Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Definition of mtDNA Haplogroup I

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

  • cacio
    replied
    Jenny:

    I think now assignments are mostly made on the basis of coding region mutations rather than HVR1, so I don't think there exist a more updated table like that. Probably my favorite place to look at would be Ian Logan's page:
    http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/mtDNA.htm

    for a quicker thing, there is a paper by Palanichamy for N in general:
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi...10.1086/425871
    and for H there is a paper by Roostalu et al (I believe).

    cacio

    Leave a comment:


  • Jenny Swedberg
    replied
    mtdna I

    You are probably familiar with this haplogoup table already at http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/~vincent/...000/motif.html .... I found it on roots web genealogy-dna-L regarding haplogroups N1 vs. A2 vs. D3... it appears that N is defined differently than you have seen it... does anyone know of a more current haplogroup motif table?

    Leave a comment:


  • britzkrieg
    replied
    Originally posted by cacio
    Just to mention, Sykes uses a weird notation, which can be found at the beginning of the mtdna pdf file... vraatyah was right, 2931 means A16293C. No insertions or deletions here...
    Thanks, cacio. I could've figured that out myself if I'd bothered to read the introduction. I guess I was too focused on the single line with the Welsh "match." Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.

    Leave a comment:


  • cacio
    replied
    Originally posted by britzkrieg
    The 293 mutation I found in the profile in question is actually 2931. I have no clue what that extra "1" is supposed to mean
    Just to mention, Sykes uses a weird notation, which can be found at the beginning of the mtdna pdf file. Transitions are only stated with the last three digits of the position (eg 189 and the like). Transversions are represented by the last three digit of the position, followed by a number 1 to 9, which is supposed to say which transversions (or insertions or deletions) they are.

    In particular, 1=A-C , so vraatyah was right, 2931 means A16293C
    No insertions or deletions here (this would be number 9)

    cacio

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by vineviz
    In addition to mitosearch, I usually also recommend searching SMGF and EMPOP.

    http://www.smgf.org/mtdna/search.jspx
    http://www.empop.org/

    Both are good resources for tracking down general matches, and sometimes helping to find geographic patterns. Both are designed to be anonymous, unlike mitosearch, but they can still be useful.
    empop seems to be more useful for the Americans - I believe, Dr Parson will keep it up to date, he is one of the main contributors to the SWGDAM forensic database.

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by britzkrieg
    My roots in the United States are very deep. I believe all my ancestors were here by the beginning of the Revolution in 1776. That makes it tougher to find the immigrants.

    Rumor has it that the father of my earliest known maternal ancestor immigrated from England. That doesn't mean that her mother came from England, too, of course. Still, I'm concentrating on the British Isles for now.
    Very interesting. I believe, though your research is not easy, it's by no means desperate. A lineage can be rare in Brittain but more frequent in the USA and vice versa, due to the drift events. It's hardly to be the case for the common, usual lineages (those escalated in the ancient times), but it's very expected for the rare ones. 200 years ago, when USA was first populated by Europeans, the English population were more strongly subdivided then now, so there could be migrations that "wiped" some lineages from the mother country, particularly those were present only in remote areas.

    As Vincent mentioned, we should wait for more results of Sykes project, he seems to be the only author seriously interested in study of England population subdivision. I think, it's the right way


    with best regards from Russia

    Valery

    Leave a comment:


  • britzkrieg
    replied
    Originally posted by vraatyah
    The answer is likely to be "NO" unless you limit your search to the same location where your line was first documented.
    My roots in the United States are very deep. I believe all my ancestors were here by the beginning of the Revolution in 1776. That makes it tougher to find the immigrants.

    Rumor has it that the father of my earliest known maternal ancestor immigrated from England. That doesn't mean that her mother came from England, too, of course. Still, I'm concentrating on the British Isles for now.

    britzkrieg

    Leave a comment:


  • vineviz
    replied
    Originally posted by britzkrieg
    I have had my HVR2 region sequenced as well. Now I just have to wait for that European exact match to pop up.
    In addition to mitosearch, I usually also recommend searching SMGF and EMPOP.

    http://www.smgf.org/mtdna/search.jspx
    http://www.empop.org/

    Both are good resources for tracking down general matches, and sometimes helping to find geographic patterns. Both are designed to be anonymous, unlike mitosearch, but they can still be useful.

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    I'd like to correct my post about the feasible connection in the last centuries.

    The answer is likely to be "NO" unless you limit your search to the same location where your line was first documented. Of course, local matches with the same rare mutations could be related to your line, moreover, some of them must be related.

    Leave a comment:


  • britzkrieg
    replied
    Thanks, everyone, for all the great information. I've learned a lot from this thread. The conclusion is disappointing, though not unexpected. Evidence of a Welsh origin would have really sharpened my genealogical research, but I figured it was too good to be true.

    I have had my HVR2 region sequenced as well. Now I just have to wait for that European exact match to pop up.

    Thanks again. You folks are great!

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by britzkrieg
    Oh, addendum to my last message: The 293 mutation I found in the profile in question is actually 2931. I have no clue what that extra "1" is supposed to mean; for all I know, it's a scanning artifact. Let me know if you have any insights. Thanks.
    in most papers .1 stands for an insertion which is really possible at this position in the middle of a C-tract. However, the above 3 sequences show 16293C - the same as you wrote before. Anyway, from general knowledge, insertion at this point would be several times more likely if accompanied by a transversion 16293A>C: in this case we get a chain of 7C.

    Leave a comment:


  • vineviz
    replied
    Originally posted by britzkrieg
    I remember reading somewhere that the 16519C mutation is not useful for genographic purposes, since this position is volatile and prone to flipping back and forth. I don't know if that makes it safe to ignore for genealogical purposes, though.
    For genealogical purposes, you should not ignore even the hottest of mtDNA hotspots. But remember that a perfect match does not guarantee a genealogical link, nor do mismatches guarante that such a link does not exist.

    Originally posted by britzkrieg
    Thus my original question about 16391A.

    Could I be maternally related to the person who provided this sample, within the genealogical time frame? I guess that's the real question here.
    Without more data on the Sykes sample, there is no way to say for sure. Really, unless you are comparing two full mtDNA sequences this question is nearly impossible to answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    >My money was on the Magic 8 ball





    >Could I be maternally related to the person who provided this sample, within the genealogical time frame? I guess that's the real question here.

    unfortunately, the answer is likely to be "NO". There are 3 published matches, all from different countries:

    Dupuy 1996, Norway
    129-171-223-293C-311-362A
    (sequenced between 16110 and 16362)

    Richards 1996, Welsh
    129-171-223-293C-311
    (16069-16365)

    SWGDAM, USA Caucasian
    129-171-223-293C-311
    73-199-204-250-263-315.1C
    (16024-16365, 73-340)

    Leave a comment:


  • britzkrieg
    replied
    Oh, addendum to my last message: The 293 mutation I found in the profile in question is actually 2931. I have no clue what that extra "1" is supposed to mean; for all I know, it's a scanning artifact. Let me know if you have any insights. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • vineviz
    replied
    Originally posted by vraatyah
    Nevertheless, Sykes for some unknown reasons assigned U haplogroup for some portion of their HVS1-CRS sequences. How is it possible to guess what it is without any hint such as RFLPs or HVS2? Using witchcraft, I suspect.
    My money was on the Magic 8 ball.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X