New Y CHromosome Tree

[Kaiser]

Advance manuscript of the forthcoming article on the New Y-Chromosome Tree in Genome Research coming up today:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/cshl-sry032608.php

[R2-D2]

Here is a link to the actual paper that was posted on the Rootsweb list.

Y haplogroup K5 is now haplogroup S with subclades S1, S1a, S1b, S1c, & S1d. Haplogroup K2 is now haplogroup T with subclades T1, and T2.

[vinnie]

new tree and J1

According to the new tree, I believe I'm J1*, as I test negative for all snps except those in my signature below. However, in the new tree, I see that J1d is defined by P56, but I don't see that snp in the list of tested snps on my FTDNA results page. Does anyone know if FTDNA refers to P56 by another snp name?

Thanks,

Vinnie

[Jim Honeychuck]

According to the new tree, I believe I'm J1*, as I test negative for all snps except those in my signature below. However, in the new tree, I see that J1d is defined by P56, but I don't see that snp in the list of tested snps on my FTDNA results page. Does anyone know if FTDNA refers to P56 by another snp name?

Thanks,

Vinnie

And if anyone can shed any light on J1 line 337, P58, that would also be welcome.

Jim
J1* (I think)

[Jim Barrett]

Since these new SNPs have just become official I don't think FTDNA has been testing for them before.

[klaw]

New YCC 2008 Tree

Does anyone know if/when FTDNA will change the haplogroup classifications for its members?

Under the old system I was R1b1c (tested negative for R1b1c1 through R1b1c10). I believe that this will now be known as R1b1b2*.

I have also ordered the rs34276300 test. As I understand it, this will split the R1b1c/R1b1b2 haplogroup into two smaller groups. Is it possible that someone like myself, who has tested negative for all downstream markers so far, could fall into either group? Although I was negative for M222, I seem to have more close matches with the R1b1c7/R1b1b2e group than with any of the other subgroups. Thanks, klaw

[lgmayka]

Does anyone know if/when FTDNA will change the haplogroup classifications for its members?

My understanding is that in the past, FTDNA changed its haplogroup classifications only in association with the release of a new product. I strongly suspect that this time also, FTDNA will change the classifications within a haplogroup only at the time of releasing a revamped deepSNP test for that haplogroup. At least one haplogroup, N, has been promised a new deepSNP test within 60 days.

I have also ordered the rs34276300 test. As I understand it, this will split the R1b1c/R1b1b2 haplogroup into two smaller groups. Is it possible that someone like myself, who has tested negative for all downstream markers so far, could fall into either group?

Exactly, you could either be + or - for the rs34276300 SNP. If your result is negative, you might want to consider testing DYS461 and DYF385, to see whether your patriline could be classified as "Eastern" R1b1c.

[T E Peterman]

I think there might be a bit more to the renaming than what has been described so far. I think the YCC (Y-chromosome consortium) needs to concur with the new nomenclature that Mike Hammer has created. After the YCC adopts this, I suspect that we will see ftdna reassign participants, based on whether they are + or - on markers, to match the new nomenclature.

I also expect to see isogg publish a revision.

Timothy Peterman

[klaw]

Exactly, you could either be + or - for the rs34276300 SNP. If your result is negative, you might want to consider testing DYS461 and DYF385, to see whether your patriline could be classified as "Eastern" R1b1c.

What could I expect the results from the above tests show? I've tested at 67 markers (Ysearch Z3WVN) and seem to track between the modals for R1b1c and R1b1c7 (i.e. in some cases I'm closer to one modal or the other: 390=24, 448=18, 449=29, 464abcd=15,16,16,17, etc.). But I do have a couple of rare results (392=15, 464abcd=15,16,16,17 and 576=20). I have just a couple of exact matches at 12 markers, a few that match 24 out of 25, one at 33 out of 37 and none closer than 61 out of 67. Most of these "close" matches have names that are either Scottish or Irish (with a couple that could be English), which would be consistent with my Lowlands Scots ancestry. Based on the above, I guess I would be considered "Western" R1b1c. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks, klaw

[lgmayka]

What could I expect the results from the above tests show? I've tested at 67 markers (Ysearch Z3WVN)...

Your Ysearch neighbor list at 67 markers is extremely intriguing. You have many Scotch-Irish neighbors at distances 7-11, and hardly anyone at 12-14. If we look at the corresponding haplotypes, we notice that everyone in the list has DYS392=15 or 16 (both unusual values) except CJQRY and 7A2BG. These are the two most distant (13 and 14) from you anyway.

My conclusion is that you and your neighbors 12 or less away form a very cohesive cluster. The only one not from the British Isles in this cluster is JDTJC of Spain. Note that this cluster must have expanded within the last 2000 years or less; but its patriline must have been somewhere before that.

So let's say you test negative for rs34276300. I am suggesting that you should then test DYF385. A result of 10-10 is believed to be ancestral ("older" or "Eastern"), and 10-11 is believed to be derived ("younger" or "Western"). Do not take the "Eastern" and "Western" labels too literally--particular clusters in Western Europe could be "Eastern", and vice-versa.

[klaw]

Your Ysearch neighbor list at 67 markers is extremely intriguing. You have many Scotch-Irish neighbors at distances 7-11, and hardly anyone at 12-14. If we look at the corresponding haplotypes, we notice that everyone in the list has DYS392=15 or 16 (both unusual values) except CJQRY and 7A2BG. These are the two most distant (13 and 14) from you anyway.

My conclusion is that you and your neighbors 12 or less away form a very cohesive cluster. The only one not from the British Isles in this cluster is JDTJC of Spain. Note that this cluster must have expanded within the last 2000 years or less; but its patriline must have been somewhere before that.

So let's say you test negative for rs34276300. I am suggesting that you should then test DYF385. A result of 10-10 is believed to be ancestral ("older" or "Eastern"), and 10-11 is believed to be derived ("younger" or "Western"). Do not take the "Eastern" and "Western" labels too literally--particular clusters in Western Europe could be "Eastern", and vice-versa.

Thanks, you can see why I've also joined the McCracken DNA project; they have about 30 members (not all named McCracken) that share similar results to mine including 392=15 and 464abcd=15,16,16,17. As you might have noticed, they are also my closest matches, but still not terribly close. Regards, klaw

[klaw]

Your Ysearch neighbor list at 67 markers is extremely intriguing. You have many Scotch-Irish neighbors at distances 7-11, and hardly anyone at 12-14. If we look at the corresponding haplotypes, we notice that everyone in the list has DYS392=15 or 16 (both unusual values) except CJQRY and 7A2BG. These are the two most distant (13 and 14) from you anyway.

My conclusion is that you and your neighbors 12 or less away form a very cohesive cluster. The only one not from the British Isles in this cluster is JDTJC of Spain. Note that this cluster must have expanded within the last 2000 years or less; but its patriline must have been somewhere before that.

So let's say you test negative for rs34276300. I am suggesting that you should then test DYF385. A result of 10-10 is believed to be ancestral ("older" or "Eastern"), and 10-11 is believed to be derived ("younger" or "Western"). Do not take the "Eastern" and "Western" labels too literally--particular clusters in Western Europe could be "Eastern", and vice-versa.

How were you able to check matches at distances greater than 6 on Y-Search? I thought that the drop-down only allowed checking a maximum distance of 6 or less, which obviously limits the number of matches that I have to a small number. Thanks, klaw

[GhostX]

How were you able to check matches at distances greater than 6 on Y-Search? I thought that the drop-down only allowed checking a maximum distance of 6 or less, which obviously limits the number of matches that I have to a small number. Thanks, klaw

If you use the "maximum genetic distance of 1 per marker compared above xx markers" search option, it will show you matches greater that 6 GD. If you do too broad a search using that option though, the search engine will time out due to too many matches, so you have to play around with it until you find a setting that works for you.