Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No exact matches??

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

  • #31
    The B haplogroup is primary in sub Sahara African. You may have no recent African ancestry, since yDNA haplotypes can and do go back thousands of years especially when no subgroups are mentioned. There is no need re-evaluate your ancestry since we all are African and related if you go back far enough.

    Also certain values at GenTree need to be converted and I suspect that may explain the completely different haplogroups results. See http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_standards.jspx

    Comment


    • #32
      Genetree

      Originally posted by thetick View Post
      The B haplogroup is primary in sub Sahara African. You may have no recent African ancestry, since yDNA haplotypes can and do go back thousands of years especially when no subgroups are mentioned. There is no need re-evaluate your ancestry since we all are African and related if you go back far enough.

      Also certain values at GenTree need to be converted and I suspect that may explain the completely different haplogroups results. See http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_standards.jspx
      I don't think it's possible not to think of ethnic identity when you're given a result that says your Y chromosome comes from an unbroken patrilineal line, B (M181), which never left Africa. We're all connected to an African Y Adam, true; but B lineages were, until the slave trade, confined to Sub-Saharan Africa.
      I left a message with Genetree explaining that the HG I prediction contradicted results given by Genographic and FTDNA--perhaps with how to report marker 19 and markers 389-I and 389-II. Genetree's upload page does have an option for specifying which lab you tested with, which perhaps corrects the issue. But right now I'm awaiting their response and FTDNA's upgrade from 12 to 25 markers. From my experience with FTDNA, I will probably receive the lab results in several months--as it happened with my basic panel.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Nomatches View Post
        I don't think it's possible not to think of ethnic identity when you're given a result that says your Y chromosome comes from an unbroken patrilineal line, B (M181), which never left Africa. We're all connected to an African Y Adam, true; but B lineages were, until the slave trade, confined to Sub-Saharan Africa.
        Well, one thing to keep in mind is that these descriptions of haplogroup migration routes or locality are of the most summary kind. An arrow on a map or a short paragraph. My situation is similar, but on the maternal side. My mtDNA is L1b1a - the L1s are also said to have 'never left Africa'. And yet as I read and learn more and more it is clear that there were movements of people - some of it due to slavery (and not just the slave trade of the 1600s+ that populated the Caribbean and Americas with Africans), no doubt, but not all. A lot of north Africans AND sub Saharan Africans apparently moved into the Iberian peninsula during and even before the Islamic rule in that region that began (IIRC) in the 13th C.

        I have just one match at HVR1+HVR2 level, and her maternal line is known back to Dublin of 1800. Hardly Central Africa! So, yes, there is an unbroken chain linking us to the 'homeland' of our L1 mothers, but that certainly doesn't have anything to do with my ethnicity, let alone my phenotype.

        I'm not saying it's the same with you - just that it certainly could be.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by dwight View Post
          Well, one thing to keep in mind is that these descriptions of haplogroup migration routes or locality are of the most summary kind. An arrow on a map or a short paragraph. My situation is similar, but on the maternal side. My mtDNA is L1b1a - the L1s are also said to have 'never left Africa'. And yet as I read and learn more and more it is clear that there were movements of people - some of it due to slavery (and not just the slave trade of the 1600s+ that populated the Caribbean and Americas with Africans), no doubt, but not all. A lot of north Africans AND sub Saharan Africans apparently moved into the Iberian peninsula during and even before the Islamic rule in that region that began (IIRC) in the 13th C.
          Do you have the sources for these facts? I do match very closely with haplotypes reporting Ireland as their place of origin, in fact the genetic distance is low (1 or 2), while matches with Sub-Saharan haplotypes usually yield a genetic distance of 12 or more.

          [/QUOTE]I have just one match at HVR1+HVR2 level, and her maternal line is known back to Dublin of 1800. Hardly Central Africa! So, yes, there is an unbroken chain linking us to the 'homeland' of our L1 mothers, but that certainly doesn't have anything to do with my ethnicity, let alone my phenotype.

          I'm not saying it's the same with you - just that it certainly could be.[/QUOTE]

          Well, I generally agree. I know there is no automatic connection between Y chromosome and phenotype. But I'm sure you would agree that the chances (because there's so little genealogical evidence linked to the slave trade) of my Haplogroup to have come to the Americas are higher when linked to the slave trade than to unrecorded human migrations to the Iberian peninsula. If the slave trade hypothesis is correct, then my grandfather may have been the second in his line to have been born a free man. That does matter to me, regardless of how I look.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nomatches View Post
            Well, I generally agree. I know there is no automatic connection between Y chromosome and phenotype. But I'm sure you would agree that the chances (because there's so little genealogical evidence linked to the slave trade) of my Haplogroup to have come to the Americas are higher when linked to the slave trade than to unrecorded human migrations to the Iberian peninsula. If the slave trade hypothesis is correct, then my grandfather may have been the second in his line to have been born a free man. That does matter to me, regardless of how I look.
            There's also the possibility it's from much, much earlier than the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Where did your presumptive paternal ancestors come from (at least where the paper trail says)? A well-publicized example in the UK are a few Revis families whose Y-DNA is A1a, even older than B. Based on the families matching, and a solid paper trail back to the 1700s, they think the paternal ancestor may have came to Britain with the Romans.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Nomatches View Post
              Do you have the sources for these facts?
              In the the case of mtDNA there was a paper a few years ago about a significant amount of slavs (Poles, Russians Czechs and Slovaks) that had what scientists thought previously were only African mtDNA. As more people get tested these situations will be found and will be the case for A and B Y-DNA.

              See http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg200870a.html

              Your B-YDNA certainly gives rise to a reasonable possibility of recent African ancestry, but it certainly does not confirm it. Contrary to everything in the media DNA rarely proves ethnic ancestry it only provides educated guessing. Sometimes that guessing is accurate and other times it's just a hint.
              Last edited by thetick; 30 December 2011, 11:51 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Nomatches View Post
                Do you have the sources for these facts? I do match very closely with haplotypes reporting Ireland as their place of origin, in fact the genetic distance is low (1 or 2), while matches with Sub-Saharan haplotypes usually yield a genetic distance of 12 or more.
                Here's a link to an academic paper "Human Mitochondrial DNA Diversity in an
                Archaeological Site in al-Andalus: Genetic Impact of Migrations from North Africa in Medieval Spain," by Marı´a Jose´ Casas,1* Erika Hagelberg,1 Rosa Fregel, 2 Jose´ M. Larruga, 2 and Ana M. Gonza´ lez 2

                http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38568440/admixture/casas01.pdf

                In the intro they write "This distribution indicates moderate levels of gene flow from North Africa to the Iberian Peninsula (Coˆrte-Real et al., 1996; Rando et al., 1998) that would have occurred during the Muslim occupation of the Peninsula (Bosch et al., 2001; Larruga et al., 2001), but also in prehistoric times (Gonza´lez et al., 2003) in proportions that remain unknown."

                Table 2 shows where they found different African haplogroups in Spain. Pages 543-544 show the L mt-hgs. Most are in either Medieval (i.e., the Islamic period) or the present population, but a few are scattered elsewhere.
                Last edited by dwight; 31 December 2011, 01:48 AM. Reason: forgot something

                Comment


                • #38
                  Nomatches - I had a result at Genetree that was different from what something else said too, then saw something someone here (Maybe nathanm) wrote- the Y values need to be adjusted at Genetree to match up...

                  Perhaps this is an issue for you?

                  Here is what needs to be adjusted to fit at Genetree (which Sorenson affiliated I think)

                  http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_standards.jspx

                  DYS441 +1
                  DYS442 +5
                  YGATAA10 +2
                  GATA H4.1 +1

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Thanks for the citations.

                    Thank you all for the citations, both the academic and news media. The London Times article was very entertaining, and to be honest, only strengthens the point made about ydna testing and genetic identity. It is possible that the B haplogroup came to the americas that way.
                    Regarding Genetree, I donated my ydna to Sorenson and am familiar with their formatting practices. I'm only waiting until they're back in business to hear their response to my question.
                    To all, happy new year.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Lincoln View Post
                      Nomatches - I had a result at Genetree that was different from what something else said too, then saw something someone here (Maybe nathanm) wrote- the Y values need to be adjusted at Genetree to match up...

                      Perhaps this is an issue for you?

                      Here is what needs to be adjusted to fit at Genetree (which Sorenson affiliated I think)

                      http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_standards.jspx

                      DYS441 +1
                      DYS442 +5
                      YGATAA10 +2
                      GATA H4.1 +1
                      Hi Lincoln.
                      I received two emails from Dr. Ugo Perego at SMGF/Genetree. He said that, since FTDNA and Genographic had access to my SNPs (which Genetree didn't have), I should regard FTDNA's prediction as more accurate than the one given by Genetree's software. He did say more markers (I have only 12 and still waiting for the upgrade results) could've been more helpful.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X