Gypsy DNA

[Andrew M]

cacio,

The first link was quite useful. It becomes clearer looking at the numbers that my wife should be an M1. The only thing she seems to lack is the 223, and Leah Wark said that it could show up in a complicated test that brings out back-mutations.

I got lost in the second link area with all of those studies about topics like "humans." When I typed in M1 for a search, I couldn't find any matches to that topic. I'll keep searching through it though--hopefully I'll see a tree in the big forest.

[cacio]

Andrew:
if you click on either icon above the title, you'll get to the full article (which you can also download as pdf if you prefer). Towards the bottom, there is a section called "Haplogroup M Lineages in Ethiopians and Yemenis". (The beginning of the article is mostly about haplogroup L, which is the most frequent in Africa)

As for 223, I think I remember the M1 case discussed in this thread is in the same situation, ie his wife seems not to have a mutation at 223 (or may be it's simply a mistake in the test). For some reason, FTDNA does not assign people to M1 if they don't see 223, even though I seem to recall that one of the previous posts says that M1 sequences without 223 have been documented. Which means that 223 is not essential for M1. As usual, the defining mutations for the haplogroup are in the control region, but that is expensive to test.

cacio

[Andrew M]

Thanks, I was able to read everything. More of the familiar numbers came up. The mention of Europe came with:

M1a can be found together with M1* lineages in populations from the Near East, the Caucasus, and in Europe at marginally low frequencies (Corte-Real et al. 1996; Macaulay et al. 1999; Richards et al. 2000).

While looking at the results on the tree, I saw no 519c, which my wife carries. I wonder how common it is and if anyone else has it.

By the way, I am the "marttinen" who mentioned his wife's M* classification in the previous discussion. I recently re-entered this forum using a different name because of log-in problems (I forgot my password and the automated e-mail system to send it didn't seem to work).

[cacio]

Andrew:

I did not recognize you under your new name.

I think both of the papers cited above only test until 16365, so 16519 would not appear. In any case, 16159 seems to pop up in thousands of individuals in many haplogroups, so it's probably a common and uninformative mutation.

cacio

[Andrew M]

Interestingly, I have just communicated with a lady today who got her results back and wanted to see if I could make head or tails of it. She was given only one number--16519c and assigned to Haplogroup H. On the list of letters, a lonely red t showed up on the second to last place on 520. Your comments greatly helped me understand her situation (and my wife's too).

[haplogroupc]

Family Tree DNA explained that their confusion between M* and the Native American C haplogroup is that some people don't have the mutation that turns M* into CZ but they do have the mutation that turns CZ into C. So they're not sure if it's that there's a missing mutation in C or an unfamiliar mutation in M*. That's why they're not sure which group to place these people in, either M* or C.

[Andrew M]

I'd like to know how that would affect the "Recent Ancestral Origins" section if someone is made a C who was really an M*.

I added a 223 (common mutation for M1 that she is lacking) into the YHRD search and came up with no matches. The mutations that showed up on the "low resolution" made the trend quite clear--Spain & (non-native) Brazil. On ftDNA she had Portugal, Azores, Spain and France. Leah W suggested that Gypsy origin (I guess M5) would be seen by having some eastern Eropean countries show up on the RAO.

[lgmayka]

Family Tree DNA explained that their confusion between M* and the Native American C haplogroup is that some people don't have the mutation that turns M* into CZ but they do have the mutation that turns CZ into C. So they're not sure if it's that there's a missing mutation in C or an unfamiliar mutation in M*. That's why they're not sure which group to place these people in, either M* or C.

The consequent question, then, is whether the scientific world needs to treat M* as another Native American mtDNA haplogroup or not. Consider MitoSearch M* entries like

CFM66

[vraatyah]

whether the scientific world needs to treat M* as another Native American mtDNA haplogroup or not. Consider MitoSearch M* entries like
CFM66

take a look at this SWGDAN entry, particularly at HVS2:

051-126-188-223-298-311-325
73-185-249d-263-290d-291d-315.1C
(16024-16365; 73-340)
Navajo


That's a clear C1. Without 188 we have much more.


SWGDAM Hispanic:

051-086N-223-262-298-311-325-327
73-146-194-249d-263-290d-291d-315.1C

051-223-298-311-325-327
73-194-249d-263-290d-291d-315.1C-489-523d-524d

Barbosa 2006, Alagoas, Northeastern Brazil:

051-184-223-287-298-311-325-327-357
073-146-194-249d-263-290d-291d-309.1C-315.1C

051-184-223-287-298-311-325-327
073-146-194-249d-263-290d-291d-315.1C

051-184-223-287-298-311-325-327
073-146-194-249d-263-290d-291d-309.1C-315.1C

051-223-298-311-325-327
073-194-249d-263-290d-291d-309.1C-315.1C

[vraatyah]

I suspect some entries like this one were published before FT has run mt-multiplex which must have a marker for C. Now their classification seems to be somewhat improved particularly due to redundant SNPs.

[haplogroupc]

The consequent question, then, is whether the scientific world needs to treat M* as another Native American mtDNA haplogroup or not. Consider MitoSearch M* entries like

CFM66

One of the companies, I think it was Genetree was classifying these people as C2 but I've never seen anyone else use this subgroup. Family Tree DNA placed these cases in M*, an East Asian haplogroup, even though their markers in both HVR1 and HVR2 are not like East Asians'. Their markers are more like Native American's. So maybe the answer would have been to either place them in C or create a subgroup of C for those who are missing a mutation.

[Andrew M]

After some surfing I found that the discussion about M1 (classified M* for my wife) making it through northern Africa through south-western Europe confirmed.

At http://ilbg18230.pwp.blueyonder.co.u...ion/hap_M1.htm there's a AF381984 from Morocco that has in its list all of my wife's mutations (129a, 183C, 189C, 249C, 311C and 519C. Interestingly, that listing doesn't have a 223 yet it's called M1. The link to the tree on the same page looked interesting also.

[cacio]

Andrew:

on a recent paper on haplogroup M in India I found the following interesting sentence, which reiterates what previously discussed:

"It was proposed that M1 bears some affinity with Indian M haplogroups. This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. ... There is no evidence whatsoever that M1 originated in India".

from The dazzling array of the basal branches in the mdtdna macrohaplogroup M from India as inferred from complete genomes" by Chang Sun et al. 2006

cacio

[Andrew M]

cacio:

I'm impressed at how current the research you found is--2006! It looks like progress is being made untangling and analizing the threads, letters and numbers of the haplogroups.

Thanks for the information. Even "low resolution" results seem to tell a more and more interesting story.

[Donald Locke]

Thought I would add to this.

I was just informed that some of the Y H Group M69 , may actually be
H1 M52. This hasn't been confirmed, but was suggested by
Bennett Greenspan that the H's SNP tested actually maybe H1.

I would presume we would know more about the break down of H once a deep clade test is available?

In the Roma discussions earlier, and reading the many links you all posted, I didn't see M69 (H) or M52 (H1) being mentioned. Is FTDNA using different M values then the articals posted in earlier posts?

Here is the Y H Haplo Group Project link.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/YgeneHhaplogroup

I brought up the issue of so many male H's having come out of early Virginia USA 1700's-1800's. This issue has peaked his interest.
4 confirmed or estimated H's have direct ties to early Virginia, with a 5th possibly having come out of early Virginia.
With the some what rarity of H, Bennett agree's, this needs to be looked into closer.

So I am looking for more estimated or confirmed H or sub group participants, and I am also looking for more H's who have direct ties to early Virginia.
We don't know what to make of this yet. But to have 4 possibly 5 participants, all of different surnames and to have ties to early Virginia, surely has to have some meaning.
We shall see what happens when some of the 37 and 67 marker upgrades are completed and then go from there.

1 Lock(e) SNP M69 confirmed H (Virginia 1700's)
1 Bailey SNP M69 confirmed H (Virginia 1800's)
1 Campbell SNP M52 confirmed H1 (Arkansas 1800's, possibly Virginia 1700's)
1 Hite not SNP, estimated M69 H (Virginia 1800's)
1 Carter not SNP, estimated M69 H (Virginia 1700's or 1800's?)

Regardless of the differnt surnames, this is a higher then expected group of H's to have come out of Virginia USA. And to me, this has to mean there has to be a larger population of H's some where in Europe that may not have been found and tested as of yet.

And interestingly, each of the 5 surnames, do not DNA match anyone outside their direct lineage. We only have DNA matches to paper trail proven cousins and no one else of people of our own surname.
The only reason I have matches to others of my surname is, I went through my family tree and found living male descendants to test to compare to.
Other wise, I wouldn't have a match today with anyone of my surname.

The same goes for the others, they just don't match anyone outside their direct line.

And because this small group of European surnames are found in early Virginia, we have to suspect all came from some where in Europe, mainly England. And that would mean, there would almost have to be a larger H population somewhere in Europe considering we have already found 4 proven, possibly a 5th having come out of early Virginia.

For me this is important because if as I suspect, there is a larger H population some where in Europe, then and only then can we compare the European population to the Indian population of H's.

Y Search web page hasn't been much help. Far to many suposed Y H's are not Y H's, but rather mtDNA H's. The participants accidently stated their Y was H when the H is their mtDNA. Not the same thing yall! lol.

Anyone have any stats on how many Y H's have been found in Europe?

1 H Participant whom is from India (a native Indian) has just recieved his mtDNA results.
He shows HVR1 = HV

A native Indian who is a SNP H confirmed showing HV on the mtDNA.
I am not sure what to make of this?