Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Haplogroup N, HVR1 16292T, 16519C?

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

  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by dajones
    So does the fact that I match haplogroup H and 16519C, 263G and 315.1C with Marie Antoinette mean I am related to her? Any thoughts out there?!
    too distantly

    Leave a comment:


  • dajones
    Guest replied
    Hvr1 16519c

    I only have 16519C at HVR1, but I am Haplogroup H. My differences at HVR2 are 263G, 309.1C and 315.1C. I also wondered about the Marie Antoinette connection since as I recall her differences from CRS are 16519C, 152C, 194T, 263G and 315.1C and she was haplogroup H also. Of course when I check my results with FTDNA I also match HVR1 with about 1500 or so people and HVR1 & 2 with about 80 folks. So does the fact that I match haplogroup H and 16519C, 263G and 315.1C with Marie Antoinette mean I am related to her? Any thoughts out there?!

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by shekron
    Do I need further testing?
    Sheryl, if they are going to check your sample with rflps and this is for free - I think it is not out of place.

    Leave a comment:


  • shekron
    Guest replied
    Thanks for your response vraatyah. You have confirmed what the roots DNA people have told me...so I guess I am really a W! What will it take for FTDNA to change it to the correct haplogroup? Do I need further testing?
    Thanks again, Sheryl Kronebusch

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by shekron
    My MtDNA tests came back Haplogroup N*...but they first had me in I.
    HVR1 - 223T and 519C
    HVR2 - 73G, 143A, 189G, 192C, 194T, 195C, 196C, 204C, 207A, 163G, 315.1C
    I can't seem to find any information on N*. Some of the experts on the Roots DNA board thought I should be a W...so I don't know what I really am. I would appreciate any sites that might explain this better. I have 2 exact matches on the MtDNA data base. One is a N* and the other is a W????? Can this be right?
    that's a typical W - at least, in all labs but FT. 143-192-194-196 defines a subclade which has no corresponding hvs1 motif. These matches with back transition at 292 are the closest ones:

    Piercy R. et al.
    The application of mitochondrial DNA typing to the study of white Caucasian genetic identification, 1993
    Wales
    223
    73-143-189-192-194-195-196-204-207-263-315.1C
    (16001-16397; 29-400)


    Delghandi et al.
    1998
    Saami
    223
    73-143-189-192-194-195-196-263
    (16024-16362; 62-363)

    More likely, they overlooked 204-207 in the Saami sample.

    and one complete sequence by Moilanen:

    AY339460
    73-143-189-192-194-195-196-204-207-263-315.1C-709-750-1243-1438-2706-3107d-3505-3531-4769-5046-5460-7028-7864-8251-8860-8994-11674-11719-11947-12705-14766-15326-15884C-16223-16519
    Last edited by vraatyah; 21 February 2006, 03:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shekron
    Guest replied
    N* Haplogroup

    My MtDNA tests came back Haplogroup N*...but they first had me in I.
    HVR1 - 223T and 519C
    HVR2 - 73G, 143A, 189G, 192C, 194T, 195C, 196C, 204C, 207A, 163G, 315.1C

    I can't seem to find any information on N*. Some of the experts on the Roots DNA board thought I should be a W...so I don't know what I really am. I would appreciate any sites that might explain this better. I have 2 exact matches on the MtDNA data base. One is a N* and the other is a W????? Can this be right?

    Thanks,
    Sheryl Kronebusch

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcia S.
    replied
    cacio,
    Thanks for your explanation. It does make it a little clearer to me about the mututations. When FTDNA posted my DNA results I thought there would be a better explanation of how to understand it (maybe there is and I'm just not getting it!), but reading your post did clarify things for me a lot better. I knew the mutations had something to do with the results, but there had to be more to it. As I said, I'm in basic learning mode so I have a ways to go. It's really helped me out posting to this forum and reading all the other questions and answers on the other FTDNA forums. I'm contacting FTDNA via email and requesting additional testing be done for myself and my brother. I've been unable to go back very far in family history, since both sets of grandparents came from Europe, and now there's no one to ask anymore. Since it's going to take a lot more work trying to track down history over in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria and Russia I thought doing the DNA thing would be the other alternative I could take in trying to trace my roots. Thanks again! Marcia S.

    Leave a comment:


  • cacio
    replied
    Marcia:

    I'm sure vraatyah will give more precise information. but anyway, just quickly, the way the results are posted is the following. There is a reference mtDNA sequence (which happens to belong to haplogroup H, and which is usually referred to as CRS=common reference sequence), so when reporting your results, what they tell you are only the values that are different from this reference sequence (people talk about mutations, although this may not be the right word - it may be the carrier of the reference seq who mutated!). So it means your HV1 is the same as the reference sequence _except_ those two numbers. In fact, if you look at your ftdna page, you can see your whole HV1 sequence with 600+ numbers, the vast majority of which turn out to be equal to CRS.
    So if you see another person who has exactly your "mutations", it means that he or she has exactly your hv1, ie that person also has hv1 identical to the reference sequence except those two. if a person has your two mutation plus another one, it means that she differs to you by one, because while that person has an additional mutation, you are the same as the reference sequence in that third location. So the way the results are reported does not depend on which haplogroup one has been assigned to - the assignment comes later, after they have looked at your hv1.

    as vraatyah wrote (and he will be able to confirm), your hv1 sequence, while typical of W, is found also in haplogroup H. The point is that the mutations that really define haplogroup H versus W versus others are found in a different location of the mtdna, which is not part of the small part called hv1. so checking another part, called hv2, may give information, if in fact that part differs between H and W (which I don't know).

    cacio

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcia S.
    replied
    Hi everyone,
    Gosh, thanks so much for all the information and your suggestions. I have to admit some of the info was over my head, but I'm new at this, so I'm learning as I go along. Obviously I will need to have additional testing to really determine whether I'm truly an N or X, W or whatever. Since I only had some matches at the 1st level and not the 2nd, I assume the additional testing will provide more matches. I'm still not clear on the #'s I showed as mutations, can anyone clarify that for me? Are those numbers the ones we match to with other people? And can those #'s appear in other Haplogroups as well? Or are they specific only to the Haplogroup you test as? Sorry to be so un-intelligent, but this is all so new to me, and I'm having trouble getting past this area. I do appreciate all the information, and have found some of the articles you all referenced and am trying to understand it as much as I can.
    I'm disappointed they don't do deep subclade for N, but I found they do it on R1A which is my brother's, so I'm going to pursue tha. And I will check with FTDNA for additional testing for myself to determine which ones I need. I signed up for the Genographic project, and after reading all the messages on the FTDNA board, I've learned that apparently they didn't test as deep as I would like. Oh well, learn something new everyday!
    Thanks again.
    Marcia S.

    Leave a comment:


  • cacio
    replied
    mschris:

    They seem rather close, given the chronological distance. In 7-10K years
    many mutations can happen (not to mention the probability of testing errors). Halberstadt seems a particular fit. Does the family come from the areas where the skeletons were discovered? That would be quite something.

    Why don't you send an email to the authors of the paper? Most of the times, they have no time to answer. But sometimes they do, and they may find the thing interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • mschris
    replied
    Cacio,

    Yes, I did check the Haak paper and found it very interesting. I do believe that N1a may have been more common in the Neolithic. For reference here are the motifs for my father (DM9RS) and the Haak samples:

    DM9RS 086C 147A 223T 248T 320T 355T 519C

    HAAK:
    DERENBURG 1 147A 172C 223T 248T 355T
    DERENBURG 3 147A 172C 223T 248T 320T 355T
    HALBERSTADT 086C 147A 172C 223T 248T 320T 355T
    FLOMBORN 147A 172C 223T 248T 320T 355T
    UNTERWIEDER 129A 147A 154C 172C 223T 248T 320T 355T
    ESCEGFALVA 147A 172C 189C 223T 248T 274A 355T
    Dad does not show 172C, possibly a back mutation? He does have one exact match at FTDNA. Otherwise, his closes matches are listed in this paper.

    Thanks to all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Villicus
    replied
    Welcome to haplogroup N and good luck with your searching. It is not the easiest one to find info on. FTDNA has me as N* with no matches at HVR2, but I have over twenty matches at HVR1. They are all listed as haplogroup X. I sent my results to another company who advised that I belong in X. I guess we just have to wait for more people to test to get a fix on our geographic origins.

    Leave a comment:


  • cacio
    replied
    vraatyah:
    Originally posted by vraatyah
    only one N2* sample was published, it's a complete sequence in Derbeneva 2002 paper from a Mansi individual. So, if a lineage falls into N2, it's more likely to be in W.
    Thanks. As you say, I checked Palanichamy and her N2* sequence is taken from Derbeneva. That sequence has 16319 and 16153, which are absent here. (I'm quite new to mtDNA, I just started reading recently after getting my result, U1a).

    Mschris:
    did you check your sequence with the famous Science paper by Haak on Ancient DNA from the first European farmers? The claim of that paper is that Neolithic agriculturalists in Germany and Central Europe had lots of N1a, which then later somehow disappeared. If you or your father are really N1a, you may be one of these few surviving Neolithic (?) lineages - and exactly in Germany, where the skeletons were found.

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    btw, you may ask the company for RFLP test before the hvs2 sequencing. I believe, it's for free.

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    cacio, only one N2* sample was published, it's a complete sequence in Derbeneva 2002 paper from a Mansi individual. So, if a lineage falls into N2, it's more likely to be in W.

    Marcia, your type can fall into 3 haplogroups: W, H and R*. First, I recommend you to get the hvs2 sequence.

    1) If it possesses 189-195-204-207 you are in W and nowhere else. There are at least 3 published W haplotypes with back transition at 223, I believe, all these samples were checked with RFLPs.

    2) If the hvs2 doesn't show features characteristic of W, you may follow these steps. Ask your company for 7025AluI test. Several published hvs1 sequences that match your type were classified as H after the RFLP check. I'd say, this is the most likely haplogroup for your sequence.

    3) There are some Indian lineages that have 292 in hvs1, positive for R and negative for the main R haplogroups. I think, their area is limited to South Asia only and your own lineage after being tested properly will fall into certain haplogroup.

    Only few hvs2 sequences were published for H 292 and R 292 and they are quite close to CRS.
    Last edited by vraatyah; 15 February 2006, 09:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X