Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Phylotree question

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

  • Phylotree question

    Hi all,

    Phylotree has, on occasion, a branch with a mutation listed but no subclade reference for the node.

    See the attachment for an example.

    In this case is phylo saying that T152C! is a back mutation present in subclades U5a1a1a, U5a1a1b, and U5a1a1h but not in U5a1a1c?

    Or is it something different?

    regards
    Gavan
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Originally posted by Slithy Tove View Post
    In this case is phylo saying that T152C! is a back mutation present in subclades U5a1a1a, U5a1a1b, and U5a1a1h but not in U5a1a1c?
    Yes, you interpreted this correctly. However, I don't think it is useful to include highly volatile markers like 152, 195, 16362, etc as unnamed branch point in the phylotree. There will be some people in U5a1a1a with C152T!! and some people in U5a1a1c with T152C! These markers might (or might not) have some value when you are looking at your closest matches, but they don't add much informational value to the phylotree. FTDNA includes these branch names in subclade assignments, and I think mostly just confuses people.

    Gail

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by GST View Post
      highly volatile markers ... don't add much informational value to the phylotree.
      Gail
      Thanks, Gail.

      Is this why Phylotree says "309.1C(C), 315.1C, AC indels at 515-522, A16182c, A16183c, 16193.1C(C) and C16519T/T16519C were not considered for phylogenetic reconstruction"?

      Gavan

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Slithy Tove View Post
        Thanks, Gail.

        Is this why Phylotree says "309.1C(C), 315.1C, AC indels at 515-522, A16182c, A16183c, 16193.1C(C) and C16519T/T16519C were not considered for phylogenetic reconstruction"

        Yes - in general, these are the most volatile of the hyper variable region (HVR) markers. But other markers can also be very volatile, for example, in some haplogroups 16093 seems to be much less stable than 16519. When you see large variability in an HVR marker, I would discount the value of that marker. Some HVR markers can be much more "hyper" than others.

        Comment

        Working...
        X