Hey, Peter. This won't be a very helpful response to your question, but it's all the info I have. Available for this genome are three FASTQ GZIPped files, a filtered/rescaled BAM, and a BAI (BAM index). I can't tell how large they are unless I actually download them. Link to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) accession page for the study is: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB26760. Test subject KOV-A2 is Run Accession #ERR2593421. Here are links to the BAM and BAI. They're mapped to GRCh38.
Don't think they would be of much interest to any of us, though. KOV-A2's WGS results produced final, successful reads of only 5.2 million alleles, with an average read length of 83 base pairs, and autosomal coverage of (counting at least one read, quality-passed or not) of 0.45; the estimated amount of original sample contamination is 0.88%. Keeping in mind that 5.2 million alleles doesn't equate to any specific number of named, cataloged SNPs, it's highly unlikely that we could take that BAM file and, for example, create a simulated file suitable for GEDmatch uploading.
I've been vocal in the past about my...less than favorable opinion of MyTrueAncestry. They don't disclose anything about company management; offer zero scientific/research credentials; never describe how they're attempting to compare uploaded microarray test results to the varied ancient genomes made public and that were sequenced/tested in a multitude of different ways; never provide substantiation for the data they report back to the consumer; and have a tiered pricing structure that smacks of snake-oil sales. And then as to being a "match," what they report are unspecific bar graphs and a summary like, "Your raw DNA is 57% closer than other matching users." Which says absolutely nothing. I mean, we share 98.7% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos, the most genetically-similar primates. We also share 85% of our DNA with a mouse and 41% with a banana. So they may as well be reporting that, "Your raw DNA is 57% closer than other matching users to that of a banana."
Goran Runfeldt and Mike Sager downloaded and analyzed the WGS data from the Ebenesersdóttir et al. study (that Maggie mentioned above and added to the profile), and they arrived at, for sample KOV-A2, a yDNA haplogroup of R-L151, and an mtDNA haplogroup of H1, both way too common to be used in any genealogical fashion other than as negating evidence (e.g., someone in Y-haplogroup E definitely isn't of the same prehistoric patrilineal line). The FTDNA yDNA haplotree currently shows 14,407 downstream branches of R-L151.
Just a FWIW, L-151 is rsID rs2082033, a T>C at 14,380,667 under GRCh38; 16,492,547 under our GRCh37 results. Consumer microarray tests reporting on this SNP are 23andMe v2 through v4, and MyHeritage v2. Glen never indicated a yDNA match in his question, but his AncestryDNA data wouldn't have gone as deep in the subclades as even R-L151.
And just because I have it handy--not because it really indicates anything germane--here are the number of Y-SNPs that the different versions of the AncestryDNA tests looked at (through at least August 2019; and what's shown is yDNA that is not in the pseudoautosomal regions):
||Total SNPs Tested
||Y-SNPs as %|