Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

67 Marker Results

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

  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by Donald Locke
    I was just scanning through this thread and what Mike said caught my eye.
    Is this a common occurance or something of interest for 425 to be null?

    I ask because my 425 is 0 / null
    So far, none of my distant cousins have tested at the highest level like myself, so I have no one to compare to, to see if they too show this null.
    Just wondering if you or someone else could explain to me about this null on 425.
    It's not clear what a null 425 represents. It occurs in different haplogroups, so there are probably different reasons it occurs.

    Here's what I wrote earlier in this thread:

    "Another interesting marker in the upgrade to 67 is 425. It's been found that there is a small percentage of people tested who have a "null 425." This means that some unknown change in the chemistry near that marker has occurred which makes it impossible for FTDNA's primers to detect a value for that marker. This has been found to occur in different haplogroups, although when it occurs in someone in the I1b subclade may indicate Scottish ancestry. I am also investigating a "null 425" cluster in R1b that may be a subclade of R1b1c9 (S21)."

    And here's what about in another thread:

    "If he had DYS492=13, DYS390=23, DYS447=24 and DYS40=10, which are all off the general R1b modal values, plus his DYS425=null, he would be part of a cluster of several paternal lines from diverse geographical origins, including Scotland, England, Belgium, France and Italy. This cluster is probably all S21+ and may even be a subclade of S21.

    But since he lacks those values I cited above, he probably just has some sort of recLOH event involving DYF371 - DYS 425 is one of the multi-copy markers associated with DYF371. However, that null 425 is useful in sorting out known close relatives, just as any recLOH is."

    Are you either I1b or R1b (with the R1b marker values I cited)?

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by darroll
    It proves that I could be related to Dirty Dan McGrew even though I know that is un-true.
    Keep in mind that FTDNA's yDNA testing only examines your strict patrilineal line--your father's father's father's father[...]. Why couldn't you be related to Dirty Dan through that particular line? Maybe some ancestor sowed some wild oats 400 years ago?

    Leave a comment:


  • JC399
    replied
    Originally posted by darroll
    Thanks for your reply.

    This still does not answer the question:
    Why do some families have recent mutations and others do not?
    See my earlier posts.

    Tks, d
    I think vineviz more or less answered that. It's because mutations don't occur at regular intervals for a single individual, they happen by chance. For each individual, sometimes they happen at 4 generations, sometimes at 12, sometimes a couple at the same time, etc. If you flip two coins, sometimes you get two heads, sometimes you get a head and a tail, and sometimes you get two tails. If you keep flipping them, you'll find on average get as many heads as tails. That's the way mutations work. If you could follow them back far enough on average you would see about 1 mutation in 9 generations even though the spacing in time between these mutations may not be regular.

    Leave a comment:


  • Donald Locke
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi
    And you don't have a null 425, so there's not much that can be said about that.
    I was just scanning through this thread and what Mike said caught my eye.
    Is this a common occurance or something of interest for 425 to be null?

    I ask because my 425 is 0 / null
    So far, none of my distant cousins have tested at the highest level like myself, so I have no one to compare to, to see if they too show this null.
    Just wondering if you or someone else could explain to me about this null on 425.

    Leave a comment:


  • darroll
    replied
    Originally posted by augustin25
    (It's late and I've been reading this thread in bits and pieces over the last few days, so I apologize if I misunderstood what you're saying.) It's not just a question of related or not, but also how closely. If you shared a common ancestor with someone say 500 years ago you're technically related, but most of us wouldn't really consider such a person as "family."
    Thanks for your reply.

    I do not want DNA test results being abused like genealogy records on the NET have.

    I even came across doctored census records that are owned by private companies.

    This still does not answer the question:
    Why do some families have recent mutations and others do not?
    See my earlier posts.

    Tks, d

    Leave a comment:


  • augustin25
    replied
    Originally posted by darroll
    I have to buy the exact matches but it looks to me like I’m related to one heck of a lot of people that I never heard of..
    (It's late and I've been reading this thread in bits and pieces over the last few days, so I apologize if I misunderstood what you're saying.) It's not just a question of related or not, but also how closely. If you shared a common ancestor with someone say 500 years ago you're technically related, but most of us wouldn't really consider such a person as "family."

    Leave a comment:


  • vineviz
    replied
    Originally posted by JC399
    Don't you mean a marker will change once every 333 "generations" and not "years"?

    333 "generations"/37=9 generations.
    Yes, that is what I meant.

    Leave a comment:


  • darroll
    replied
    This DNA testing is getting bazaar. I take one step forward and two steps back to understanding the results.
    Should we all get tested using the law enforcement specs? These tests stick thru The courts.
    I have been following you peoples comments for years and now I really do not know who the heck I’m related too. I have to buy the exact matches but it looks to me like I’m related to one heck of a lot of people that I never heard of..
    I was led to believe that this is more of an exact science than it now appears.
    What the heck is good about this testing? It proves that I could be related to Dirty Dan McGrew even though I know that is un-true.
    Give me time to eat some more crow and scratch my head.
    d

    Leave a comment:


  • JC399
    replied
    Originally posted by vineviz
    Most of your genetic distance is at CDY, DYS576, and DYS449 which are the three fastest markers in the 37 marker panel. The mutation rate of CDY is eight times the panel average, and is possibly the fastest mutating STR we have.
    I am somewhere between 15-20 generations from having a common ancestor with any one of those people. If you take the mutation rate you gave me for those 30 markers (I'll use the lower estimate of .002) you should expect a mutation every 500/30=16.67 generations for those upper 30 markers. But there's 4 of us so among any one of us there should be a mutation every 16.67/4 =4.167 generations. That's why it seems so odd there are no mutations in the upper 30 markers for any of those people. I am not sure what to make of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • JC399
    replied
    Originally posted by vineviz
    On average, the most commonly used Y-STR markers have a mutation rate of something like .003. This means that, on average, each marker will change its value approximately once every 333 years.

    But you don't test just one marker, you test several (12, 25, 37, or 67 at FTDNA). So, if you test 37 markers and each of them mutates on average once every 333 years then you would expect one of the 37 to mutate every 9 generations.

    So, for a 37 marker panel it would be more accurate to say that a single mutation takes about 250 years.
    Don't you mean a marker will change once every 333 "generations" and not "years"?

    333 "generations"/37=9 generations.

    Leave a comment:


  • JC399
    replied
    Originally posted by lgmayka
    Be grateful. My cousin was only 5 steps away from a known lineage at 37 markers; but at 67 markers, he is now 13 steps away.
    That's quite a change. I have one match (different surname) that is so distant in the lower panels he doesn't show up as a match at all, yet at 67 he shows up as being a possible relative with 7 mutations in 67. That seems to be typical for me so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by darroll
    WHY?
    One source said that a single mutation takes hundreds/thousands of years.
    Then:
    Maybe someone can explain why mutations do not show up in all family lines?.
    Mutations are random events. The y chromosome does not have a calendar or clock and notices it's time for another mutation in its paternal line, then gets down to mutating. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Mutation rates are averages based on studies of father-son results. Some paternal lines will be fast mutators and others will be slow mutators. But there is a known range and just about everybody will be within that range, most toward the middle and few at either end. Think "bell curve."

    Originally posted by darroll
    FTDNA shows a Y-DNA 35 out of 37 match, a family member.
    It is starting to look like mutations do not take hundreds/thousand of years that I have read everywhere..
    Would some brain please clarify this and I can quit hollering “Bad Paper Trail”.
    When you are dealing with 37 markers or however many, there are known average rates for each marker. If you add up how long it will take, on average, with 37 markers for each marker to mutate, you end up with hundreds of years for just one or two markers among 37 markers to randomly mutate.

    One close match to an unknown showed 11/12 on the 12 point.
    This same person had his 37 point test done and he matched 35/37.
    I do not consider him a family member even though he says he is related.
    Help Please.
    d
    Unless you have a very common R1b haplotype at 37 markers, a match of 35/37 with another person of a different surname does indicate a possibility that there's a relationship within the last few hundred years.

    Mike Maddi

    Leave a comment:


  • vineviz
    replied
    Originally posted by darroll
    WHY?
    One source said that a single mutation takes hundreds/thousands of years.
    On average, the most commonly used Y-STR markers have a mutation rate of something like .003. This means that, on average, each marker will change its value approximately once every 333 years.

    But you don't test just one marker, you test several (12, 25, 37, or 67 at FTDNA). So, if you test 37 markers and each of them mutates on average once every 333 years then you would expect one of the 37 to mutate every 9 generations.

    So, for a 37 marker panel it would be more accurate to say that a single mutation takes about 250 years.

    And since we are usually comparing our results to a cousin, you must count the generations in both lines together. If two people have a common ancestor just 125 years ago, they probably do not have idential Y-STR results for all 37 markers.

    However, the mutations do no have a fixed schedule. They occur at random, so sometimes they happen quickly and sometimes they happen slowly.

    The classic example is a coin toss. A fair coin will land on heads about 50% of the time, but it does not necessarily alternate heads/tails/heads/tails/heads/tails etc. It usually will land in short streaks (HHTHTTHHTTHT etc.) but sometimes in long streaks (HTHHTTTTTHTH). The average is known, but each individual outcome is unpredictable.

    Leave a comment:


  • darroll
    replied
    WHY?
    One source said that a single mutation takes hundreds/thousands of years.
    Then:
    Maybe someone can explain why mutations do not show up in all family lines?.
    FTDNA shows a Y-DNA 35 out of 37 match, a family member.
    It is starting to look like mutations do not take hundreds/thousand of years that I have read everywhere..
    Would some brain please clarify this and I can quit hollering “Bad Paper Trail”.
    One close match to an unknown showed 11/12 on the 12 point.
    This same person had his 37 point test done and he matched 35/37.
    I do not consider him a family member even though he says he is related.
    Help Please.
    d

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by JC399
    Now that we have established the mutation rates are comparable to the lower markers, I'm still wondering why all my distant matches show no mutations in the upper 30 markers.
    Be grateful. My cousin was only 5 steps away from a known lineage at 37 markers; but at 67 markers, he is now 13 steps away.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X