Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R1b got messed up

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

  • R1b got messed up

    If this is correct than why bother having a naming system at all, if it's gonna change and not be compatible with previous names?
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Change is progress!

    May I suggest reading the book "Who Moved My Cheese?"

    Seriously, this is science, and as new scientific discoveries are made, changes in nomenclature will indeed be necessary. The R1b tree was expanded, so some renaming needed to be done to accomodate this expansion. R1b isn't the only one that has undergone changes -- J2 definitely has and I'm sure others have as well. The R1b change happened sometime late last year, I believe.
    Last edited by efgen; 9 June 2006, 02:43 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      There has been some pretty confusing renaming in y-haplogroup I, too.

      I think I'm some kind of Hun.

      That's my story . . .

      and I'm sticking to it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by argiedude
        If this is correct than why bother having a naming system at all, if it's gonna change and not be compatible with previous names?
        In hindsight, it probably would have made more sense to pick some other naming convention. But oh well.

        Comment


        • #5
          From what I've been reading lately about E3b1, maybe they should change names and letters whenever a new mutation takes place on another continent. I say this somewhat sardonically because I think people are already too sensitive about this Eurocentric/Afrocentric business.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Marttinen
            From what I've been reading lately about E3b1, maybe they should change names and letters whenever a new mutation takes place on another continent. I say this somewhat sardonically because I think people are already too sensitive about this Eurocentric/Afrocentric business.
            You bring up an excellent point, especially in the case of E3b, which I regard as a European y-haplogroup. Yeah, it's dominant in North Africa, but that region has pretty much always been within the European orbit.

            The current nomenclature is misleading.

            Comment


            • #7
              Instead of Biblical figures (theologians are really confused because there already is a Second Adam in Romans 5), letters and numbers, why not try corporate names that we can understand. Large haplogroups like R1b can be called "Wal-Mart" while the smaller, widely spread-out ones can be 7-11's or Denny's. Great eras in time can be "The Pepsi Generation" rather than "neolithic." The dawn of humanity can be known as "Coke adds life to..." Then, if a name changes we can just accept it, just like we know that corporate takovers are inevitable.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Marttinen
                Instead of Biblical figures (theologians are really confused because there already is a Second Adam in Romans 5), letters and numbers, why not try corporate names that we can understand. Large haplogroups like R1b can be called "Wal-Mart" while the smaller, widely spread-out ones can be 7-11's or Denny's. Great eras in time can be "The Pepsi Generation" rather than "neolithic." The dawn of humanity can be known as "Coke adds life to..." Then, if a name changes we can just accept it, just like we know that corporate takovers are inevitable.
                Great idea!

                I would prefer beer brand names, however.

                Or perhaps wines of a specific region would be better?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by efriedman
                  May I suggest reading the book "Who Moved My Cheese?"

                  Seriously, this is science, and as new scientific discoveries are made, changes in nomenclature will indeed be necessary. The R1b tree was expanded, so some renaming needed to be done to accomodate this expansion. R1b isn't the only one that has undergone changes -- J2 definitely has and I'm sure others have as well. The R1b change happened sometime late last year, I believe.
                  But one of the reasons a committee was created to come up with a universally accepted naming system is precisely to avoid problems such as this: backwards compatibility and no 2 names for the same thing existing at the same time. So from now on, whenever someone talks about "R1b1", I will have to ask him to clarify if he means the old R1b1 (M18) or the new R1b1 (P25 and sub-branches, including M18, M73, and M269).

                  Plus there's something else here that is very bizarre. This new mutation doesn't add anything. That I know of there are no types floating out there that have the M343 mutation but don't have the old P25 mutation (if I'm wrong correct me as it would trump everything I'm saying in this paragraph). Why not do as with all the other branches and lump them together? For example, there's a branch in the C haplogroup that has like 10 or 12 mutations on it. No need to create new haplotypes for all those 10 or 12 mutations, as they are all present or absent as a whole, so for practical purposes it's as if they were a single mutation (I obviously suppose that the first 9 or 11 mutations have become extinct and the only one surviving is the 10th or 12th, carrying with it all the previous changes).

                  Damn, I'm really pissed! It's hard enough for me to try and understand this with the limited info out there. Now they're changing the names every couple years??? Are we going to have to add a little date to the haplotypes from now on? For example: R1b1(pre-2005), R1b1(2005-2007), R1b1(March2007), R1b1(May-June2007).

                  Jesus, you don't see this crap happening with the biological naming system: panthera leo is the lion since the creation of the naming system by one single man 300 years ago. Damn straight. Today we form a committee with the expressed purpose of coming up with a good naming system, and their stupid names don't last even 3 years! Why don't we send these people to work for the Government? Oh, wait, aren't they?

                  Grrrr......

                  [Thanks guys for all the responses, this forum is great]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I just go with the flow.

                    I like hearing about new things..it gives us some stuff to talk about between Batches.

                    I know lots of things can change.
                    ..that is why i never bought the t-shirt yet.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by argiedude
                      Plus there's something else here that is very bizarre. This new mutation doesn't add anything. That I know of there are no types floating out there that have the M343 mutation but don't have the old P25 mutation (if I'm wrong correct me as it would trump everything I'm saying in this paragraph). Why not do as with all the other branches and lump them together? For example, there's a branch in the C haplogroup that has like 10 or 12 mutations on it. No need to create new haplotypes for all those 10 or 12 mutations, as they are all present or absent as a whole, so for practical purposes it's as if they were a single mutation (I obviously suppose that the first 9 or 11 mutations have become extinct and the only one surviving is the 10th or 12th, carrying with it all the previous changes).
                      R1b* has the M343 SNP but does not have P25 in the current Phylogenetic tree.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DMac
                        R1b* has the M343 SNP but does not have P25 in the current Phylogenetic tree.
                        The fact they found men who had the new SNP (M343) and did not have P25 while others did have P25 forced the change to the tree. If all men testing positive for M343 were also positive for P25, the tree would not have changed and M343 & P25 would have been considered both to be indicative of R1b1 status. The same as M170, M258 and P19 are all currently indicative of I1. If a man is ever found to to have 1 or 2 of the I1 SNP's and not one of the others, the I1 tree would have to be rearranged.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DMac
                          The fact they found men who had the new SNP (M343) and did not have P25 while others did have P25 forced the change to the tree. If all men testing positive for M343 were also positive for P25, the tree would not have changed and M343 & P25 would have been considered both to be indicative of R1b1 status. The same as M170, M258 and P19 are all currently indicative of I1. If a man is ever found to to have 1 or 2 of the I1 SNP's and not one of the others, the I1 tree would have to be rearranged.
                          The following is Post #77 over on the *Poof* You Are Now R1b1 thread.

                          Originally posted by davis1946
                          I posted #67 yesterday in reference to inconclusive SNP testing. I have a positive M343 but a negative P25. They are to do testing for M269. Today I found this abstract from www.pubmed.gov that I thought was interesting.

                          Forensic Sci Int. 2006 May 25;159(1):14-20. Epub 2005 Jul 18. Related Articles, Links


                          The case of the unreliable SNP: recurrent back-mutation of Y-chromosomal marker P25 through gene conversion.

                          Adams SM, King TE, Bosch E, Jobling MA.

                          Department of Genetics, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.

                          The Y-chromosomal binary marker P25 is a paralogous sequence variant, rather than a SNP: three copies of the P25 sequence lie within the giant palindromic repeats on Yq, and one copy has undergone a C to A transversion to define haplogroup R1b (designated C/C/A). Since gene conversion is known to be active in the palindromic repeats, we reasoned that P25 might be liable to back-mutation by gene conversion, yielding the ancestral state C/C/C. Through analysis of a set of binary markers in Y-chromosomes in two large samples from Great Britain and the Iberian Peninsula we show that such conversion events have occurred at least twice, and provide preliminary evidence that the reverse conversion event (yielding C/A/A) has also occurred. Because of its inherent instability, we suggest that P25 be used with caution in forensic studies, and perhaps replaced with the more reliable binary marker M269.

                          PMID: 16026953 [PubMed - in process]

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stevo
                            The following is Post #77 over on the *Poof* You Are Now R1b1 thread.
                            Interesting since in the current Phylogenetic tree, M269 appears to define R1b1c. If M269 were to be used to define R1b1 instead, then that would mean M18 would define R1b2 (currently R1b1a) and M73 would define R1b3 (R1b1b). Of course, I guess you could flip flop that last digit if you wanted.

                            You really want to confuse the R1b types!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DMac
                              Interesting since in the current Phylogenetic tree, M269 appears to define R1b1c. If M269 were to be used to define R1b1 instead, then that would mean M18 would define R1b2 (currently R1b1a) and M73 would define R1b3 (R1b1b). Of course, I guess you could flip flop that last digit if you wanted.

                              You really want to confuse the R1b types!!!
                              Yikes!

                              Here is a follow-up to that post from the *Poof* You Are Now R1b1 thread (Post #79, I think).

                              Originally posted by RScott
                              According to a private email from Bennett Greenspan on 3 May 2006, "We have identified about 23 guys who are shown to be M343+ but P25-. We will be testing all for M269."

                              And, to a private email from Mark Jobling on the same date regarding the "unreliable SNP": "I can give you this advice about P25: if you are derived for P25, then clearly you are an R1b according to the 2003 YCC nomenclature, and that is straightforward and reliable. But, if you are ancestral for P25, ancestral for SRY10831.2 and M17, but derived for M173 (i.e. an apparent R1*), then there is a strong possibility that you carry a back-mutation at P25, and in that case an M269 test would be worthwhile for confirmation. This would be particularly justified if a haplogroup prediction from YSTRs pointed to R1b."

                              I hope Mark's comments above are helpful. If you would like the complete article, I have it.

                              Ron
                              R1b1

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X