Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > General Interest > Scientific Papers

Scientific Papers For talk of scientific papers on population genetics, archaeology, and anthropology related to DNA and personal ancestry testing.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 8th December 2014, 02:25 PM
1798 1798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by T E Peterman View Post
Cool. The relevant side of the family is only 1/16 Irish. Another 7/16 is English or Scottish. The other 8/16 is Swiss.

Do you get this 90 SNP count from novel variants on the Big Y?

I have 96 "so called" novel variants. They aren't that novel because there are 41 Big Y participants who differ by 4 or less known SNPs from me & this covers a lot of the R1b U152 crowd. Of my 96 "novel" variants, over 30 are shared with all 41 of the matched participants. This tells me that, although not previously detected, a full 1/3 of the novel variants are higher on the tree than R1b U152.

I just bought a Big Y for my maternal uncle. He is R1b L23+ L11-. His surname is Robinson. I suspect that a soldier from Thrace may have been brought by the Romans to Britain. Will be interesting to see how many novel variants he has.

Timothy Peterman
Most of the SNPs are in the FTDNA R tree on our homepage from the Geno 2 results. I added on the average number of SNPs under U106 from the Big-Y tests.There are possibly more SNPs to be added to the Y-tree. When that will take place is anyone's guess.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 8th December 2014, 05:36 PM
T E Peterman T E Peterman is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,577
I just looked at the R1b U106+ SNPs at the ISOGG website. I don't see any place where there are 90 columns going across. Each column indicates a nested SNP. If you see two SNPs seprated by a / mark, this indicates that they are the same, but have been given different names by different labs. If you see two SNPs, separated by a , mark, it means there are two different SNPs, but they are always found together, which means they could have happened at the same generation.

If you were to find 90 nested SNPs, this would indicate that there had been 90 SNP mutations since the beginning of the haplogroup. The deepest I see for U106 at ISOGG is 12 nested SNPs. I wouldn't factor in any Big Y data or Geno 2.0 until ISOGG concurs and a tree structure ascertained.

Assuming 135 years on average per nested SNP, I see a minimum average age for U106 of 1,620 years. It's probably at least 4,000 years, since most nested SNPs more recent than 1,500 years old are limited to so few lineages, they just haven't been discovered yet.

Timothy Peterman
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 8th December 2014, 05:37 PM
PNGarrison PNGarrison is offline
H4a1a4a | R1-BY3322
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 412
"I didn't know that a child could have more than one new YSNP when he is born. So why do people write that there are 3-5 generations between YSNPs? I thought that the 90 SNPs were single events."

It could occasionally happen that more than one SNP could happen in a generation. I can't remember that anyone has looked specifically at the Y, but multi-mutation events (within 10,000 bp or so) occur more frequently than one would calculate by multiplication of rates. I would guess that this is the result of the individual having sub-optimal DNA repair gene(s), or even a DNA replication complex or DNA repair complex being temporarily out of whack (possibly lacking a subunit or containing a protein with a translation error.) From what I've read, I wouldn't expect it to be a very common event, though.

As to the mutation rate they used in this paper, I think Iain had some question about it - he thought there was a better one available that would result in somewhat older dates.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 8th December 2014, 05:57 PM
PNGarrison PNGarrison is offline
H4a1a4a | R1-BY3322
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 412
Another interesting tidbit from this paper is that they found a SNP recurrence rate (the same SNP appearing at different points in the tree) of about 1%. That's higher than I would have expected, especially since they didn't use any of the palindromic regions.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 9th December 2014, 01:34 AM
1798 1798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by T E Peterman View Post
I just looked at the R1b U106+ SNPs at the ISOGG website. I don't see any place where there are 90 columns going across. Each column indicates a nested SNP. If you see two SNPs seprated by a / mark, this indicates that they are the same, but have been given different names by different labs. If you see two SNPs, separated by a , mark, it means there are two different SNPs, but they are always found together, which means they could have happened at the same generation.

If you were to find 90 nested SNPs, this would indicate that there had been 90 SNP mutations since the beginning of the haplogroup. The deepest I see for U106 at ISOGG is 12 nested SNPs. I wouldn't factor in any Big Y data or Geno 2.0 until ISOGG concurs and a tree structure ascertained.

Assuming 135 years on average per nested SNP, I see a minimum average age for U106 of 1,620 years. It's probably at least 4,000 years, since most nested SNPs more recent than 1,500 years old are limited to so few lineages, they just haven't been discovered yet.

Timothy Peterman
I don't understand this bit.How did you come up with this figure? You are stating that we are all descended from one man 1620 years ago.
The Issog tree is light years behind.Some of the group I belong to have 40 SNPs downstream of Z156 from the Big-Y.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 9th December 2014, 04:28 AM
T E Peterman T E Peterman is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,577
1620 years is way too recent. I was just applying your logic of 135 years per SNP; of course, I was only counting nested SNPs (levels of hierarchy).

You are talking about proposed trees. I looked at Family Tree DNA's tree & didn't count any deeper than about 11 or 12 there. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt & say there are 40 levels of nested SNPs. That would provide an origin for U106 in 3400 BC, probably a thousand years too early. 32.5 levels would take you back to 2400 BC.

Timothy Peterman
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 9th December 2014, 05:33 AM
1798 1798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by T E Peterman View Post
1620 years is way too recent. I was just applying your logic of 135 years per SNP; of course, I was only counting nested SNPs (levels of hierarchy).

You are talking about proposed trees. I looked at Family Tree DNA's tree & didn't count any deeper than about 11 or 12 there. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt & say there are 40 levels of nested SNPs. That would provide an origin for U106 in 3400 BC, probably a thousand years too early. 32.5 levels would take you back to 2400 BC.

Timothy Peterman
You cannot access the Big-Y files until you join the U106 at Yahoo group. There you will see a Tsunami of SNPs.
I am sure you have seen the 43 SNPs at the M269 level when you looked at the tree. It is possible that M269 could be the last in line but it would be better if they were all in the correct order. It is evidence of a bottleneck and this bottleneck is not connected to the Neolithic.

Last edited by 1798; 9th December 2014 at 05:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 9th December 2014, 06:54 AM
T E Peterman T E Peterman is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,577
I assume that you are talking about novel variants. I have 96 of them. Over 30 of them are shared with all other U152 participants, which indicates that they are higher on the tree. Has the tsunami been organized into a hierarchy of clades nested under clades? This usually can't happen until two "unrelated" participants are found to share a clade defining SNP that isn't shared by other participants.

Any chance you could upload an image of the hige U106 tree?

Timothy Peterman
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 9th December 2014, 08:38 AM
lgmayka lgmayka is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1798 View Post
I read the paper, how could M269 be 4,900 years old? There are 90 SNPs from M269 to the present.
Mal'ta boy's remains R* was radio carbon dated to 24,000 ybp so how could M207 be 19,000 ybp?
U106 is at least 6000 years old.
Yes, the authors neglected to calibrate their clock (mutation rate) properly. You need to add 30-50% to their age numbers.

Last edited by lgmayka; 9th December 2014 at 08:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 9th December 2014, 09:00 AM
1798 1798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by T E Peterman View Post
I assume that you are talking about novel variants. I have 96 of them. Over 30 of them are shared with all other U152 participants, which indicates that they are higher on the tree. Has the tsunami been organized into a hierarchy of clades nested under clades? This usually can't happen until two "unrelated" participants are found to share a clade defining SNP that isn't shared by other participants.

Any chance you could upload an image of the hige U106 tree?

Timothy Peterman
The majority of SNPs found in the Big-Y have not been added to the U106 tree yet but you could ask Raymond Wing for a copy of the tree at present. It is his work.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FREE Webinar - Family Tree DNA Feature Launch: X Chromosome Matches in Family Finder Rebekah Canada X-DNA Basics 2 24th January 2014 07:27 PM
Chromosome Depictions in Chromosome Browser BenTurin Family Finder Advanced Topics 6 18th August 2011 01:37 AM
New YCC tree Kuwaiti Group Administrators - Advanced Chat 0 8th November 2010 08:29 AM
NEW R1a TREE SEREGA784 DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 2 11th February 2010 02:08 AM
New Y CHromosome Tree Kaiser DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 12 10th April 2008 07:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 AM.


Family Tree DNA - World Headquarters

1445 North Loop West, Suite 820
Houston, Texas 77008, USA

Phone: (713) 868-1438 | Fax: (832) 201-7147
Copyright 2001-2010 Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.