Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Astonishing J1 results

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

  • Jim Honeychuck
    replied
    Originally posted by vinnie View Post
    Thanks, Gulf. This also makes more sense now to have the third person clustered with you and your cousin, since he's 17. I haven't had a chance to look up the article Jim referred me to, but although YCAII may be useful in clustering, I'm still betting on DYS388 as a stronger basis for J1 subgrouping.

    Vinnie
    hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf

    Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia. Cinnioğlu C, King R, Kivisild T, Kalfoğlu E, Atasoy S, Cavalleri GL, Lillie AS, Roseman CC, Lin AA, et al.

    Strictly speaking, they identified a cluster of J1 with DYS388=13 in Anatolia and the Caucasus. Whether the few Bedouin, Arab, and European cases are descended from the same common ancestor or are from independent mutations, I don't know.

    Regards,
    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • vinnie
    replied
    Originally posted by Gulf View Post
    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
    Thanks, Gulf. This also makes more sense now to have the third person clustered with you and your cousin, since he's 17. I haven't had a chance to look up the article Jim referred me to, but although YCAII may be useful in clustering, I'm still betting on DYS388 as a stronger basis for J1 subgrouping.

    Vinnie

    Leave a comment:


  • Gulf
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gulf
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • vinnie
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gulf
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • vinnie
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gulf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Honeychuck
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • vinnie
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Honeychuck
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • vinnie
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • vinnie
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gulf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Honeychuck
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X