Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sub-Clade Testing

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

  • Sub-Clade Testing

    While I THINK I might understand Sub-Clade testing (emerging SNP's) and its application regarding more closely pinpointing geographic origins - I am curious if the testing might work for another purpose.

    Regarding yDNA testing and within the J2m172+ haplogroup are 16 perfect STR matches. Further, one of the identical matches can irrefutably link (historical records and DNA confirmation) to the early 1600's. As that individual's gene pool has been isolated since the early 1600's, his 1600 sire CANNOT be the common sire for the other 15. This is a peerage line, so at least there is a valid record of linear descendancy, albeit not a genetic record. In other words, the sire predecessors of this 1600 sire are also known.

    My question is the value of sub-clade testing as a means of sorting through these 16 perfect matches. It would seem to me that there could be a time-line sorting based on who did (and did not) share the same sub-clade with the modern peerage tester.

    In other words, those with a differing sub-clade would indicate a common sire many generations (how many?) prior to this 1600 sire. Conversely, those sub-clades in alignment with the peerage tester would be much more closely related in time (can a time estimate originate from here?).

    This is my thinking, but i am so uninformed regarding the intricacies of all this that I am not sure it has any validity. I would certainly appreciate some feedback.

  • #2
    Originally posted by montg011 View Post
    My question is the value of sub-clade testing as a means of sorting through these 16 perfect matches. It would seem to me that there could be a time-line sorting based on who did (and did not) share the same sub-clade with the modern peerage tester.
    You failed to mention how many markers were in the "Perfect Matches".

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by montg011 View Post
      My question is the value of sub-clade testing as a means of sorting through these 16 perfect matches.
      Your purpose would almost certainly be better served by upgrading to 67 markers, and encouraging your matches to do so as well.

      Comment


      • #4
        Sub-Clade Testing

        The benchmark (known peerage line) was tested to 67 markers.

        I think I have misled you regarding the remaining 15. All of those were tested to 67 markers. Of those, eight were a perfect 67/67 match to the benchmark. The remaining seven were a 66/67 match, a -1.

        In addition, another six tested 65/67, or a -2.

        Of the 67/67 matches, one group of two are known cousins within the last five generations. Another group of three testers are also known cousins withing the last five generations. All the remaining testers (at each level of match) are not aware of a common sire. That extends to a period of time from the early 1700's to the mid 1800's. All but three are many generation Americans. The remaining three are not American.

        Sorting that all out to identify assumed "distinct" lines - we are looking at six at the 67/67 level and seven at the -1 level.

        Comment


        • #5
          Testing for SNPs and subclades that have already been discovered is not going to help you separate lines of the same family. Most subclades are very old -- thousands to tens of thousands of years. Exact 67-marker matches (and 66/67 too) should definitely be in the same subclade.

          The only way that SNP testing could possibly help you is if you did the Walk Through the Y (WTY) project, which is intended to find brand new SNPs that haven't yet been discovered, and you happen to find a SNP in one family line that doesn't exist in other family lines. But right now, I think there's a very slim chance of finding such a SNP. Most SNPs that are discovered via WTY are still quite old. Those that happen to be more recent SNPs typically still end up being the same in all members of the same family (at least from what I've seen).

          A better solution may be to test some of the more fast-moving STR markers that are found in the palindromic region of the Y chromosome. DYF399X is a good one. There are others, but I don't recall each one offhand. FTDNA used to sell them as a package, but they're now all sold a la carte.

          Perhaps someone else recalls which markers used to be in the Palindromic Pack?

          Elise
          Last edited by efgen; 7 April 2012, 10:29 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Elise--

            Your reply makes perfect sense. As I further considered my own question after posting, I actually came to suspect the very high probability that all these matches likely share the same sub-clade.

            Your other information regarding discovery of new SNP's is thought provoking and I will look further into the WTY Projects.

            Your suggestion regarding testing "fast moving STR's" is something unknown to me - at least in a specific sense. No doubt there is more information at the FTDNA site. Are you saying there are certain tested STR markers that might possibly be able to provide a better estimate of when a common sire occurred among this group of tested individuals - more than what the current 67 marker test provides?

            That is interesting.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by montg011 View Post
              Are you saying there are certain tested STR markers that might possibly be able to provide a better estimate of when a common sire occurred among this group of tested individuals - more than what the current 67 marker test provides?
              However, such markers are now sold separately, at a rather high price. Frankly, you might do better to upgrade to 111 markers: 44 additional markers for $129, at a cost of less than $3 per marker. Yes, they are mostly rather slow-moving; but among so many, you should hopefully be able to make some distinctions.

              Comment

              Working...
              X