Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What have we learned?

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

  • What have we learned?

    We have had individuals use the forum to report their results. I have learned that although I test positive for DF27 on prior tests at FTDNA I do not show positive for any of the SNPs under DF27. Something to learn there. And when my 7th and 10th surname cousins post results we should learn what has changed in that surname lineage over 400 years.

    What I wonder if what the projects have learned and if we might see some of that posted in the forum? This is a big enterprise, lots of data, and it is hard to see the big picture.

  • #2
    Originally posted by JohnG View Post
    We have had individuals use the forum to report their results. I have learned that although I test positive for DF27 on prior tests at FTDNA I do not show positive for any of the SNPs under DF27. Something to learn there. And when my 7th and 10th surname cousins post results we should learn what has changed in that surname lineage over 400 years.

    What I wonder if what the projects have learned and if we might see some of that posted in the forum? This is a big enterprise, lots of data, and it is hard to see the big picture.
    A map of DF27.
    http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/1378/

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, the Clan Donald has already learned a LOT about R1a.

      We've found several SNPs that are, so far, equivalent
      to L176.1, which is an indel, not a SNP. We've
      found that we have several SNPs that branch off from
      L176.1+ (now YP274, YP275 et. al, named by the Polish R1a project I might add).

      And, what is exceedingly important, we know approximately
      in time when these happened ... from the paper trails.
      The DNA confirms in every respect these paper trails,
      some the most solid of the solid going back 700 years,
      some based on "humanities" style "research" rather than
      absolute certainty.

      Finally, when we get all the results we will have enough data to cut the uncertainty in the Y-chromosome (BigY region
      average that is) mutation rate by a factor of almost two, just from our project alone. Other projects will have
      comparable amounts of data with paper trails.

      We have not yet determined SNPs that delineate
      all the major branches of the Clan R1a people. This is
      our main goal. The "yet" simply means that FTDNA has,
      surely by accident, delivered exactly one of
      each pair which we carefully hand-selected from our project.
      And one sent to Full Genomes had his kit fail
      and the replacement got lost on its way to kiwi-land,
      so that will take another 5 months. The other one
      from Full Genomes turned out to not provide any useful
      new SNP outside the region that BigY tests, though there
      were the usual few inside the BigY region. I think this
      provides one small bit of evidence that FTDNA choose well.

      I will post the tree with dates when all arrive.
      Last edited by dtvmcdonald; 12 April 2014, 08:31 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I've mainly been following the R1a project and the Z284+ results. The most recent news has been that the Big Y results from a R-Z282* member shows him positive for the SNP that YFull has identified as Y2395, which is also common to all other Z284 members. In turn, our project admins have gone ahead and renamed the Z284 branch to Y2395, parallel to brother clades Z280 and M458/PF6155. Further down the tree, we have some refined ages of some of the major SNPs, and an improved understanding of the Scottish branches. I'm personally just waiting for the other member of my subcluster to get his results so that we might find a possible representative SNP for us.

        Comment


        • #5
          For many BigY testers, I think most of the learning is in the future.

          Currently I'm only one named SNP below where I was before I got my BigY results (Z142 to Z150/Z12222), but as more folks test many of my novel SNPs will match others and my particular branch will grow...but it may take years for an individual to fully see what was learned from BigY.

          However, the U152 project's tree has grown dramatically. Latest version of tree seen here based on results from FGC and BigY.
          http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post36871

          Compare this new U152 tree version to the current ISOGG section for U152:

          R1b1a2a1a2b PF6570/S28/U152
          • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b* -
          • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1 L2/S139
          • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1* -
          • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1a S255/Z367
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1a* -
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1a1 L20/S144
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1a2 S368/Z34
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1a2* -
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1a2a S487/Z35
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1a2a* -
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1a2a1 Z275
          • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1b L196
          • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1c Z49
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1c* -
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1c1 S211/Z142
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1c1* -
          • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b1c1a L562/S213
          • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b2 S206/Z36
          • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b3 PF6601/Z56
          • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b3* -
          • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b3a L4/S178
          • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b3b S47
          • • • • • • • • • • • • R1b1a2a1a2b3c Z144, PF6578/S371/Z145, PF6584/S483/Z146
          Last edited by MitchellSince1893; 12 April 2014, 09:20 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dtvmcdonald View Post
            Well, the Clan Donald has already learned a LOT about R1a.


            I will post the tree with dates when all arrive.
            Thanks, that should be interesting. I can see why you are anxious to get the other results. I hope with my surname we can see if there was a split in the 1500s.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MitchellSince1893 View Post
              For many BigY testers, I think most of the learning is in the future.

              Currently I'm only one named SNP below where I was before I got my BigY results (Z142 to Z150/Z12222), but as more folks test many of my novel SNPs will match others and my particular branch will grow...but it may take years for an individual to fully see what was learned from BigY.

              However, the U152 project's tree has grown dramatically. Latest version of tree seen here based on results from FGC and BigY.
              http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post36871
              Thanks,

              Comment


              • #8
                For folks who are L21 and DF13 but have not found a subclade, check for the novel variant position ChrY 16869829 in their variants.vcf file .
                This is SNP 2202 and is in a newly discovered subclade FGC5496 (not yet on the tree)- more to follow- FGC7448
                [FGC7448] HG19 Position: ChrY:8501059..8501059 MAY be another indicator

                Comment


                • #9
                  Two new subclusters within my subclade have been identified as a result of just a few returns to date. This is just within my within my subclade. I know the other subclade within M458 has had further refinement as well. Additionally, the TMRCA has been solidified as well.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    With just a quick review of my Big Y, one of my project admins was able to tell me that, beyond R-M269 as determined by my Y111, and beyond my R-L48 as posted by FTDNA, I was actually R-Z334.

                    What that means, I'm not yet sure, but I am eager to find out.

                    Michael

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      U106 clades

                      Under U106 we appear to have at least 22 new clades defined. No pretty tree is available to show this, yet.

                      For me personally I successfully mined a 59/67 STR match to establish a refine our shared ancestor time frame. Now to test another 60/67 lineage for the same set of shared SNPs. STR match mining can bring one close to the genealogical time frame.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wkauffman View Post
                        For me personally I successfully mined a 59/67 STR match to establish a refine our shared ancestor time frame. Now to test another 60/67 lineage for the same set of shared SNPs. STR match mining can bring one close to the genealogical time frame.
                        This sound interesting, what STR mining? How do you use Big Y data to do it?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wkauffman View Post
                          Under U106 we appear to have at least 22 new clades defined.

                          .
                          And I intended to say, this sounds amazing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wkauffman View Post
                            Under U106 we appear to have at least 22 new clades defined. No pretty tree is available to show this, yet.

                            For me personally I successfully mined a 59/67 STR match to establish a refine our shared ancestor time frame. Now to test another 60/67 lineage for the same set of shared SNPs. STR match mining can bring one close to the genealogical time frame.
                            One of the Z156 group that I am interested has 35 SNPs under Z156. When do you hope to put them on the u106-tree?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              We need pairings of SNP results in order to place SNPs on the tree. A singleton SNP by itself is (for the most part) meaningless. We use SNPs found in multiple individuals to define Clades.

                              Oftentimes clades will have more than one SNP assigned to them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X