Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

37 Marker Question

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Rick
    Is there a distinctive R1b1c6 modal haplotype? I read somewhere that R1b1c6 is indistinguishable from R1b1c* on the basis of STR values alone.
    By my calculation the modal for R1b1c6 is about 10 steps away from the modal for R1b1c7 at 37 markers.

    In this case, RJKGE is four steps away from the R1b1c6 modal and 13 steps from the R1b1c7 modal. That's not conclusive evidence of being R1b1c6, but it clearly raises the possibility.

    Whether these two subclades can be distinguished based on STRs more generally, I couldn't say.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Rick
      Is there a distinctive R1b1c6 modal haplotype? I read somewhere that R1b1c6 is indistinguishable from R1b1c* on the basis of STR values alone.
      I believe that Dr. John McEwan is conducting extensive research on R1b1's and has identified that the subclades are rapidly diversifying. Based on only seeing my DYS scores he has me in R1b1c16-which is apparently only developing now. Of course, to verify this a deep snp test will have to be conducted. I would suggest contacting him through the Ethnoancestry site.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SaintManx
        I believe that Dr. John McEwan is conducting extensive research on R1b1's and has identified that the subclades are rapidly diversifying. Based on only seeing my DYS scores he has me in R1b1c16-which is apparently only developing now. Of course, to verify this a deep snp test will have to be conducted. I would suggest contacting him through the Ethnoancestry site.
        I believe the R1b1c16 you referred to is not a subclade, but is actually his R1b cluster #16, which he calls R1bSTR16, based on STR marker values only. The clusters he's identified number about 50 or so. In some cases they correspond to - but are not based upon - SNP-defined subclades, such as his cluster 19 corresponding to R1b1c7 (M222+). In most cases they are merely statistical aggregations of similar haplotypes that in most cases represent more recent genealogical relationships than SNP-based subclades. However, in the absence of SNPs, the STR-based clusters sometimes provide inaccurate grouping solutions, as a result of poor sampling, hapoltype convergence, excessive divergence, and other phenomena such as prolonged bottlenecks, line extinctions, etc, which are at variance with assumptions underlying the analyses. The cluster analyses can be very useful tools, but IMO are no substitutes for SNP-based clade assignment. Back to the point, R1b1c16 would be an actual SNP-based subclade of R1b1c. I think we're only up to R1b1c10 (defined by the SNP S28) so far.

        Comment


        • #19
          I think your quote is probably more on the mark...

          Originally posted by Rick
          I believe the R1b1c16 you referred to is not a subclade, but is actually his R1b cluster #16, which he calls R1bSTR16, based on STR marker values only. The clusters he's identified number about 50 or so. In some cases they correspond to - but are not based upon - SNP-defined subclades, such as his cluster 19 corresponding to R1b1c7 (M222+). In most cases they are merely statistical aggregations of similar haplotypes that in most cases represent more recent genealogical relationships than SNP-based subclades. However, in the absence of SNPs, the STR-based clusters sometimes provide inaccurate grouping solutions, as a result of poor sampling, hapoltype convergence, excessive divergence, and other phenomena such as prolonged bottlenecks, line extinctions, etc, which are at variance with assumptions underlying the analyses. The cluster analyses can be very useful tools, but IMO are no substitutes for SNP-based clade assignment. Back to the point, R1b1c16 would be an actual SNP-based subclade of R1b1c. I think we're only up to R1b1c10 (defined by the SNP S28) so far.
          I've only seen it up to R1b1c10 myself. As far as being modal with R1b1c6, I could say that with the aggregation mentioned by another poster that R1b1c5 and R1b1c7 are modal. To me it doesn't make sense.

          I'd just get the Deep SNP test done and have an answer once and for all (whether through EA or Family Tree). It sure beats the heck out of having guesses and stabs at it.

          I did the same kind of speculation and thought I'd have a Saxon-Frisian related modal haplogroup based upon the numbers I had with 25 markers; and before Deep SNP tests came along. I was way off.

          Comment


          • #20
            yeah but these are not deep subclade markers...

            Originally posted by vineviz
            I did a search on 37 markers.

            http://www.ysearch.org/search_result...haplo=&region=

            There is one person identified as R1b1c6 at 33/37. Everyone else lists their haplogroup as unknown, R1b, R1b1, or R1b1c. I wouldn't say he is conclusively R1b1c6, or even probably R1b1c6, but I'd feel comfortable saying he is possibly R1b1c6.

            Besides, I think he is a lot closer to the R1b1c6 modal than to the R1b1c7 modal.
            I did the same type of guesswork and was proven way wrong. I'd just suggest the gentleman invests some money into deep SNP testing and for obvious reasons if Family Tree DNA can't find anything then go with Ethno-ancestry since they can test for all of the known Deep SNPs.

            Comment

            Working...
            X