYS441 to his stable of markers. He agreed to do that and proceeded to "design the primer" and order the necessary primer supplies, etc. DNA-FP specializes in many other markers not offered by other labs. Today I got the results for DYS441. I have an allele of 13 at DYS441. DNA-FP must have used a different primer then SG used. Thus if a YSNP exists near DYS441 for the Kerchner family it is in a part of the flanking region affected by the primer originally used by SG in 2004 but not in the flanking region for the primer used by DNA-FP in 2006.
COMMENT 22: On 26 Feb 2006 I received my test results for 18 YSTR markers from EthnoAncestry.com.
COMMENT 23: On 4 Apr 2006 I received an email from Dr. James Wilson of EthnoAncestry.com which confirmed what I suspected from the nulls/no data reports received several years ago in we Kerchners tested at marker DYS 441 by Sorenson Genomics. As was suspected, he found that there is a YSNP in the flanking regions of DYS 441. This "Kerchner SNP" has been designated as "S48" in the naming sequences of YSNPs found via the work of Dr. James Wilson. The Kerchner family is thus S48+. See marker 49 in the data tables. This new YSNP is being investigated further by Dr. Wilson to determine exactly where it fits into the YDNA Phylogenetic Tree. This new YSNP, aka the Kerchner or K1 SNP, was apparently interfering with the primer used for marker DYS441 by Sorenson Genomics several years ago. Possibly changing the primer used by them subsequently allowed them to get data for this marker. Using different primers would avoid the previously unknown YSNP and eliminated the problem and probably allowed the marker data to be obtained. This "primer problem" reported to me several years ago pointed to the possibility of an unknown YSNP in the Kerchner Family near DYS441. After years of persistence by me to try and get the labs or a geneticist take a look at this "null" in the Kerchner family as DYS441, Dr. Wilson of EthnoAncestry.com agreed to do the investigation. DNA samples were submitted by myself and a fifth cousin. Dr. Wilson has now confirmed that a YSNP is indeed there in the flanking region of DYS 441 for the Kerchner family. He has designated it as S48. And the Kerchner family is S48+.
COMMENT 24: Fall 2006. In late 2005 it was told to me by Thomas Krahn of DNA-FP of Germany that I could not have a previously reported allele value at DYS425 for me, i.e., I should get a "null" results using the DYS425 marker test protocol. This despite an earlier lab test by DNAHeritage reporting me as DYS425=12 (in retrospect a lab error by DNAH). This revelation as explained to me by Thomas Krahn is due to the fact that his DYF371X test of my YDNA indicates I do not have a "t" allele in any of the four copies for DYF371. The test for marker DYS425 looks for a "t" allele for one of the four copies of DYF371. My DYF371X test results are: 10c-10c-13c-14c . Note, I have no "t" allele. In fact nor do I have any repeat count of 12. How DNAHeritage's early lab got a 12 for me at DYS425 is a mystery to which they have provided no answer. And I repeatedly asked them. It must have been a lab error or else the lab "padded" the DYS425 result with the modal value for that marker which is 12. In 2006 testing at FTDNA confirmed the DYS425=Null result for that protocol and new advanced marker testing at FTDNA confirmed the DYF371X results previously obtained by DNA-FP of Germany. This null was also confirmed by testing 2nd, 3rd, and 5th cousins for DYS425 and DYF371x. Thus I and my Kerchner cousins are indeed DYS425=Null. I have asked DNAHeritage to delete the erroneous DYS=425 results for my test results and just not show any results for that marker in their Oracle database but they have refused to do so.
COMMENT 25: On 24 Nov 2006 I received my R1b Deep Subclade test results from FTDNA. See SNP testing data table for details.
COMMENT 26: On 15 May 2007 I received the results from FamilyTreeDNA's new Hoston lab for marker DYF411. My DYF411 allele values are 11, 11.


DNAPrint BioGeographical Ancestry (BGA) Test Results


Any male Kerchner, Kirchner, Karchner, Kaerchner, Kartchner, Karriger, Kercher, Kircher, Karcher, Kaercher, Kerkner, Kerghner, Carrickner, Carrichner, Carchner, Carachner, Churchner or other phonetic spelling variations of this German surname(s) wishing to learn more about this project and/or possibly participating in this project, please feel free to Contact Me.

Those with similar sounding (in English) and similar looking German surnames which are spelled with an 'S' in their surname such as Kershner / Kerschner / Kirshner / Kirschner are also welcome to participate in order to develop a Y-DNA haplotype and Y-DNA database for those surnames.


Some Kerchner Y-DNA Project Success Stories

Back to Y-DNA Project Home Page


Get organized right from the start by using a modern,
easy to use, genealogy computer software package.
I personally use and highly recommend Ancestral Quest (AQ).
For information about AQ free and paid versions, click here.

Sign my Guestbook.
Read my Guestbook.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
3765 Chris Drive
Emmaus PA 18049-1544 USA
Email: Contact Me
R1b1c10 (S28+) and also S48+

Copyright ©2002-2023
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
All Rights Reserved
Created - 09 Sep 2002
Revised - 09 Jul 2023