Haplogroup HV? HV*? help!???!!!

[Renee L]

I've been searching the web to the point where I'm starting to see the same names, same websites, and same articles over and over. I'm confused.

Is there a difference between HV and HV*?
Is it possible that results from testing my HVR2 would push me from an HV to an H or a V? (is this even a valid question?)
If H is relatively common in Western Europe, how do HV and V compare to H in terms of percentages (of currently existing samples)?
Are HVs generally found in the same geographic regions as H and V?
Why is there so little info readily available on HV?

Many thanks for any clarification.

[CtGirl]

Haplogroup HV? HV*? Help, please

I have the same question as Renee. My mtDNA haplogroup is HV*. HVR1 is 16311C. HVR2 is 263G, 309.1C, and 315.1C. I am still trying to figure out what these values mean. Thanks for any clarification you can give us (both!).

D

I've been searching the web to the point where I'm starting to see the same names, same websites, and same articles over and over. I'm confused.

Is there a difference between HV and HV*?
Is it possible that results from testing my HVR2 would push me from an HV to an H or a V? (is this even a valid question?)
If H is relatively common in Western Europe, how do HV and V compare to H in terms of percentages (of currently existing samples)?
Are HVs generally found in the same geographic regions as H and V?
Why is there so little info readily available on HV?

Many thanks for any clarification.

[cacio]

Renee and CtGirl:

the issue is a little complicated, because these haplogroups have changed names a few times, so it is never clear what is what -and it may depend on when you tested.
A good way to start could be the following figure:
http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/discussion/gifs/HV_gif.htm

All the groups you mentioned are part of the same big family. At the root of the whole HV and R0 family (not shown) there is a mutation at 73 and at 11719. Then the groups divides into two, the HV family (which has the mutation at 14766) and the R0 (or pre-HV), which does not. Both of you have this mutation.

One branch of HV then had a mutation at 7026: this is haplogroup H (the branch to the extreme left). Another branch had a mutation at 16298: this is haplogroup V (this is not shown in the tree). You have neither mutation. Therefore you are in one of the other branches shown in the figure.

Did you test with FTDNA? I am not sure what FTDNA tests exactly. However, if you tested recently, HV or HV* does mean that you are HV but are neither H nor V, so further tests will not change the assignment. As for HV versus HV* - I don't know. Usually the star * means that one is not in a tested subgroup. So perhaps it means that you are not in HV1 (as shown in the figure)? But as said, because the names are confusing, I would send an email to FTDNA and ask them explicitly: what marker in the coding region did you test to assign me to HV*? Once they answer, you can check the figure to see where you are.

In general, HV is present where H is (ie Europe mostly, and the middle east), though it is much rarer than H. Let's say that one of the HV-sisters (sister H) was particularly prolific...

cacio

[lgmayka]

My mtDNA haplogroup is HV*. HVR1 is 16311C. HVR2 is 263G, 309.1C, and 315.1C.

You have a match in the Polish Project.

[kokeb]

I hope this helps.

I recently asked a similar question to the FTDNA support that may help. Please see below.

My Question:
"I have recently received the results of my mtDNA test and have been assigned to the haplogroup L1C*. However, when I look at my 'Ancestrial Origins' I see HVR1 matches to both L1C and L1C*. Do "L1C" and "L1C*" mean the same thing? If they do not, then what is the difference? I'm trying to understand what that extra "*" means..."

FTDNA Response:
"Thank you for your email. The * is used to indicate that a person does not belong to any of the known branches of a haplogroup. However, this can be troublesome to use because if a new branch is found in the future, or if a branch cannot be identified based on the HVR1 mutations, then the * does not accurately describe a person’s haplogroup anymore; that person could potentially belong to these other branches. We have had some adjustments to whether we place a star or not for haplogroup L1c because of this question. The L1c’s and L1c*’s in the database were all checked for the same branches, so they are effectively the same. "


Hope that helps?

Kokeb

[josh w.]

HV (no specific subclade) is fairly common in southern Arabia near the horn of Africa. For this reason it it is sometimes found among Yemenite Jews.

[spideydouble]

HV* theory

OK, I have no idea what I am talking about, only a theory based on some observations from mitosearch and the FTDNA HV* Group.

1. It seems that on mitosearch many HV*, H, H*, H1*, & H4 have both 263G & 315.1C on HVR2. The FTDNA HV* Group corroborates this. In fact, any HV* Group member who has previously tested HVR2 has these mutations and I suspect all HV* who test HVR2 in the future will have these mutations. Can anyone provide evidence of an HV* who does not have these mutations? Could these be the markers of another branch from HV into H or maybe another branch completely?

2. I also noticed that many of the HV* Group members also had either 16311C, 16298C, were a CRS match, or had some other mutation on HVR1. I suspect that most HV* will have 16311C, 16298C, or be a CRS match on HVR1. I would propose the "other" HVR1 mutations occurred in a different time frame or in another geographical location, but these would still be members of one of the three HV* core branches at this point. Can anyone provide evidence otherwise? Could these be the markers of yet further branches within HV*? There are a few people who have both 16311C and 16298C on HVR1. I am not sure what to make of that. The ones I was able to pull up on mitosearch were either HV* or V, so maybe anyone having those specific mutations together is a part of an obscure HV* fourth core branch or just another branch from one of my proposed three. The FTDNA HV* Group corroborates this.

3. I also noticed that many of the HV* Group members who had previously tested HVR2 also had 309.1C. I am not exactly sure how that plays out with my theory of the above three HV* branches. Maybe these women occupied different regional areas and then got back together for yet another mass migration at some point but who really knows. However, I still suspect that all HV* with 309.1C on HVR2 will also have 16311C, 16298C, or be a CRS match on HVR1, excluding the "other" HVR1 mutations.

HV* (263G & 315.1C)
HV1* (CRS match)
HV1a (16519C?)
HV1b (16217C?)
HV1c (16168T?, 16362C?)
HV1d (16213A?)
HV1e (16327A?)
HV1x (309.1C?)
HV2* (16311C)
HV2a (16278T?)
HV2b (16299G?)
HV2x (309.1C?)
HV2x1 (309.2C?)
HV2x1-hv3 (16928C?)
HV2x2 (131C?, 152C?)
HV3* (16298C)
HV3a (72C?)
HV3b (16223T?, 16260T?)
HV3c (16346C?)
HV3x (309.1C?)
HV3x1 (309.2C?)
HV3x1-hv2 (16311C?)

What do you think? Any alternate theories? Any ideas to improve this one?

[cacio]

spideydouble:

I think 263G & 315.1C were the ancestral values, and everybody has them (expect the H2 branch of CRS). Similarly, CRS is the ancestral status of the whole branch. So I think these are the basic values of all HV (and H's). So, as you say, further mutations can be thus taken to indicate subgroups, though, as usual, it's hard to say without coding region mutations.
I am not an expert, so I hope somebody will pitch in here, but I think 16298 is typical of V. However, V is defined also by a coding region mutation, so I think that the HV with 16298 are a precursor of V (that is, they have one mutation leading to V but not the other), i.e. perhaps a pre-V (but I am not sure here)

cacio

[rivergirl]

Im a V and have the following
HVR1; 298C
HVR2; 72C,204C,263G,309.1C,315.1C

[spideydouble]

Im a V and have the following
HVR1; 298C
HVR2; 72C,204C,263G,309.1C,315.1C

I agree with cacio that 16298C is typical of V. There certainly are very few H who have 16298C. Maybe 16298C is a marker for Pre-V. I am fairly certain that 16311C is a marker for Pre-H, though some HV* and V have both 16298C and 16311C. It appears that most of the HV* and V that have both also have 309.1C. I am not sure, but I still think 309.1C is part of some mass migration of the regional HV*, H, and V haplogroups at the time. Even some K, U, and R* have 309.1C, so maybe they joined in on the migration as well. Interestingly, many HV* and V also have 072C with 309.1C, so maybe they picked that up along the way before they joined back up with Pre-H or H. Rivergirl, this would be your people. If that is the case, then that would explain how 16311C got picked up by some HV* and V. Likewise, some H could have picked up 16298C from the returning HV* and V, but I don't see any H that have this marker at this point.

Like cacio said, 263G & 315.1C were the ancestral values. As far as I can tell, all HV*, H, and V will have them, unless one or both regressed back to CRS. Those would be the exceptions. Some RO, J, K, I, and U also have these values. Good luck working that out.

204C is definitely V, but I have no idea what it means.

Can anyone pitch in with information on coding region mutations? Are these what define every branch? Is it possible for coding region mutations to regress? Does anyone know the specific coding region mutations that define HV*, H, and V?

I am sure the latest full mtDNA project for HV* will help shed some light on the branches, but I am anxious to see which guess will prove the most accurate. It is pretty murky and any input helps.

HV* mitosearch JVJZW
16311C 263G 315.1C 309.1C 309.2C

[spideydouble]

I finally received my result for the Mega mtDNDA FGS: 750G 1438G 2706G 4769G 7028T 8860G 8994A 15326G

According to: http://wiki.hmtdna.org/doku.php/results/h1/helena

Since I have the 750G 1438G 4769G 8860G & 15326G mutations in common with typical H1, does that make me a likely Pre-H candidate? I only have 2706G 7028T & 8994A as unique mutations.

Does anyone have a good link to a revised tree or new research specific to HV? Any good links for what diseases these relate to?