Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BigY vs STR Stories

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

  • BigY vs STR Stories

    Does anyone have a story or a link to a story about BigY being more valuable than STR markers in determining relationships between people whether there is a common surname or not?

    Today I watched a video DNA Lectures - Who Do You Think You Are on a presentation by John Cleary on how BigY has helped determine at what point in time the branching began with some people with different surnames but matched at the 67 marker level. Some of the branching is after 1300 CE, some before, and some around 500 CE. There is a significant difference to what they calculated the branching to be based on STR markers.

    This video shows that if enough people get the BigY that it can help more helpful that STRs with genealogy in the historical period and the period since surnames became widely used.

    The BigY portion of the video is at the 50m16s minute mark. https://youtu.be/O81G3No1SOY?t=50m16s

    The 67 marker match list portion of the video is at the 39m53s minute mark. https://youtu.be/O81G3No1SOY?t=39m53s

    I hope others are willing to share their stories.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Armando View Post
    Does anyone have a story or a link to a story about BigY being more valuable than STR markers in determining relationships between people whether there is a common surname or not?
    Y-STRs alone can fail catastrophically. Here is a well-documented case. These two men have a GD of only 6 on 67 markers, as listed by the Y-DNA Matches page. Of the 54 slower markers, they differ only on DYS446.

    Ysearch N2997, kit N28490, of Poland, has tested L22- L287- L258- .

    Ysearch 982W3, kit 122603, of Finland, has tested L22+ L287+ L258+ .

    Thus, they are on opposite sides of the I1-L22 mutation, which is estimated to be 4100 years old.

    In fact, kit N28490 has now tested further:
    CTS6364+, S4795+, S4767-, YSC0001396-, CTS10028-, L258-, L287-, L22-

    Comment


    • #3
      lgmayka, thank you for sharing that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Does any one else have any stories? The more stories the better.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Armando View Post
          Does any one else have any stories? The more stories the better.
          We have been using BigY to explore a cluster of 26 men in our surname project who are R1b-Z49. We have four results to date with two more in process. So far we have confirmed a common ancestor in Ireland within the past 800 years and a split in the line between two groups about 600 years ago, characterized by a single SNP and differing values for DYS388. We have also determined that two men with a different surname are direct paternal descendants of this family and that the NPE in their line took place some time in the late 18th or early 19th century. When the other results come in we plan to design a test panel to evaluate as many of the other men as possible.

          Jim

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jbarry6899 View Post
            We have been using BigY to explore a cluster of 26 men in our surname project who are R1b-Z49. We have four results to date with two more in process. So far we have confirmed a common ancestor in Ireland within the past 800 years and a split in the line between two groups about 600 years ago, characterized by a single SNP and differing values for DYS388. We have also determined that two men with a different surname are direct paternal descendants of this family and that the NPE in their line took place some time in the late 18th or early 19th century. When the other results come in we plan to design a test panel to evaluate as many of the other men as possible.

            Jim
            Thanks for sharing Jim. What is the range for 67 markers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Strictly speaking this is not a success story

              Two families sharing R-M269, when comparing 67 STR markers had 24 mismatches... TiP gives 1.72% for TMRCA within the last 24 generations, so we could have debated it ad nauseam.

              Comparison of Big Y results showed that L151 was the last common SNP, so according to YFull the TMRCA was around 5000 ybp.

              The family question was definitely answered, however, there still many nice conversation topics for the cocktail parties

              W. (Mr.)

              Comment


              • #8
                As it was always obvious to me , I had forgotten to include in the above post that the surname was the same!

                W. (Mr.)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dna View Post
                  Strictly speaking this is not a success story

                  Two families sharing R-M269, when comparing 67 STR markers had 24 mismatches... TiP gives 1.72% for TMRCA within the last 24 generations, so we could have debated it ad nauseam.

                  Comparison of Big Y results showed that L151 was the last common SNP, so according to YFull the TMRCA was around 5000 ybp.

                  The family question was definitely answered, however, there still many nice conversation topics for the cocktail parties

                  W. (Mr.)
                  24 mismatches really is a huge difference and they wouldn't have shown as matches at the 67 marker level.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Armando View Post
                    24 mismatches really is a huge difference and they wouldn't have shown as matches at the 67 marker level.
                    You are right. They were not showing.

                    However, within a surname project, as an administrator, I could use TiP for non-matches. 1.72% for 24 generations (roughly 720 years) was a ripe ground for the family reunion discussions how the branches split 700+ years ago.

                    And I preferred the time to be spent on identification of people on photographs, graves, family stories from decades ago etc.

                    W. (Mr.)

                    P.S.
                    Inside one of the branches there was a mismatch of 3 markers between 4th cousins, so we could see that mismatches do occur.
                    Last edited by dna; 5 May 2015, 05:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dna View Post
                      Strictly speaking this is not a success story

                      Two families sharing R-M269, when comparing 67 STR markers had 24 mismatches... TiP gives 1.72% for TMRCA within the last 24 generations, so we could have debated it ad nauseam.

                      Comparison of Big Y results showed that L151 was the last common SNP, so according to YFull the TMRCA was around 5000 ybp.

                      The family question was definitely answered, however, there still many nice conversation topics for the cocktail parties

                      W. (Mr.)
                      What happened to the one mutation equals one hundred years theory?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        What happened to the one mutation equals one hundred years theory?
                        STRs? That is only the first level approximation.

                        Various markers have very different mutation rates.

                        W. (Mr.)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dna View Post
                          STRs? That is only the first level approximation.

                          Various markers have very different mutation rates.

                          W. (Mr.)
                          A long time ago I wrote that YSTRs were unreliable for estimating how two men were related and some people are only catching up now. For them the penny has finally dropped.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                            A long time ago I wrote that YSTRs were unreliable for estimating how two men were related and some people are only catching up now. For them the penny has finally dropped.
                            This thread was intended for concrete evidence proving that BigY is more valuable than STR testing. Do you have an example of a group of people matching at the 67 marker level and BigY proving or disproving relationships and/or changing the date the common ancestor lived?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Armando View Post
                              This thread was intended for concrete evidence proving that BigY is more valuable than STR testing. Do you have an example of a group of people matching at the 67 marker level and BigY proving or disproving relationships and/or changing the date the common ancestor lived?
                              Some of the Z156 testers who are close in haplotype do not have the exact same YSNPs. I am all for the BigY and I am taking it as soon as it comes down in price. If I was starting out today to dna test I would take the BigY first.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X