Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Astonishing J1 results

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

  • #16
    Hi there ,

    Any update on J1e?

    Gulf

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gulf
      Hi there ,

      Any update on J1e?

      Gulf
      Gulf,

      Nothing new on the results themselves except that 4 P58- haplotypes, all 388=13 in their own group, are on the Y-results page - no mention of the P58- Cohen. The number of P58+ has been 25 for a while. Don't know if the lab's backed up or if that's about all who've ordered the test so far. Curiously, all the info that had been posted on J1 in the "news" tab is now gone. Anybody out there know what's happening?

      Vinnie

      BTW, IE doesn't like the y-results - too many records - use Firefox to access them quickly.
      Last edited by vinnie; 18 August 2008, 09:27 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by vinnie
        Gulf,

        Nothing new on the results themselves except that 4 P58- haplotypes, all 388=13 in their own group, are on the Y-results page - no mention of the P58- Cohen. The number of P58+ has been 25 for a while. Don't know if the lab's backed up or if that's about all who've ordered the test so far. Curiously, all the info that had been posted on J1 in the "news" tab is now gone. Anybody out there know what's happening?

        Vinnie

        BTW, IE doesn't like the y-results - too many records - use Firefox to access them quickly.
        The lab is backed up. My results from batch 260 have been pushed back to 08/29/2008.

        Regards,
        Jim

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi Vinnie

          A.M in DNA forums did the TMRCA for all the j1e in the j project (25 markers only) and estimated the appearance of the J1e more than 6000 years from now.

          http://dna-forums.org/index.php?showtopic=4188

          Regards
          Gulf
          Last edited by Gulf; 19 August 2008, 10:30 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Thank you, Gulf. It's interesting, but too bad he didn't include either our names or id numbers so we can see who's related more closely to whom. I just e-mailed my second closest ysearch match, someone with Lebanese origin, to see if he'll test for P58 and an additional 9 markers so we can see how closely all three of us match. When I get the time, I'm going to run a tmrca analysis for the J1e folks, and use more markers for anyone who has them.

            Vinnie

            Comment


            • #21
              new conundrum in J1

              Apart from their DYS388 values (16, 18 respectively), members 105 & 106 are only gd=2/67 markers. Anyone care to comment on the following possibilities?

              1. extremely rare case of convergence
              2. unusual personal mutation on 388 for either one
              3. DYS388 may mutate faster than believed, and therefore may not be as stable as once thought for differentiating subclades within the haplogroup (which may be why some subgroups within the project have mixed 388 values)
              4. possibility that #105 is P58-
              5. lab error
              6. ???

              http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                Apart from their DYS388 values (16, 18 respectively), members 105 & 106 are only gd=2/67 markers. Anyone care to comment on the following possibilities?

                1. extremely rare case of convergence
                2. unusual personal mutation on 388 for either one
                3. DYS388 may mutate faster than believed, and therefore may not be as stable as once thought for differentiating subclades within the haplogroup (which may be why some subgroups within the project have mixed 388 values)
                4. possibility that #105 is P58-
                5. lab error
                6. ???

                http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
                I read this paper on deviation from the stepwise mutation model in DYS388, but I can't find a copy of it.
                Eur J Hum Genet. 2001 Jan;9(1):22-6.
                Haplogroup-specific deviation from the stepwise mutation model at the microsatellite loci DYS388 and DYS392. Nebel et al.

                Looks like another case of it.

                If DYS388 is not as stable a marker as people say it is, it will destroy my theory about DYS388=13. Which would be fine by me.

                Regards,
                Jim

                Comment


                • #23
                  Jim, thank you for the citation - I'll try to find it. I know you've posted a lot on 388=13, but could you restate a short summary of your hypothesis, and why you wouldn't mind being proven wrong?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                    Jim, thank you for the citation - I'll try to find it. I know you've posted a lot on 388=13, but could you restate a short summary of your hypothesis, and why you wouldn't mind being proven wrong?
                    J1 with DYS388=13 is a type identified in Cinnioglu's 2004 paper on Anatolia as being associated with eastern Anatolia.

                    Clearly there is a cluster of it there: http://tinyurl.com/3kwulm

                    Its presence in Sicily can probably be explained by movement among Greek colonies.

                    But it has also appeared rarely in Germany and England, and I have no explanation for that.

                    If cases of J1 with DYS388=13 not associated with eastern Anatolia were due to separate mutations of DYS388, I could omit them from my research.

                    Regards,
                    Jim

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                      Apart from their DYS388 values (16, 18 respectively), members 105 & 106 are only gd=2/67 markers. Anyone care to comment on the following possibilities?

                      1. extremely rare case of convergence
                      2. unusual personal mutation on 388 for either one
                      3. DYS388 may mutate faster than believed, and therefore may not be as stable as once thought for differentiating subclades within the haplogroup (which may be why some subgroups within the project have mixed 388 values)
                      4. possibility that #105 is P58-
                      5. lab error
                      6. ???

                      http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
                      Hi,

                      I mach with my cousin in 64 markers, the strange thing is that we are deferent in DYS388, I am 16 and he is 18 and the deference is two generations only.

                      See the Arab J1e project Member #7 and #8

                      http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

                      Regards
                      Gulf
                      Last edited by Gulf; 27 January 2009, 11:48 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gulf View Post
                        Hi,

                        I mach with my cousin in 64 markers, the strange thing is that we are deferent in DYS388, I am 16 and he is 18 and the deference is two generations only.

                        See the Arab J1e project Member #7 and #8

                        http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

                        Regards
                        Gulf
                        Hi Gulf, thank you for posting - you and your cousin are the two records I referred to. Has FTDNA given you any explanation? Did you ask the lab double to check the results, either for the analysis itself or for a reporting error? Do you know of any other 388 situations like this within J1?

                        Vinnie

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                          Hi Gulf, thank you for posting - you and your cousin are the two records I referred to. Has FTDNA given you any explanation? Did you ask the lab double to check the results, either for the analysis itself or for a reporting error? Do you know of any other 388 situations like this within J1?

                          Vinnie
                          Hi Vinnie,

                          I asked FTDNA and waiting for their explanation, I ordered new DYS388 test for me and for my cousin and deep clade test for my cousin , i am not aware of any other 388 situations.

                          Regards
                          Gulf

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Gulf View Post
                            Hi Vinnie,

                            I asked FTDNA and waiting for their explanation, I ordered new DYS388 test for me and for my cousin and deep clade test for my cousin , i am not aware of any other 388 situations.

                            Regards
                            Gulf
                            Hi Gulf, I'd appreciate it if you'd shares the results once they're available. Thanks!

                            Vinnie

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                              Hi Gulf, I'd appreciate it if you'd shares the results once they're available. Thanks!

                              Vinnie
                              Yes I will with pleasure .

                              Regards
                              Gulf

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                This is the massage from FTDNA

                                The lab reviewed the pherograms for kits M3704 and M4004.
                                > Upon re-evaluation of the pherograms for each sample, the lab
                                > reassigned the value of 18 to DYS#388 for sample M3704.
                                > This change is now reflected in our database and a new certificate for
                                > the values of M3704 will be sent. We apologize for this error in
                                > reporting

                                Regards
                                Gulf

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X