Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the YHRD marker set meaningful?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the YHRD marker set meaningful?

    YHRD uses the following set of DYS markers to characterize a haplotype within a population. The data is from one of the haplotypes that appears commonly in population listings. Is that selection of markers at all indicative of common ancestry?

    19 389-I 389-II 390 391 392 393 385a,b
    14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11,14

    In particular, I am interested in knowing if DYS385 has any special predictive characteristics. I've noticed that the 11,14 marker is very frequent among the Basques population set, but 11,13 seem to be nonexistent. Among the Basques. Nonetheless, it is frequent in the rest of Spain, as well in other parts of Europe. I'm wondering of the Basques may have been an isolate within an isolate.

  • #2
    In our Western European DNA group, we have:

    11,13 ... 11,14...11,15 and 11,16 are all represented in the project....

    Furthermore

    We had a 24/25 match between two who differed on 385b one was an 11,14 and the other was 11,15.

    I am an 11, 15 for 385 and was hoping that this combo was rare and predictive for my line. Alas, it is not...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by EBurgess
      In our Western European DNA group, we have:

      11,13 ... 11,14...11,15 and 11,16 are all represented in the project....

      Furthermore

      We had a 24/25 match between two who differed on 385b one was an 11,14 and the other was 11,15.

      I am an 11, 15 for 385 and was hoping that this combo was rare and predictive for my line. Alas, it is not...
      I wonder what the quality control is on this stuff. How many people have paid for a second opinion? I have to wonder. I haven't found any haplogroups in any databases closer than a genetic distance of 6. I don't believe I am prepared to shell out the money for an SNP test right now; considering the fact that the best evidence I've seen suggests there is not commercially available test for my haplogroup.

      Comment


      • #4
        wonder what the quality control is on this stuff. How many people have paid for a second opinion? I have to wonder.
        I have a fair bit of confidence that the quality control is high. After all, I was able to match a 4th cousin, albeit 23/25. Many other members of our project have matched precisely across 25 markers.

        I think that the science is still very young and its not about the marker values themselves, but rather the assumptions we make about them that may be the problem.

        For example, clearly 12 markers are not enough to establish a relationship with another person. On two occasions I matched 11/12 with someone of the sme surname and further testing proved that they were NOT related.

        I don't believe I am prepared to shell out the money for an SNP test right now; considering the fact that the best evidence I've seen suggests there is not commercially available test for my haplogroup.
        That is sound judgement. I would add that even if a test did exist, what would it tell you today? I am predicted to be R1b, If I tested and was found to be r1b1c for example, what would I really know? Just that I am western european....So then what?


        I might add that people who are unique and rare today are probably just rare because they have not sampled many people from that part of the world yet. So much of what we see with r1b...dozens of 12 marker matches will probably hold true for other groups as the data comes in.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by EBurgess

          That is sound judgement. I would add that even if a test did exist, what would it tell you today? I am predicted to be R1b, If I tested and was found to be r1b1c for example, what would I really know? Just that I am western european....So then what?
          Well, that's a good question. I would be stunned if I proved not to be R1bc. I see no reason to pay for verifying that. But I would like more clarification as to what ancient population I am related to. The matches in Siberia and Mongolia really have my interest. I've spent a lot of time trying to untangle the prehistoric migrations of people.

          Simply tracking down different populations that come up as close matches in the YHDR database, or in the REO data has been an extraordinary adventure. Until a couple days ago, I had never heard of the Csango, Cuman and Veneti people. I did not know there were people in Hungary who claim to be Saxons or Suebi to this day. OTOH, I had read much about the ancient civilizations of the Tarim Basin, and Centeral Asia. To see the hits come up for the populations inhabiting those regions today verified my conviction that there is some connection there.

          Nonetheless, I have little in the way of solid evidence to show any recent relationship to anybody. Nor do I have any hint of geographic affinity. Any bias toward the British Isles can be explained by the relative sample sizes.

          Originally posted by EBurgess

          I might add that people who are unique and rare today are probably just rare because they have not sampled many people from that part of the world yet. So much of what we see with r1b...dozens of 12 marker matches will probably hold true for other groups as the data comes in.
          Well, I haven't had an Australian Native come up in the data yet. I really do wish I had access to larger data sets. Sometimes I feel as if I were merely a guinea pig in an experiment in which I am not privy to the results.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, I haven't had an Australian Native come up in the data yet. I really do wish I had access to larger data sets. Sometimes I feel as if I were merely a guinea pig in an experiment in which I am not privy to the results.
            Australian Natives will most likely not come up in your data if you match Siberians and Mongolians .... We are in a big experiment, but NOBODY has the results...yet.

            I am R1b and initially, I had less than 5 matches. This was about two years ago, now I have 45 - 12 marker matches. I trace my Burgess line to the midlands in England, 200 years ago. Not very surprising given my name, physical appearance and R1b Haplogroup...But hey, initially I had few hits, now I have plenty. R1b represents 70% of the database.

            I currently seem to match a higher proportion of Scots. I wouldn't automatically assume that my family was originally scottish. I say this because most people have tested at the 12 marker level. If I had 37 marker matches in Scotland, then I would start to take it seriously.

            The bottom line is that we still only have a broad outline, the finer details will come as the sample size grows. Scientists base the haplogroups on what are considered aboriginal populations. After that the interpretation gets fuzzy.

            The more useful purpose for this stuff today is for genealogical research. Individual marker values are not that significant, many markers taken together are.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by EBurgess
              Australian Natives will most likely not come up in your data if you match Siberians and Mongolians .... We are in a big experiment, but NOBODY has the results...yet.

              I am R1b and initially, I had less than 5 matches. This was about two years ago, now I have 45 - 12 marker matches. I trace my Burgess line to the midlands in England, 200 years ago. Not very surprising given my name, physical appearance and R1b Haplogroup...But hey, initially I had few hits, now I have plenty. R1b represents 70% of the database.
              ...

              The bottom line is that we still only have a broad outline, the finer details will come as the sample size grows. Scientists base the haplogroups on what are considered aboriginal populations. After that the interpretation gets fuzzy.
              I wonder how well they understand the relevant topics that go into determining "aboriginal" populations. I would just like to have the data so that I can make my own determination.

              Originally posted by EBurgess

              The more useful purpose for this stuff today is for genealogical research. Individual marker values are not that significant, many markers taken together are.
              I have 181 12 marker matchse in FTDNA's DB. And nothing close on 37 markers.

              The stats below appear to have recently changed. This is the frequency of matches I get today from YHRD using the same markers they use for population stats. Ironically I moved to Maryland. I was born in Illinois. I looked up the places in Italy near the top of the list and they are on the toenail of of Sicily. I suspect my R1b was part of a population near Groningen, Netherlands around the time Cologne Germany was founded:

              Louisiana, USA [European] 6.45%
              Trapani, Italy 6.06%
              Indiana, USA [European] 5.88%
              Cajun, USA [European] 4.55%
              Fülöpszállás, Hungary [Small Cumanian] 4.55%
              Florida, USA [Hispanic American] 4.35%
              Groningen, Netherlands 4.17%
              Mazara del Vallo, Italy 4.00%
              Maryland, USA [Hispanic American] 3.85%
              Mongolia 3.33%
              Virginia, USA [European] 3.28%
              Lyon, France 3.20%
              Maryland, USA [European] 3.13%
              Pennsylvania, USA [European] 2.99%
              Oregon, USA [European] 2.86%
              London, UK 2.81%
              Indiana, USA [African American] 2.70%
              Ireland 2.63%
              Pennsylvania, USA [African American] 2.33%
              Netherlands 2.30%
              Pyrenees, Spain 2.24%
              Asturias, Spain 2.22%
              Reunion Island [Créole Métis] 2.17%
              Zeeland, Netherlands 2.17%
              Valencia, Spain 2.14%
              Virginia, USA [African American] 2.13%
              Leiden, Netherlands 2.08%
              Birmingham, UK 2.06%
              Denmark 2.02%
              Strasbourg, France 2.02%
              Buenos Aires, Argentina [European] 2.00%
              Düsseldorf, Germany 2.00%
              New York City, USA [African American] 2.00%
              Cantabria, Spain 1.98%
              Bologna, Italy 1.96%
              New York City, USA [European] 1.94%
              Marche, Italy 1.85%
              Barcelona, Spain 1.79%
              Uppsala, Sweden 1.75%
              Veneto, Italy 1.67%
              Northern Portugal 1.60%
              Central Bohemia, Czechia 1.59%
              Azores, Portugal 1.47%
              Texas, USA [African American] 1.45%
              Greifswald, Germany 1.44%
              Freiburg, Germany 1.39%
              Tuscany, Italy 1.38%
              Madrid, Spain 1.32%
              Tyrol, Austria 1.30%
              Central Portugal 1.23%
              Egypt 1.20%
              Dresden, Germany 1.16%
              Argentina [European] 1.14%
              Leipzig, Germany 1.11%
              Bern, Switzerland 1.10%
              Caceres, Spain 1.10%
              Hamburg, Germany 1.09%
              Munich, Germany 1.07%
              Andalucía/Extremadura, Spain 1.04%
              Madeira, Portugal 1.02%
              Muenster, Germany 1.02%
              Equatorial Guinea 1.01%
              Cape Town, South Africa [European] 1.00%
              Còrdoba, Argentina 1.00%
              Lausanne, Switzerland 0.93%
              Paris, France 0.92%
              Leuven, Belgium 0.88%
              Cologne, Germany 0.87%
              Zaragoza, Spain 0.83%
              Rostock, Germany 0.83%
              Brussels, Belgium 0.80%
              Choco, Colombia [African] 0.75%
              Berlin, Germany 0.73%
              Magdeburg, Germany 0.71%
              Macedonia 0.67%
              São Paulo, Brazil [European] 0.67%
              Switzerland 0.67%
              Lombardy, Italy 0.55%
              Chemnitz, Germany 0.49%
              Krakow, Poland 0.48%
              Luzon, Philippines 0.47%
              Latium, Italy 0.45%
              Stuttgart, Germany 0.44%
              Halle, Germany 0.43%
              Sweden 0.25%
              Gdansk, Poland 0.18%

              Comment


              • #8
                I wonder how well they understand the relevant topics that go into determining "aboriginal" populations.
                That is really the crux of it. I once asked if anyone could recommend a reference for aboriginal peoples of the world. The model presented to us is that all humans are originally from Africa, so I guess that a strict definition is a bit tricky. Also, in the book "Journey of Man" the author says we are racing against the clock to map humanity before the global melting pot erases distinct populations.

                I have seen many great posts on this site discussing various ancient cultures that I find fascinating. However at the present time with SNPs only bringing us to within maybe 10,000 or even 5,000 years, what can we really say about these cultures and what haplogroups they belonged too?

                With regard to STRs...well we are ultimately related. The fact that we can have STRs converge on a 12 marker haplotype from different points of origin means that a 12 marker match could be 100 years old or maybe 5,000? Who is to say. You can play a 12 number lottery, 35 000 times would you be surprised to find some combinations coming up more than once?

                So you may be confident that your range of 12 markers is an R1b and that people you match in that group of several millions may be related to you within the last 30, 000 years...


                Now consider the last two paragraphs, but now put 37 markers and lets say a future SNP test that can whittle down to say an R1B1C8a5d... Ahhhhh, now we have something completely different! Maybe then you could say my family was in Sicily for certain within the last thousand years because thats were my genetic signature exclusively shows up...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  That is really the crux of it. I once asked if anyone could recommend a reference for aboriginal peoples of the world. The model presented to us is that all humans are originally from Africa,
                  I'm not convinced.

                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  so I guess that a strict definition is a bit tricky. Also, in the book "Journey of Man" the author says we are racing against the clock to map humanity before the global melting pot erases distinct populations.
                  How utterly depressing. Such a future seems empty and devoid of something precious. An engineer's dream, and a poets nightmare.

                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  I have seen many great posts on this site discussing various ancient cultures that I find fascinating. However at the present time with SNPs only bringing us to within maybe 10,000 or even 5,000 years, what can we really say about these cultures and what haplogroups they belonged too?
                  Actually, if we can piece together the past 5,000 years in terms of population movements, the rest might fall into place.

                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  With regard to STRs...well we are ultimately related. The fact that we can have STRs converge on a 12 marker haplotype from different points of origin means that a 12 marker match could be 100 years old or maybe 5,000? Who is to say. You can play a 12 number lottery, 35 000 times would you be surprised to find some combinations coming up more than once?
                  This is not quite as random as a lottory. Certainly, considering that all my STR mutations are one step off modal, it is porbable that there will be some convergent evolution (the scientific term escapes me), but it is extremely unlikely that a person with a completely different major haplogroup would match 12 markers exactly. Far less likely would be 25 markers. Some of these 11 and 10 marker matches in Asia are both haplotype, and haplogroup. Even the 8 marker matches in Cameroon are haplogroup matches.

                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  So you may be confident that your range of 12 markers is an R1b and that people you match in that group of several millions may be related to you within the last 30, 000 years...
                  I'm relatively confident the Uygur of China are related within the past 4,000 or so years. The Siberians appear to be more along the lines of 2,000 years.

                  Originally posted by EBurgess

                  Now consider the last two paragraphs, but now put 37 markers and lets say a future SNP test that can whittle down to say an R1B1C8a5d... Ahhhhh, now we have something completely different! Maybe then you could say my family was in Sicily for certain within the last thousand years because thats were my genetic signature exclusively shows up...

                  I would be stunned to get a 37 marker match going back to 260 years Europe.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hetware
                    I'm not convinced.
                    Not convinced that humans originate in Africa, or not convinced it was one exodus 100,000 years ago?


                    Originally posted by Hetware
                    How utterly depressing. Such a future seems empty and devoid of something precious. An engineer's dream, and a poets nightmare.
                    Well I think that what makes people interesting is their culture, and many cultures we see as being very diverse are actually genetically very similar. Uniformity of culture would make the world a very bland place. The mixing of genes is healthy, and i think a good thing.


                    Originally posted by Hetware
                    Actually, if we can piece together the past 5,000 years in terms of population movements, the rest might fall into place.
                    I really hope you are right. Conversely if we can shorten the time frame...

                    Originally posted by Hetware
                    This is not quite as random as a lottory.
                    This actually strengthens my point. I was talking about variability within a haplogroup. The FTDNA database has about 50,000 entries of which 70% is R1b. All these R1bs have a narrow band of possible values for their markers. The oscillation one or two markers off modal makes it hard to read much meaning in a 12 marker match. Unless you have other evidence, like a surname, oral history, paper trail etc...Don't you agree?

                    So to go back and look at the list you provided where you have over 100 12-marker matches only some of which seem to be geographically localized and at best are 6% of that population. I say take it with a grain of salt....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Eburgess,

                      "Well I think that what makes people interesting is their culture, and many cultures we see as being very diverse are actually genetically very similar. Uniformity of culture would make the world a very bland place. The mixing of genes is healthy, and i think a good thing."

                      The 'mixing of genes' is exactly what is going to make the world the bland, uniformized place you oppose.

                      If the indigenous peoples of the world didn't stay distinct and practice ethnic endogamy in the face of globalism, how could the Genographic Project even study them properly? That's the whole purpose of the Geno Project, and ethnic biodiversity and preservation is fully supported by them.

                      What a treasure of knowledge would be wasted if the indigenous peoples of the planet suddenly decided to promiscuously mix with outsiders and committ self-immolation in the process.

                      The survival of different ehtnocultures is just as valid as the survival of rare species of birds, elephants, and the whale, etc.

                      The real diversity of humanity is preserved by the defense of singular identities, both non-European and European, against the internationalist finance-driven monoculture whose drab conformist ideal of the "worker of the future" is the slavish coffee-colored Great Brown Race, an easily manipulated, low-self-esteeming, cultureless lumpenproletariat of indeterminate heritage.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by EBurgess
                        Not convinced that humans originate in Africa, or not convinced it was one exodus 100,000 years ago?
                        Not convinced the genetic Heimdalr lived in Africa. Convinced that the linear out of anywhere model is wrong. Not convinced that the Cro Magnon didn't interbreed with Neandrethals. On the latter, there has been no conclusive evidence discovered thus far.

                        Originally posted by EBurgess
                        Well I think that what makes people interesting is their culture, and many cultures we see as being very diverse are actually genetically very similar. Uniformity of culture would make the world a very bland place. The mixing of genes is healthy, and i think a good thing.
                        I really don't care to discuss such eugenic concepts on this forum.

                        Originally posted by EBurgess

                        This actually strengthens my point. I was talking about variability within a haplogroup. The FTDNA database has about 50,000 entries of which 70% is R1b. All these R1bs have a narrow band of possible values for their markers. The oscillation one or two markers off modal makes it hard to read much meaning in a 12 marker match. Unless you have other evidence, like a surname, oral history, paper trail etc...Don't you agree?

                        So to go back and look at the list you provided where you have over 100 12-marker matches only some of which seem to be geographically localized and at best are 6% of that population. I say take it with a grain of salt....
                        I don't quite follow. Starting with a population of 2, and assuming each person marries and each couple produces 2 boys, and 2 girls who do likewise. Assuming no setbacks such as plagues, wars or famine, you get: {2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2,048, 4,096, 8,192, 16384, 32,768, 65,536, 131,072, 26,2144, 524,288, 1,048,576}. Assuming 25 years per generation, that is over a million people in 500 years. I suspect that is, more or less, why the origins of such populations as the Germani and Slavs are so difficult to identify.

                        There is an anthropological condition I call hitting the lotto. That means that you get your technology, social constitution and natural resources all alligned favorably, and you don't hit any major setbacks for a few centuries. The result is a population explosion. Assuming something along those lines did happen, and the economy was largely pastoral, if the local environment turned bad, the people could simply move their herds to a different part of the vast Eurasian stepp. The analogy Dr. Barber used was a hose partially filled with water. Squish it in one place, and the water moves to a different part of the hose.

                        The Grass Highway

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As to human origins, the Out of Africa model is mere fashionable political dogma. See the following:

                          http://accuca.conectia.es/archaic_ge...ern_people.htm

                          Hammer et al. uncovered an East Asian polymorphism dating back to 2 million years ago-

                          Hammer, M.F., D. Garrigan, J.A. Wilder, Z. Mobasher, T. Severson, S.B. Kingan (2005) Sequence data from the autosomes and X chromosome: Evidence from ancient admixture in the history of H. sapiens? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, S40, pg. 111.

                          Abstract

                          A longstanding question in anthropology asks whether the history of our species is characterized by an expansion from an isolated panmictic population with complete replacement of archaic forms, or by admixture among divergent allotaxa. While mtDNA data support a recent and complete replacement model, nuclear loci present a more complicated picture. Two major problems associated with interpreting the heterogeneous patterns of variation observed at multiple nuclear loci are that sampling procedures vary across studies, and experimental designs generally lack statistical power to detect archaic admixture. We are undertaking a systematic survey of DNA sequence variation at 90 unlinked nuclear loci and developing a statistical framework (to be presented by Jeff Wall) to explicitly test the hypothesis of no admixture between modern and archaic forms, and for estimating the admixture ratio (if the null hypothesis is rejected). Our approach involves sequencing three windows of ~2 kb spanning ~16kb at each locus in a panel of 90 individuals from 6 populations. Preliminary data from two loci that show evidence of ancient admixture will be discussed. A gene tree constructed from sequence data at the first locus roots in East Asia and has a most recent common ancestor ~2 million YBP. The pattern of nucleotide variation at the second locus reveals two major lineages that have not undergone recombination for over 2 million years, and statistically rejects the null hypothesis of panmixia during the early ancestry of modern humans.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hetware
                            How utterly depressing. Such a future seems empty and devoid of something precious. An engineer's dream, and a poets nightmare.
                            Originally posted by Hetware
                            I really don't care to discuss such eugenic concepts on this forum.
                            Aren`t you, by your first statement making a statement about your eugenic point of view?

                            Originally posted by hrodhbert
                            The 'mixing of genes' is exactly what is going to make the world the bland, uniformized place you oppose.
                            My point is that from what I understand this mixing has already happened for the most part. But I agree with Hetware, I don`t want to really get into a debate about eugenics despite what I posted.

                            The point of my post was the meaningfulness of the YHRD marker set, and at the 12 marker level I can't see that there is much refinement past the broad strokes.

                            Originally posted by Hetware
                            don't quite follow. Starting with a population of 2, and assuming each person marries and each couple produces 2 boys, and 2 girls who do likewise. Assuming no setbacks such as plagues, wars or famine, you get: {2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2,048, 4,096, 8,192, 16384, 32,768, 65,536, 131,072, 26,2144, 524,288, 1,048,576
                            Anyone who has done their pedigree past 10 or 12 generations knows the mathematical progression described above is wrong. Your ancestors eventually start to converge. Also it becomes impossible a few generations further down. 30 generations = 1152921504606846976. Were there that many people around? I am certain you know this already, so I don't quite get what you are trying to say either.

                            I am just saying you can't isolate your results to a specific population in recent history with a 12-marker STR? So is it meaningful? Not if you want to say some DYS 385 values are particular to Basques. The marker values go back and forth for 385 even within a small number of generations. It is not a rare event.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              don't quite follow. Starting with a population of 2, and assuming each person marries and each couple produces 2 boys, and 2 girls who do likewise. Assuming no setbacks such as plagues, wars or famine, you get: {2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2,048, 4,096, 8,192, 16384, 32,768, 65,536, 131,072, 26,2144, 524,288, 1,048,576


                              Sorry, I completely mis-read that one. But my final point about DYS 385 still holds.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X