Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need Help Please

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

  • Need Help Please

    I started our DNA project back in 2003 and we currently have about 50 participants. My particular line is represented by 7 men. Since 2003 FTDNA has offered Y-DNA upgrades from 25 markers to 37 and now up to 67. Originally our participants opted for the 25 marker test (which was the best offered in 2003).

    Can some one tell me the benefit of extending our tests to 67 markers? Especially since we only match with the original 7 men tested from our proven line. (We do not come close with the other +-43 men in our project!)

    Also, since our group was started back in 2003 we were assigned to the R1b1 haplogroup. If our markers are extended, would our haplogroup be further defined?

    Thanks for ANY help!

  • #2
    Originally posted by fyerbyrd View Post
    Also, since our group was started back in 2003 we were assigned to the R1b1 Haplogroup. If our markers are extended, would our Haplogroup be further defined?
    I have members in my project started in 2002 who have only 12 markers and were predicted to be R1b1. As FTDNA has gained more information for their Haplogroup predictions they are now predicted to be R1b1b2. I don't think additional markers would change your Haplogroup prediction.

    Originally posted by fyerbyrd View Post
    Can some one tell me the benefit of extending our tests to 67 markers? Especially since we only match with the original 7 men tested from our proven line. (We do not come close with the other +-43 men in our project!) Thanks for ANY help!
    When checking for matches do you compare against the entire database or just your project? If you compare against the entire database, do you match with other surnames? If you do, have those matches tested beyond 25 markers?

    If you don't compare against the entire database I suggest that you do. If you don't match with other surnames additional markers won't help there.

    Of the 7 men from your line, how close kin are they? 1st cousins, 2nd cousins, --- 9th cousins. The closer kin the less value in upgrading in my opinion. With a greater distance more markers might show if some groups did have common mutations.

    So far your test have validated your paper trail. More markers won't do anything else.

    I would suggest that at least one member of the seven upgrade during the sale. The additional markers might prove helpful later.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you Jim,

      Our participants are listed with Y-Search.org and are compared against FTDNA's database. So far, my particular lines have matched with 2 men with a different surname (25/25) otherwise, our markers seem to be "off" when compared in our surname project.

      Here is the link to our public page:
      http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

      As you can see Valentine Coil does not have haplogroup listed for any of his participants. (We assume he is correctly placed.)

      We do not know where our progenitor immigrated from to America before 1758 and finding him listed with the major haplogroup R1b1 does not help us with locating some point of origin.

      To answer the relationship of the men tested from our progenitor: we initially tested two males proven back through the two sons of our known progenitor. We only had one participant from the third son and we did find one mutation occurring along that son's line. (He is proven through paper and the DNA supports his relation).

      We did match with two other surnames at 25/25 (not in our project). I investigated the probability of relatedness with one of the surnames and found a male with our surname living very near the other man's family (1840's). We decided to drop any further investigation since this appeared to be an indiscretion that occurred a long time ago and had the potential of opening a "can of worms".

      The "other" surname matches have extended their testing beyond the 25 markers. Both of the "other different surnames" match at 37/37. So, what we have found is our progenitor matches with two other surnames but, not with the other participants in our project with our surname!

      Bottom line is, why do our markers seem to be so different from the other participants in our surname project? Is there something unusual about them? Is there any testing you would recommend for us to do in order to nail down a possible point of origin or finding other relatives?

      Thank you for your assistance!

      Comment


      • #4
        HERE IS WHAT WE FIND ON YSEARCH

        CZ6U3 Livingstone Unknown 13 24 15 10 11 16 12 12 12 13 12 29 17 9 10 11 11 23 15 19 31 14 15 16 16 11 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 37 38 12 12

        SDWVF Lee Unknown 13 24 15 10 11 16 12 12 12 13 12 29 17 9 10 11 11 23 15 19 31 14 15 16 16 11 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 37 38 12 12

        Y6VBW Coil Unknown 13 24 15 10 11 16 12 12 12 13 12 29 17 9 10 11 11 23 15 19 31 14 15 16 16

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by fyerbyrd View Post
          As you can see Valentine Coil does not have haplogroup listed for any of his participants. (We assume he is correctly placed.)
          I suggest you read http://www.familytreedna.com/snp-assurance-program.aspx . You might want to contact FTDNA to see if you qualify for this free test.

          Originally posted by fyerbyrd View Post
          We decided to drop any further investigation since this appeared to be an indiscretion that occurred a long time ago and had the potential of opening a "can of worms".
          Further investigation might answer your questions. Whatever happened a few generations ago doesn't change who you are today!

          Originally posted by fyerbyrd View Post
          Bottom line is, why do our markers seem to be so different from the other participants in our surname project? Is there something unusual about them? Is there any testing you would recommend for us to do in order to nail down a possible point of origin or finding other relatives?
          You might want to visit this Sorenson website http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_details.jspx . By clicking on each Haplogroup name they'll show the percentage of each value within their database. Remember DYS 19 is also known as DYS 394.

          Comment


          • #6
            I just tried the Haplogroup Predictor at this URL and it reports R1b, but that's about as fine as the estimate gets.

            http://www.hprg.com/hapest5/hapest5a/hapest5.htm

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by fyerbyrd View Post
              As you can see Valentine Coil does not have haplogroup listed for any of his participants. (We assume he is correctly placed.)
              This appears to be a glitch. Let me explain...

              FTDNA's haplogroup predictions are based on a person's nearest SNP-tested 12-marker matches. So if someone has matches who have been SNP-tested as R1b1b2, then he should be predicted as R1b1b2.

              However, there are nuances to this. For example, there are cases where a 12-marker haplotype can be the same in different backbone haplogroups, which makes the prediction ambiguous. For example, my brother's 12-marker haplotype has matches in both J1 and J2. So which one should FTDNA predict? They can't. That's where the SNP Assurance program that Jim mentioned comes into play -- my brother had to be SNP tested and that determined that he's J2. Then there are cases where a person's haplotype is so rare that he doesn't have close enough matches to make a confident prediction. FTDNA will also run the free SNP test in those cases. The SNP Assurance Program only determines the "backbone" haplogroup through -- not the deep-subclade.

              Now in the case of the Coils that you mentioned above -- they have the exact same 12-marker haplotype as kit#106366 right above them. He was successfully predicted as R1b1b2, so the group that you pointed out should be predicted the same. So I would suggest emailing FTDNA and asking them to look into this.

              Elise

              Comment


              • #8
                Thank you for your suggestions. We do have one participant who is going to upgrade to the 67 markers, just so we have it on record.

                Hopefully, as time goes by--we will learn more.

                Thank you again for your responses and suggestions. I will follow up with them.

                Comment

                Working...
                X