mtDNA full sequence Haplogroup I

[chamisa]

I just received my full sequence for mtDNA hap I and don't really understand. In my ancestral origins on my home page I match quite a few people. I have an exact match in HVR1 and HVR2, the same person. What is the difference between the two, meaning the matches and exact matches? I also belong to the mtDNA hap I project and am listed as an I3 but not on my certificate, where I'm shown to be only an I. Does anyone know the reason for this? I also gave the go ahead for my full sequence to be used as research for Doctor Behar. I have some Jewish matches, is this relevant? I am really into this big time and would love some answers about my past. Can anyone help?
Thanks so much ahead of time.
Karen

[cacio]

Karen:

The mtdna is about 16560 bases long. The hypervariable regions (HVR) are the regions with the most mutations. HVR1 comprises the bases number 16000 to 16560, HVR2 from 1 to 600 or so. HVR1 has usually more informative mutations than HVR2, so in a way, it is less common to match HVR1. In any case, an HVR1 and HVR2 match need not be recent, it is usually thousands of years away.

As for the nomenclature, not all companies adopt the same names for the subhaplogroups; so sometimes you have to be careful about what each company means by, say, I3. Also, sometimes subgroups are defined later on, as more observations become available. But since you have your full sequence, you can check your sequence against available trees. For instance, you can check:

http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm

and see whether you fit any of the subgroups there (note: haplogroup I is under N1).

I am not an expert on haplogroup I. However, in general, I is common throughout Europe. Since it is widespread, I don't think one can say anything particular about any geographical location within Europe. And no, it is not particularly Jewish; many Ashkenazi people share the same haplogroups that are found in Europe, both because they've lived in Europe for so long, and because the Middle East and Europe tend to share many haplogroups.

Of interest, haplogroup I has been found in many old European skeletons (eg in Northern Europe), at frequencies that seem higher than the current ones. The samples are small, though, so it is not possible to say whether haplogroup I was in fact more frequent hundreds of years ago than it is now.

cacio

[chamisa]

Thank you Cacio for taking the time to answer. I belong to the mtDNA I hap project here at ftdna, that is why I was wondering about the I3 designation not being on my certificate. Hopefully more research will be done on the mtDNA I group soon.
Thanks again.
Karen

[vinnie]

Karen,

One possibility is that the I project predicted you were I3 based on the information the administrator had at the time, but now your FGS has shown that you're I*. That's what happened to my dad's mtDNA; the X project had predicted that he was X2b based on his HVR1 & 2 mutations, but the FGS now shows that he's X2*, not X2b. It took a few days for the project administrator to correct the subgrouping of his sample, so perhaps you should give the I project a few days to catch up on the upgrade results and then contact the admin if you don't see it change.

Vinnie

[gtc]

I also belong to the mtDNA hap I project and am listed as an I3 but not on my certificate, where I'm shown to be only an I. Does anyone know the reason for this?

Hi,

I have a similar situation. FTDNA have declared me to be "I" on the basis of my 10034C, 16129A, 16391A. FTDNA requires 2849A for "I3", which I lack.

However, using Phylotree.org's chart I am an 80% fit for "I3" because I have 152, 207, 239, 573.1CC but lack 16086 -- Ann Turner speculates that my lineage may have originally had 16086 with a reverse mutation back to the CRS value by the time it arrived at me, or alternatively I may define a new branch under "I3".

Phylotree's chart:

http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm

PS: 23andMe have me as "I*"

[chamisa]

mtDNA full sequence Haplogroup I

Karen,

One possibility is that the I project predicted you were I3 based on the information the administrator had at the time, but now your FGS has shown that you're I*. That's what happened to my dad's mtDNA; the X project had predicted that he was X2b based on his HVR1 & 2 mutations, but the FGS now shows that he's X2*, not X2b. It took a few days for the project administrator to correct the subgrouping of his sample, so perhaps you should give the I project a few days to catch up on the upgrade results and then contact the admin if you don't see it change.

Vinnie

Vinnie. Thank you so much for answering my questions, it's beginning to clear up but I still have so much to learn. I don't know what the I* designation means but thanks so much again.
Karen

[chamisa]

Hi,

I have a similar situation. FTDNA have declared me to be "I" on the basis of my 10034C, 16129A, 16391A. FTDNA requires 2849A for "I3", which I lack.

However, using Phylotree.org's chart I am an 80% fit for "I3" because I have 152, 207, 239, 573.1CC but lack 16086 -- Ann Turner speculates that my lineage may have originally had 16086 with a reverse mutation back to the CRS value by the time it arrived at me, or alternatively I may define a new branch under "I3".

Phylotree's chart:

http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm

PS: 23andMe have me as "I*"

Thank you gtc for answering my inquiry. I too lack the 2894A as well as the 16086. I do have the others you quoted among alot more. How can I get in touch with Ann Turner? I really love the research and want to learn all I can, it's so interesting. Thanks again. Karen

[gtc]

Thank you gtc for answering my inquiry. I too lack the 2894A as well as the 16086. I do have the others you quoted among alot more.

I have others, as well, including a "private" mutation according to Ann.

It would be interesting to compare results. Have you entered yours into Mitosearch? (http://www.mitosearch.org)

How can I get in touch with Ann Turner? I really love the research and want to learn all I can, it's so interesting. Thanks again. Karen

Check your private messages for the contact details.

[chamisa]

mtDNA full sequence Haplogroup I

Thanks for the response, GTC. I sent you a private email.
Karen

[vinnie]

Karen,

Any haplogroup assignment (whether y or mtdna) with an asterick * means that the person doesn't belong to any known subclade based on the current knowledge. However, it's possible that as new discoveries are made, a person's subclade designation can change; at least this is true of yDNA. Since we now have FGS, which I think(?) has uncovered all there is to know about mtDNA mutations, I'm not sure if there's still the possibility of discovering any new ones that would change mtDNA subclade assignments.

Vinnie

[chamisa]

mtDNA full sequence Haplogroup I

Thank you Vinnie for clarifying the meaning of the asterisk. Now I understand. Karen

[Bill Hurst]

Karen,

Any haplogroup assignment (whether y or mtdna) with an asterick * means that the person doesn't belong to any known subclade based on the current knowledge. However, it's possible that as new discoveries are made, a person's subclade designation can change; at least this is true of yDNA. Since we now have FGS, which I think(?) has uncovered all there is to know about mtDNA mutations, I'm not sure if there's still the possibility of discovering any new ones that would change mtDNA subclade assignments.

Vinnie

Hi Vinnie,

First, in mtDNA we know all the 16,569 positions, but new mutations at those positions are still being discovered. At each position there can be three different point mutations; "A" can mutate to G, C or T, for example. Or the position can be deleted, or an insertion can appear after it.

Second, even with common mutations, you can have new combinations of mutations. So as we get more FGS results back, new close matches are being found many of which will eventually result in new subclades. I find probable new subclades on a weekly basis in K and a few new ones in the much smaller U8.

Bill Hurst

[chamisa]

mtDNA full sequence Haplogroup I

Thank you Bill for your help. There is so much to learn and it's so interesting. I don't understand all the terminology but I'm working on it. Thanks again. Karen

[vinnie]

Bill, thank you for clarifying the state of the art. I'm very glad to know there's still a possibility of new info coming from mtDNA. My father's grandmother was adopted, and we'd love to find her extended family.

Vinnie