389-2 Marker Mutation Question

[viofam]

Is it common for the same Y-DNA mutation to occur in different paternal lines?
Could random brothers, cousins, second cousins, etc. who descend from a common male ancestor have a matching marker that's different from their fathers?

The Mallory Surname DNA Study has seven (7) participants in the Southern Branch http://www.familytreedna.com/public/mallory .
Three (3) have a value of "28" in the twelfth marker (389-2) and four (4) have a "29".
The participants' paper trails suggest the mutation occurred at one of three generations in a particular paternal line.

Kit #39194 has the "29" marker, but the connection of his earliest known ancestor, Thomas H. Mallory b1760 VA to the others is unknown. Is it more likely that his "29" marker indicates he belongs to the same line as the other participants with the "29" marker or could his have mutated independantly?

Any replies will be appreciated.

[JerryLIvey]

Parallel Mutations of 389-2 in Separate Lines

We have this same behavior with two participants for whom we have seen 389-2 of 31 as opposed to 32 for the majority of the other participants. From a historical point of view, the 31 is most likely the oldest value and the 32 for our line (back to ~1700) is the exception. Perhaps that's why it has tended to change for these two lines.

[cacio]

viofam:

I believe 389-2 is one of the fast mutating markers, so it is certainly possible. As usual, more markers may help.

But not necessarily so. Browsing your data, I had a curiosity: do you know the exact relation btw 33834, 33799, and 37375. The first two are marginally closer in terms of distance, but one can evision various scenarios.

cacio

[viofam]

More 389-2 Details

Is it likely or even possible for the father to be a "28", have one son with a "28" and two other sons with a "29" at 389-2?

[Donald Locke]

Viofam
I am no expert on this, but it seems to me that all the sons would be the same as the father, and that somewhere in his sons lines, 2 of his sons descendants is where the mutation occured independantly. That is unless you have had more then enough decendants tested from each of the branches to verfiy it had to have occured in that 1 generation, and that the brothers didn't all share the same marker value. Possible to me, but not to plausable.

For me, i'd have to suspect the mutation occured independantly in later generations, and that it was quite by chance that it mutated with 2 of the sons branches and not in the other sons branch. I could be wrong on this, but it seemed plausable to me.

In one of my Locke cousins, he is a much closer cousin to one of my other cousins then I am to either of them, but he is a 14 on DNS 388 when all the rest of us are 12 on DNS 388. This is a slower moving marker yet he shows 2 point mutation. FTDNA retested 388 for him and reconfirmed 14 for 388.

One thing that I don't know, if this has any bearing on it at all is, this one cousin who is a 14 on 388 just happens to be a Twin and twins in our family isn't all that common at all. Is it possible that because they are twins that 388 mutated twice? I don't know if it plays a roll in the mutation or not.
That has been a topic brought up to me in the past that I have no answer to, if twins could show a mutation that the rest of the family doesn't have?

My 2 cousins both descended out of a differnt brother (Joseph) then I did
(Jacob) , but of the 6 of us cousins tested, only the 1 has this mutation and he just happens to be a twin. Any ideas on this mutation anyone?
Did being a twin play any roll in a mutation?

[Clochaire]

Viofam
I am no expert on this, but it seems to me that all the sons would be the same as the father . . .

I may have some pertinent, if anecdotal information here. My brother and I have performed 37 marker tests and have a GD of 1. DYS 458=18 for me, =17 for my brother.

I have ordered a test for my father to see if either of us match him on this marker. Wouldn't that be a corker if his DYS 458=16?

In a silly way, that would make a satisfying type of "sense"--my father being '16', my older brother '17', and me, "version 3.0", being '18'.

'Course, maybe we really ARE all the same on DYS--I suppose that such a difference could easily be due to a count or primer error. I don't suppose it's worth beating up such a small difference, but it is thought provoking nonetheless.

Jack

[viofam]

Thanks for the replies!
The <29> appeared early on as illustrated by results for several participants:

1.Thomas Mallory b: abt. 1674 married abt. 1700 Elizabeth Higgason b: abt. 1678

2..Thomas Mallory b: 1701 married abt. 1725 Lucy Richardson b: abt. 1703
3...Thompson Mallory b: abt. 1725 married bef. 02 Nov 1798 Susannah McGehee
Kit #37375 descends from this line; his results:
13 22 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 <29> 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 28 12 15 16 16
3...Charles Mallory b: 1731
Kit #78349 descends from this line; his results:
13 22 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 <29>

2..Henry Higgason Mallory b: abt. 1705 married Sarah Holderby b: abt. 1707
3...Joel Mallory b: abt 1732
Kit #97327 descends from this line; his results:
13 22 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 <29> 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 28 12 15 15 16

2..John Mallory b: abt. 1705 married abt. 1721 Anne Coyne b: abt 1705
3...Roger Mallory b: abt. 1743 married Mary Sarah Coleman
Kit #92123 descends from this line; his results:
13 22 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 <28>

Results for all Mallory Study participants, click this link:http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...xed_columns=on