Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > Paternal Lineages (Y-DNA) > Paternal Lineage (Y-DNA STR) Advanced

Paternal Lineage (Y-DNA STR) Advanced Users can exchange information here on Y-DNA testing, results, and questions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 7th February 2018, 09:51 AM
JeremyGlen2017 JeremyGlen2017 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
STR genetic difference vs known SNP mutation

Hello,

I am hoping to get some insight as to how one can have a match at a GD of say 7 at Y111(99% confidence MCRA @ 22 generations), but not be positive for a mutation that occurred around 22-24 generations back?

My closest match, at GD of 4, has a GD 3 match that does not share the mutation we share, and is a surname match as well. The mutation, R-S781, is confirmed to have occurred in a man born in the mid 13th century, which is well within the 99% confidence level of 14 generations at that GD of 3.

Can anyone shed light on how this occurs?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 8th February 2018, 09:45 AM
TwiddlingThumbs TwiddlingThumbs is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 96
I suspect it is because that, per my recent post on a different thread, TMRCA probabilities are highly inaccurate and seem to frequently grossly overstate probabilities of relatedness.

It may be that the estimated time of SNP mutation is way off as well. I'm not sure what the basis for your statement is that the SNP "is confirmed to have occurred in a man born in the mid 13th century" Taking a look at YFull, they give an estimate for how long ago a SNP arose, but it is just an estimate. For R-S781, YFull says there is a 95% chance that it arose between 500-750 years ago (which you can see if you put your cursor over the "formed 600 years ago part). https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S781/ It may well be the case, however, this these SNP dating calculations are just as crude as those for STR TMRCA. Lots of math, but not a lot of accuracy and with unreliable confidence probabilities.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 9th February 2018, 08:48 AM
JeremyGlen2017 JeremyGlen2017 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
The R-S781 mutation has been confirmed to have happened in John Stewart de Bonkyll, born in 1245 in Scotland. Since the Royal Stewart lines have been so heavily tested, and have great paper trails from current living descendants back through all the High Stewards, this is a known mutation date.

What I find interesting is the relations in regards to STR values of those I, and others, match to that are very close matches, but not within the known time frame of this particular mutation.

I did discuss this briefly with Ian McDonald, and he said he is working towards being able to use the information from the Stewart lines to further refine his SNP aging process, which definitely lends credibility to your statement about the probabilities being inaccurate.

Last edited by JeremyGlen2017; 9th February 2018 at 08:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 9th February 2018, 01:28 PM
TwiddlingThumbs TwiddlingThumbs is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyGlen2017 View Post
The R-S781 mutation has been confirmed to have happened in John Stewart de Bonkyll, born in 1245 in Scotland. Since the Royal Stewart lines have been so heavily tested, and have great paper trails from current living descendants back through all the High Stewards, this is a known mutation date.
Triangulation. Got it. So mutation actually occurred about 775 years ago, when YFull estimated that it occurred 600 years ago, with a 95% chance that it occurred 500-750 years ago. So the estimate was not too terrible -- just outside the range, but does make the confidence interval/probability look a bit inaccurate. You'd like to see it at least fall within the range. Kind of reduces one's confidence in the confidence interval ;-) Probably still a lot better than the STR TMRCA estimates.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 9th February 2018, 04:55 PM
benowicz benowicz is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 39
Not all the people giving the DNA (i.e., people alive today) were born on the same day. Probably some people giving the DNA were already old men before others were even born. So the thing is probably not a problem with the formula, but the range of birth days for the people giving the DNA. 25 years is not so long a time.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11th February 2018, 08:40 PM
TwiddlingThumbs TwiddlingThumbs is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by benowicz View Post
Not all the people giving the DNA (i.e., people alive today) were born on the same day. Probably some people giving the DNA were already old men before others were even born. So the thing is probably not a problem with the formula, but the range of birth days for the people giving the DNA. 25 years is not so long a time.
Good point about different ages of test takers. But their confidence interval should take all stuff like that account. If it doesn't, that's a problem with their algorithm.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11th February 2018, 10:05 PM
benowicz benowicz is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiddlingThumbs View Post
Good point about different ages of test takers. But their confidence interval should take all stuff like that account. If it doesn't, that's a problem with their algorithm.
No, that's not what the confidence interval does. It measures the variability of SNP mutations, not the starting point from which you begin counting back.

The problem is that 750 years ago is not from today. It is from the date of conception of the donors, who obviously were not all conceived on the same day. Most likely the person who started this thread forgot that the typical donor for these tests is probably in his 40s, placing the mutation in a specific range of years consistent with this Stuart of Bonkyll person.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 13th February 2018, 12:28 PM
JeremyGlen2017 JeremyGlen2017 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
I still haven't figured out how someone can be at a 99% confidence of a shared ancestor in 14 generations, when they are proven by SNP testing to not have a connection in at least 20 generations.

My closest match and I are waiting for one of his "closer" matches, GD of 2 @Y111, testing results to see if he has the same mutation. Everything is pointing to him not having it, according to their paper genealogy trail, and points to the connection being an additional generation back past that, with the man being born in 1225.

We are possibly looking at a GD 2 match being related in a minimum of 21 generations(assuming a starting point of 1950 and 33yrs per generation average).

I'm starting to lean towards STRs not really being very accurate at all.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 13th February 2018, 12:50 PM
benowicz benowicz is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 39
I'm used to the idea that accuracy is increased with sample size. It's so elementary. But I have never seen anyone even try to quantify the precise level of accuracy in the context of matching STR profiles. That is surprising. How much more accurate is a 111 marker match vs. a 67 marker match vs. a 37 marker match at a similar predicted TMRCA? How is it that nobody has even attempted such a calculation yet?

The same theory goes for SNPs. In theory, an incredibly rare back mutation of a single SNP could produce anomalous results, so it should be helpful to provide context for the total number of SNPs compared--and whether or not both donors have tested to the same level.

At least you're lucky that you belong to a common SNP status with a lot of research behind it. People in the far reaches of DF27 don't even have enough SNPs identified in the literature to even contemplate such a comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 13th February 2018, 01:18 PM
JeremyGlen2017 JeremyGlen2017 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
If you really want to throw a wrench into the mix, I have no GD 0 matches at Y67, where my closest match at Y111, GD of 4, has 16 GD 0 matches at Y67. I have a variation in the STR profile at DYS448, with a value of 20, and all my matches have a 19. Since I have the variation so early on in the panel, it appears that I should not be as close of a relation as I am, since we share a common ancestor born in 1797.

Yes, I was definitely blessed with a very heavily tested branch of the tree. My results just came in from FGC, and my closest match and I are hoping to add a new twig.

With the possibility of FTDNA going to a Y500 STR test, I'm not sure if that will muddy the waters further, or help clear things up more.

Last edited by JeremyGlen2017; 13th February 2018 at 01:25 PM.
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
Most Known Novel, or Least SNP difference Mudgeeclarke Paternal Lineage (Y-DNA STR) Advanced 5 10th August 2017 05:46 AM
Same parents, 47 % difference? jonni7 myOrigins Basics 7 23rd December 2016 06:19 PM
Increased HIV risk found in genetic mutation girlperson1 DNA Success Stories 1 22nd July 2008 09:43 PM
What is the difference? Ron Paternal Lineage (Y-DNA STR) Advanced 2 2nd April 2006 03:49 PM
is there a difference? marcon50 DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 1 3rd December 2005 09:55 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 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.