FTDNA Kittler Test Results

[R2-D2]

Well, first of all he is not an R1b, right? I say that because my understanding is that an R1b would have one or at most two of his 464x markers as a g in the 464x test. Take a look at your results. You'll see that you have only one g allele in this test.

I think based on his values for these markers that your stepfather is in the I haplogroup, since they seem to have around 14 for the 464x markers. I think it's probable that he has had at least one and possibly 2-3 recLOH events on 464, since all his values are 14.

Although you now know that there was probably at least one recLOH on 464, the 464x test is most useful for an R1b. That's because a recLOH there is much more noticeable since it might have a c allele overwrite the g one or the g one overwrite a c one. If you see an R1b with all 4 multi-copy markers at 464 having the c or 2 of the 4 having a g, that's a dead giveaway that there was a recLOH.

My stepfather is I1c according to a FTDNA SNP test. Most of his multicopy markers have the same value. His Ysearch ID is 342ZM.

[MMaddi]

I just got my stepfather's 464x results:
14g-14g-14g-14g

Is this odd that none were nulls or just further proof of a RecLoh? Thanks.

Well, first of all he is not an R1b, right? I say that because my understanding is that an R1b would have one or at most two of his 464x markers as a g in the 464x test. Take a look at your results. You'll see that you have only one g allele in this test.

I think based on his values for these markers that your stepfather is in the I haplogroup, since they seem to have around 14 for the 464x markers. I think it's probable that he has had at least one and possibly 2-3 recLOH events on 464, since all his values are 14.

Although you now know that there was probably at least one recLOH on 464, the 464x test is most useful for an R1b. That's because a recLOH there is much more noticeable since it might have a c allele overwrite the g one or the g one overwrite a c one. If you see an R1b with all 4 multi-copy markers at 464 having the c or 2 of the 4 having a g, that's a dead giveaway that there was a recLOH.

[R2-D2]

I just got my stepfather's 464x results:
14g-14g-14g-14g

Is this odd that none were nulls or just further proof of a RecLoh? Thanks.

[vineviz]

Interesting: so DYS385, DYS459, and DYS464 are 15-15, 10-10, and 14-14-14-14.

<<snip>>

The problem is that he would be down to just 17 markers, so you might want to do the 25-37 marker upgrade to get his usable marker count back up.

I say that because your step-father could conceivably be one mutation away from someone with DYS385, DYS459, and DYS464 of 11-15, 8-10, 12, 14, 14, 16.

Some people would count that as a GD of 10, when really it is conceivably just one event (i.e. GD of 1).

Testing some more palindromic markers might help you understand his lack of 25-marker matches.

[vineviz]

He's only had 25 markers tested, 48 12-marker(all different surnames), no 25 marker matches at all. 459 a/b is 10-10.

Interesting: so DYS385, DYS459, and DYS464 are 15-15, 10-10, and 14-14-14-14.

He might be a good candidate for the Palindromic Pack (Panel 5) or at least some of the markers in it (DYS464X, DYF399S1, DYS371 at a minimum). It looks like there was pretty recent RecLOH event in his line, and Panel 5 contains markers that might help understand it.

This reference comments specifically about R1b1c, but the principles would apply more generally: http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/464x.htm

Also, you'd probably want to exclude the multi-copy markers when looking for matches at ySearch (keep them in the profile, but manually look for matches without inputting values for those markers). The problem is that he would be down to just 17 markers, so you might want to do the 25-37 marker upgrade to get his usable marker count back up.

[R2-D2]

Perhaps. Again, though, the test is only going to be helpful if there is someone to compare the results to. Does he have any close matches at FTDNA or on ySearch?

Also, what are the rest of his multi-copy markers (469, CDY, YCA II, etc)?

He's only had 25 markers tested, 48 12-marker(all different surnames), no 25 marker matches at all. 459 a/b is 10-10.

[vineviz]

I just looked at my stepdad's ht and he is 15-15 at 385a/b but at 464 he is 14-14-14-14. So maybe he should get the 464x test to see if any are nulls?

Perhaps. Again, though, the test is only going to be helpful if there is someone to compare the results to. Does he have any close matches at FTDNA or on ySearch?

Also, what are the rest of his multi-copy markers (469, CDY, YCA II, etc)?

[R2-D2]

Generally, I think that I1c would be an ideal haplogroup for the Kittler test since the modal values for DYS385a and DYS385b are so close. Haplogroups K2 and E3b also seem like they would benefit.

But the test only helps if others take it so you can compare the results.

So unless your stepfather has close matches with people who have similar DYS385 values, whom he can also convince to test, it probably won't help him personally. But it might help someone who is studying the structure of I1c (Ken Nordtvedt?) separate the 15-16 folks from the 16-15 folks.

I just looked at my stepdad's ht and he is 15-15 at 385a/b but at 464 he is 14-14-14-14. So maybe he should get the 464x test to see if any are nulls?

[vineviz]

I had the Kittler test done because I'm R1b1c and my results were 14-11. My stepfather is I1c. Would you suggest having a Kittler test done for him? Thanks.

Generally, I think that I1c would be an ideal haplogroup for the Kittler test since the modal values for DYS385a and DYS385b are so close. Haplogroups K2 and E3b also seem like they would benefit.

But the test only helps if others take it so you can compare the results.

So unless your stepfather has close matches with people who have similar DYS385 values, whom he can also convince to test, it probably won't help him personally. But it might help someone who is studying the structure of I1c (Ken Nordtvedt?) separate the 15-16 folks from the 16-15 folks.

[R2-D2]

The proper convention for reporting DYS385 is low-high, so that format should always be used in a database of any sort.

Within a surname project, knowing the Kittler order can be helpful. Imagine a man who has DYS385 = 14, 14. Now imagine that one line of descendants has a mutation to cause 14, 15 and another line of descendants has a mutation to cause 15, 14 (using the Kittler order).

The normal reporting convention would show both lines as having 14, 15: apparently a genetic distance of zero when in fact the genetic distance is two. A Kittler test can resolve these situations (but remember the odds of two mutations at a single marker in a family in genealogical times is pretty low).

Also, some haplogroups (like R1b) have a modal DYS385(K) of high-low while neighboring haplogroups (e.g. R1s) have a modal DYS385(K) of low-high. So the Kittler test might reveal addtional information on the structure of some haplogroups.

I1a-AS is usually high-low, for instance, but other varieties of I1a might be low-high.

I had the Kittler test done because I'm R1b1c and my results were 14-11. My stepfather is I1c. Would you suggest having a Kittler test done for him? Thanks.

[vineviz]

As an example, at ymatch.org there are Kittler results for two members of haplogroup K.

For one, DYS385=14,17 and for the other DYS385=15,16. That looks like GD=2.

The Kittler result reveals that one is 17,14 and the other is 15,16. That looks like GD=4.

[Johnserrat]

The proper convention for reporting DYS385 is low-high, so that format should always be used in a database of any sort.

That explains it. I see that this principle also applies to DYS389, 459, 464, etc.

John

[vineviz]

A few of us on the I1a thread have experienced the same thing. My DYS385 values are 13, 14 and my Kittler values are 14, 13. As I understand it, the Kittler test shows the true order of the DYS385 results. I am not sure why FTDNA would not change the order for matching purposes, unless the results are consistently reported backwards.

The proper convention for reporting DYS385 is low-high, so that format should always be used in a database of any sort.

Within a surname project, knowing the Kittler order can be helpful. Imagine a man who has DYS385 = 14, 14. Now imagine that one line of descendants has a mutation to cause 14, 15 and another line of descendants has a mutation to cause 15, 14 (using the Kittler order).

The normal reporting convention would show both lines as having 14, 15: apparently a genetic distance of zero when in fact the genetic distance is two. A Kittler test can resolve these situations (but remember the odds of two mutations at a single marker in a family in genealogical times is pretty low).

Also, some haplogroups (like R1b) have a modal DYS385(K) of high-low while neighboring haplogroups (e.g. R1s) have a modal DYS385(K) of low-high. So the Kittler test might reveal addtional information on the structure of some haplogroups.

I1a-AS is usually high-low, for instance, but other varieties of I1a might be low-high.

[Johnserrat]

DYS385a/b (K) 14-11

The above are my results for the Kittler Test 385a/385b. Now when I look at my yDNA values that were tested on 12 marker test, it shows 385a=11 and 385b=14. So what should I make of this?

A few of us on the I1a thread have experienced the same thing. My DYS385 values are 13, 14 and my Kittler values are 14, 13. As I understand it, the Kittler test shows the true order of the DYS385 results. I am not sure why FTDNA would not change the order for matching purposes, unless the results are consistently reported backwards.

John

[Nagelfar]

I think it just means that your '385 b' actually comes before your '385 a' Y-segment on your chromosome. The order given on your DYS marker test above that on your results page is just the referrence order that FTDNA uses; not the actual order your DYS appear on your Y-chromosome.