March 2004 Letter
regarding: Valentine Coil
Haplogroup Explanation
I
recently wrote to Bennett Greenspan, President of FTDNA and asked him to
explain why the seven participants of the Valentine Coil line showed two
different haplogroup’s (R1b and O2) when the results
were put in the FTDNA database. *I used
kit #11035 as our baseline, since all other kits were compared with this one
from the beginning.
The
Valentine Coil group showed NO match at 12 markers and NO match until the
second mutation stage when compared with haplogroup matches. This struck me as odd. Especially, when our
Irish/Scotch Kyle/Kile participants matched with a
haplogroup within the 12 marker stage.
Below
is a chart Bennett Greenspan sent showing the exact markers of the Valentine
Coil participants and how they compared with haplogroup R1b. Also, I have included his explanation and my
questions.
My specific questions:
Pam: Does
Kit #11035 have an odd set of markers for determining his haplogroup?
Bennett: Just slightly out of norm.
Pam: What
haplogroup does Kit #11035 belong to?
Bennett: Clearly R1b
Kit |
SNP |
Name |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
Coil |
13 |
24 |
15 |
10 |
11 |
16 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
12 |
29 |
17 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
11 |
23 |
15 |
19 |
31 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
FTDNA Client |
13 |
24 |
14 |
10 |
11 |
16 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
13 |
30 |
17 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
11 |
25 |
15 |
19 |
30 |
15 |
16 |
16 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
R1b |
|
12 |
24 |
15 |
10 |
11 |
16 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
13 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O3 |
|
13 |
24 |
15 |
10 |
12 |
16 |
11 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
12 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1b |
|
13 |
24 |
14 |
10 |
11 |
15 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
13 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1b |
|
13 |
24 |
15 |
10 |
11 |
14 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
13 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
data above is pulled directly from our database. You will note that I
have added Kit #11035 for comparison, along with an FTDNA client, plus the
nearest 4 SNP tested folks to your 11035 (and his gang of 6 others!) You
will see that they are quite close, but the defining marker here is DYS
426. As a 12 it almost always present in R and Q Haplogroups, and as an
11 in O, and several other groups. (12's at 426 are definitely 'R' guys!)
To
the computer which only compares 'points' of difference you received an
ambiguous result, but with a little knowledge of what groups typically look
like, it's very apparent that this group is R1b.
Generally our
system has matches of exact or 1 step off...the further out you go the weaker
the prediction. We are working to fill in those holes.
Best
Regards,
Bennett Greenspan
President
Family Tree DNA
www.FamilyTreeDNA.com
27 April 2004 Correspondence Regarding
Kits 16931 and 15787
Dear Bennett Greenspan,
President of FTDNA
We are currently waiting for
DNA results to be completed for the 25Y DNA test for the men listed
below. Their 12 marker results have been posted. We are seeing a
match at 11/12 with these two men.
1 |
16931 |
Kyle |
- |
13 |
24 |
14 |
10 |
11 |
14 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
29 |
2 |
15787 |
Kile |
|
13 |
24 |
14 |
10 |
11 |
14 |
12 |
12 |
14 |
13 |
13 |
29 |
Do you
recommend upgrading to the 37 marker test if the results remain consistent at
24/25?
Since we do not have the
remaining markers yet for the 25 marker test, this may be a premature
opinion. However, we need to know what direction we need to go in for
these men. One man has his progenitor established in SC in the 1780 era, the other man's progenitor is established in KY, late
1790's. Since there is a gap in the genealogical records and no
indications from either line to suggest a relation, we do not know if these men
are related or not.
If they upgrade to the 37
marker test and their results remain consistent, with only one mutation, what
is the estimated generation for the MRCA at 36/37? We need to know how to
advise these men. Would the 37 marker test narrow down the generations
they are most likely related in?
Thank you for your help!
27 April 2004 RESPONSE
from Bennett Greenspan:
Howdy
One
of the problems with having 'common' DNA is that you tend to match quite a lot of
people...because Europe was settled recently and by a very homogeneous group of
people. That make analysis difficult with just 12 markers (not so for my
Eastern European or even Scandinavian customers) and therefore the 25 marker
info will certainly tell us if these two men
likely share a common male ancestor. If they continue to diverge (like
21/25) then I highly doubt that they do, if they continue to track together
(24/25) then the odds are greatly increased because the markers that they
differ is among 2 markers that are the most volatile in the first 12 markers.
What
I'll do is to compare #16931 to our entry database when the extra markers come
in. If the closest person to 16391 is # 15787 then they likely DO share a
common male ancestor. If they are 21/25 then no way.
If
you then think that a 37 marker test is necessary you can do that. If
they did match 36/37 the range of WHEN they shared a common ancestor would be
for 2-39 generations, and the 50% line is at somewhere between 6-12 generations.
Bennett
President
Family Tree DNA
www.FamilyTreeDNA.com
|
||||
|
Email Group |
Research listing |
3-12-09 |
|
|