Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

website with age estimate for haplogroups?

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

  • website with age estimate for haplogroups?

    About 4 months ago I used a website that showed the mtdna phylotree branches along with age estimates for each branch. I thought it was at phylotree.org but that only seems to list the branches and not the age estimates.

    My google fu has not been up to the challenge today. Can someone point me at a site that provides the ages estimates for the haplogroups? at each branch? I'm putting together a write up for a relative that shows the likely migration path along with how long ago each step was and I can't locate the information on the ages.

    Any help would be much appreciated!

  • #2
    I think that you're referring to the recent paper "A 'Copernican' Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root." The paper revised the mtDNA haplogroup tree to correspond to mutations from what they call the RSRS (using haplogroup L, from sub-Saharan Africa, as the reference), replacing the rCRS, which used the sequence of a European woman in H2a.

    The study itself is behind a pay wall at a scientific journal. You can Google that and find it and read the abstract. There is a free pdf file with supplemental data from the study at http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/j...01462.mmc1.pdf Starting on page 21 of the pdf file, an age estimate is given for each mtDNA subclade.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes! Thanks! I've got that PDF saved locally now.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks

        That is a great resource.

        In H1c3b page 82 it gives

        Time estimate (years) 1031.1
        SD (years) 1482.4

        Is this to the present e.g. 1031-1482AD or 1031AD but could be 1,482 yrs more than that?


        Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
        I think that you're referring to the recent paper "A 'Copernican' Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root." The paper revised the mtDNA haplogroup tree to correspond to mutations from what they call the RSRS (using haplogroup L, from sub-Saharan Africa, as the reference), replacing the rCRS, which used the sequence of a European woman in H2a.

        The study itself is behind a pay wall at a scientific journal. You can Google that and find it and read the abstract. There is a free pdf file with supplemental data from the study at http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/j...01462.mmc1.pdf Starting on page 21 of the pdf file, an age estimate is given for each mtDNA subclade.
        Last edited by Solothurn; 4 October 2012, 02:32 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Solothurn View Post
          Thanks

          That is a great resource.

          In H1c3b page 82 it gives

          Time estimate (years) 1031.1
          SD (years) 1482.4

          Is this to the present e.g. 1031-1482AD or 1031AD but could be 1,482 yrs more than that?
          I believe it's the latter.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks again

            Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
            I believe it's the latter.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Solothurn View Post
              Thanks

              That is a great resource.

              In H1c3b page 82 it gives

              Time estimate (years) 1031.1
              SD (years) 1482.4

              Is this to the present e.g. 1031-1482AD or 1031AD but could be 1,482 yrs more than that?
              I realized after the 15 minute editing time ran out that I had misread your post above. So, my previous post answering you was wrong.

              I believe it's giving you the age of the subclade. That means the "birth" was probably 1,031 years ago (981 AD), but possibly as old as 2,513 years (1,031 + 1,482). That would give a "birth" year of possibly 501 BC.
              Last edited by MMaddi; 4 October 2012, 04:11 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Mike's second answer is correct. On another forum I commented that I had never seen a standard deviation as big as that, and anyway the paper does not say what that's the SD of. A closer reading of the paper indicates that the age estimate was derived from multiple runs of some rather experimental computer program. So the cases which have results such as "Time estimate (years) 1031.1, SD (years) 1482.4" are, I think, findings which should be ignored.

                Regards,
                Jim

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks Mike and Jim

                  At least now I can offer something when my FGS matches come calling

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yfull now put me in H1c3b1*

                    Interestingly others especially from Denmark MRCA 850 years bp

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X