Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U106

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

  • U106

    I have a question about my results, they show that I am U106 +
    R1b1b2a1a L1- L2- L21- L23+ L48- L49+ M153- P107- P297+ P312- U106+ U198-

    can any one help me sort out what these mutations mean ?

  • #2
    Your next most important mutation after U106 is the L48 mutation.

    Since you have tested negative for this, then you are in a group that consists of approximately 45% of U106 who are also L48 negative.

    U106 is widespread throughout Europe, but with higher concentrations in the North.

    Your next step is probably to consider testing for one or some of the new subclades of U106, namely L127.2, L199, L217, L257 and L259 (all available from "advanced orders"). Determining your genetic distance from the people who have the aforementioned SNP's should guide you as to which one to test for.

    Welcome to the world of U106*

    Regards,
    C

    Comment


    • #3
      A bit of basic stuff ...

      First thing to note is that FTDNA lists your tested SNP values in alphanumerical order, but that is not the way those SNPs are represented on the "haplotree".

      Here is a link to a very useful version of the haplotree which gives both FTDNA's nomenclature and that of ISOGG. (FTDNA has undertaken to adopt the ISOGG nomenclature, but it has yet to actually do it):

      http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=root

      Looking at your result set, the important ones to concentrate on are those for which you tested positive.

      If you search for L297, you find it on branch R1b1b and for L23, you'll see that it's on the branch labeled R1b1b2a, so they are merely links on the way from R to L49.

      If you search for L49 you'll find it on branch R1b1b2a, and you'll note that U106 is below it on branch R1b1b2a1a, so L49 is merely a link in the chain from node L23 to node U106.

      Directly under U106 are four other branches: R1b1b2a1a1 defined by U198, R1b1b2a1a2 defined by P107, R1b1b2a1a3 defined by L1 and R1b1b2a1a4 defined by L48. You have tested negative for all 4 of those SNPs, so you remain up at U106 (i.e. the "last" positive SNP in your chain of SNPs on the route down from R), so for the time being your haplogroup is R1b1b2a1a, until a new "branching" SNP is discovered under U106 that you can test for to possibly move you further along the tree, as it were.

      I hope that helps.
      Last edited by gtc; 7 May 2010, 08:50 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        @ gtc

        When you refer to "until a new branch is discovered" is this because somebody is specifically looking now for this, or somebody might come across it eventually?

        I suppose there is bound to be be a branch waiting for discovery?

        Thanks, Roy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by royfarnol View Post
          When you refer to "until a new branch is discovered" is this because somebody is specifically looking now for this, or somebody might come across it eventually?

          I suppose there is bound to be be a branch waiting for discovery?
          New branches, or subclades to use the technical term, are found both ways.

          In 2009 FTDNA launched a program called "Walk Through the Y" (WTY) which was designed to seek out new SNPs throughout the haplotree.

          There are various descriptions of it around, but this one puts it into fairly plain English:

          http://r2dna.org/index.php?topic=23.0

          I don't have any numbers to quote, but I do know that for those of us in the U106 "clan", some new SNPs were discovered to test for that advanced many of us along. Some of those new SNPs have been described as "private" -- that is, applicable to a small family group only.

          I believe the WTY is still in progress, however I get the feeling it may have run its course as far as U106 is concerned, but those closer to the administration of WTY may feel differently.

          Personally, I'm "stuck" at L48 and holding, until some new ground is broken.

          Comment


          • #6
            @ gtc

            Thanks gtc.

            Referring to "stuck at" - you mean I presume that you expect a branch sooner or later that will narrow down your heritage?

            What level does your sticking point presently represent? I suppose I mean generationally.

            And what kind of and how many contacts/matches has this level generated?

            And how fruitful have these postulated contacts been?

            And how full is your documentary genealogy and how important has it been in the whole process?

            It's all very interesting. Thanks, Roy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by royfarnol View Post
              Referring to "stuck at" - you mean I presume that you expect a branch sooner or later that will narrow down your heritage?
              I'm stuck -- and holding -- in the sense that I have tested negative for all applicable SNPs that are "downstream" from (i.e. on branches under) L48 on the tree.

              What level does your sticking point presently represent? I suppose I mean generationally.
              From the Wiki:

              R1b1b2a1a1d

              This subclade is defined by the presence of the marker L48/S162 and is also known as R1b1b2a1a4 (by Family Tree DNA - FTDNA). It is the largest subclade of R1b1b2a1a1. As of January 23, 2010, based on FTDNA tests of samples from 455 people, L48 was detected in 267, or 58.0% of those tested. Based on May 2009 results, from among those with L48+ results at that time, 90% had DYS390 of 23 or less, while 10% a value of 24 or more. Among those tested L48-, 16% had DYS390 of 23 or less, while 84% a value of 24 or more. Therefore, there seems to be a correlation between values of 23 or lower for DYS390 and L48+, among those tested U106+.[25] The age of L48 is around 2,900-3,100 years old.


              So, in terms of generations, if we use 30 years for a generation, L48 computes as a common male ancestor around 97 to 103 generations ago.

              And what kind of and how many contacts/matches has this level generated? And how fruitful have these postulated contacts been?
              None. This stuff is not much use for traditional family tree work, but then SNPs are all about discovering deep ancestry -- over thousands of years -- as opposed to the more usual STR testing which can help find patrilineal family connections in the hundreds of years period.

              As it happens my 67 STR test results have no close matches. I have a couple of comparatively rare allele values, so either my distant kin have not yet tested, or I am part of a dying-out line.

              And how full is your documentary genealogy and how important has it been in the whole process?
              As you can see in my red-colored signature, I have documented, by BDM certificates, my paternal and maternal lines back to Ireland, but no earlier than 1800, because civil records prior to then either didn't exist or were destroyed in the Four Courts fire during the civil uprising, so it becomes quite difficult without searching church records and cemeteries, and that is the reason I got involved in DNA testing.

              However, my potential Irish "cousins" appear to be less interested in contacting the diaspora than I am in finding them.

              On another tack, my surname research tends to indicate that my original forebear in Ireland was Norman, and got to Ireland c1170 as member of Strongbow's invasion forces.

              Current thinking about potential origins of L48 is consistent with that.

              Comment


              • #8
                @ gtc

                Great, thanks, Roy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gtc View Post

                  Directly under U106 are four other branches: R1b1b2a1a1 defined by U198, R1b1b2a1a2 defined by P107, R1b1b2a1a3 defined by L1 and R1b1b2a1a4 defined by L48. You have tested negative for all 4 of those SNPs, so you remain up at U106 (i.e. the "last" positive SNP in your chain of SNPs on the route down from R), so for the time being your haplogroup is R1b1b2a1a, until a new "branching" SNP is discovered under U106 that you can test for to possibly move you further along the tree, as it were.

                  I hope that helps.
                  There are twelve branches under U106 namely; U198, P107, L1, L5, L6, P89.2, L48, L127.2, L199, L217, L257 and L259.

                  As yet only four of these have been given a YCC nomeclature (U198, P107, L1 & L48), and three are considered to be either private or pertaining to a particular surname, namely; P107, L5 and L6.

                  If you've been found to be negative for U198, L1 and L48, it may be worth while calculating you genetic distance from the remaining six, and making a judgement as to whether it would be of any value testing for these SNP's available from "advanced orders".

                  Just for clarity here are the SNP's: P89.2, L127.2, L199, L217, L257 and L259.

                  Best regards,
                  C

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by clintonplatt View Post
                    There are twelve branches under U106 namely; U198, P107, L1, L5, L6, P89.2, L48, L127.2, L199, L217, L257 and L259.

                    As yet only four of these have been given a YCC nomeclature (U198, P107, L1 & L48),
                    Yes, I should have said major branches.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      @ gtc

                      What is the situation if you happen to become a "private branch"?

                      Do you get privileged access?

                      Can you publicise it yourself?

                      Thanks, Roy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by royfarnol View Post
                        What is the situation if you happen to become a "private branch"?

                        Do you get privileged access?

                        Can you publicise it yourself?

                        Thanks, Roy.
                        As I understand it, the term "private" is used in two slightly different ways.

                        For ISOGG purposes ...

                        "Private SNPs are color coded [purple] and are defined as:

                        1. EITHER a [base pair] that has been observed only once, or has been observed multiple times but the associated STR profiles show less than 15% of markers have diverged.

                        2. OR a [base pair] for which NO specified population have been demonstrated to exist where the frequency is greater than 0.05% (P<0.05) and whose total male population exceeds 500 thousand individuals as defined geographically or ethnically.


                        You can see those as purple in the R haplogroup here:

                        http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

                        The other usage of private is the more familiar one regarding publication. According to the conditions, when you sign up for the "Walk Through the Y" (WTY) project you may specify if you will allow your details to be published as follows:

                        "Participants can opt for public presentation of their results. This decision cannot be reversed. If a new SNP is found the participant can decide if FTDNA makes it public. This decision cannot be reversed."

                        So, on that basis, if I have a WTY test, and they find a new SNP, and I've agreed to publication, the official recording of the SNP in the relevant scientific literature, discussion groups and SNP databases will contain my family name for all the world to see. For instance, in the U106/S21 Yahoo user group there a some "private" SNPs which have family names associated with them in discussion.

                        Now, if FTDNA finds a new SNP in your sample during ordinary (i.e. non-WTY) testing, I guess they discuss with you whether you want to be named or not.

                        An example of a "private" SNP is L61 which is shown on the FTDNA advanced orders page as "Detected in 1 person so far." I have not looked further in SNP databases, etc, to see if that person has been named anywhere. So, L61 is public insofar as we know it exists and FTDNA has made it available to be tested for, but we don't necessarily know the family name associated with it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ... and I've just been advised that a new branch (subclade) has been added to the ISOGG "R" haplotree below U106, namely R1b1b2a1a1e defined by L257.
                          Last edited by gtc; 12 May 2010, 11:08 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            @ gtc

                            Thanks a lot for that explanation.

                            I was wondering about the relationship between the mtDNA groups and the YDNA groups and whether it was the case that certain sections of each were more likely to be connected to each other?

                            To put it in my favourite Bryan Sykes's terms, whether a Jasmine is more likely to be linked to a Sigurd or a Woden, etc.?

                            (You see how helpful those charming names can be?)

                            Thanks, Roy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by royfarnol View Post
                              I was wondering about the relationship between the mtDNA groups and the YDNA groups and whether it was the case that certain sections of each were more likely to be connected to each other?

                              To put it in my favourite Bryan Sykes's terms, whether a Jasmine is more likely to be linked to a Sigurd or a Woden, etc.?
                              I haven't spent any time considering that, although it would seem logical that some "pairings" could have endured over the millennia.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X