95% of DYS492=13 in R1b=U106 subhaplogroup

General discussions regarding DNA and its uses in genealogy research

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 2:17 pm
If anyone has a 67 marker test and has 13 at the 66 marker, DYS492 =13, they should consider joining the U106 dna project and discussion group. They will get the best advice possible from very capable people on how to proceed with their specific ydna line.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/u106/about

https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/group ... ages/42923
Last edited by dartraighe on Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:07 am
This poster must have gotten out of the wrong side of the bed yesterday morning and wrote this.
"First, FTDNA uses a variety of non-sensical words that have entirely different meanings in general usage than the absurd meanings that FTDNA assigns to them, as follows:

"terminal" of course means end of the line, but at FTDNA it's a meaningless term that can apply to a clade level from several thousand years ago, if that's as far down the branch as you've tested, so far. They really mean "current clade", and you haven't got remotely close to your true terminal SNP, yet. In other words, the way that FTDNA uses this word, it's meaningless, so please stop using a word that FTDNA has robbed of any sensible meaning.

"high" of course means way up there in comparison to the huge amount of stuff in the middle of something, but at FTDNA it means "average" as far as the quality of your Big Y SNPs is concerned. In other words, the way that FTDNA uses this word, it's meaningless, so please stop using a word that FTDNA has robbed of any sensible meaning.

"known" of course means that it's already been discovered, but at FTDNA it means that it was already discovered as of 3 or 4 years ago. Consequently, there are thousands upon thousands of SNPs discovered over the last several years that nevertheless don't qualify as "known", even though a lot of them now nevertheless perversely appear on the FTDNA tree. In other words, the way that FTDNA uses this word, it's meaningless, so please stop using a word that FTDNA has robbed of any sensible meaning.

"novel" of course usually means a work of fiction, or otherwise something un-matched anywhere else, but at FTDNA it's an aggregation of ancestral SNPs way up the line from thousands of years ago, AND any number of inconsistent extremely recurrent mess things not worthy of the term SNP for useful genealogical purposes, AND any number of SNPs located in areas of various weird dimensions that make them individually un-testable, AND a few actually useful SNPs, all congregated together. In other words, the way that FTDNA uses this word, it's meaningless, so please stop using a word that FTDNA has robbed of any sensible meaning. AND, stop using their Big Y reports and use ours instead, because ours is actually useful, AND we don't use dumb words.

Finally there is the difference between "haplogroup" and "subclade". Well, actually there is no difference. But in general usage, the word haplogroup is usually used to mean a significant branch such as U106, whereas subclade is used to mean the clade layers that continue to fall layer by layer below there down the branches. However, FTDNA uses haplogroup to mean subclade all the way down the line. They're not wrong in this instance, but they're also not helpful.

In order to qualify as a subclade, at least two people need to match as having the same SNP below a parent clade that includes at least one person, and preferably two, who don't share the descendant mutation that creates the subclade. Consequently, it creates a new shared layer by those two or more people that differentiates them from the rest of the parent group.

Nearly everyone with FGC or Big Y results also has "singleton" SNPs below the lowest shared subclade level on their branch. This word means that the tester is the only person who has these SNPs, so far, on his line of descent. Since the person is the only one with these SNPs, there is no way to determine their line of descent below the lowest shared subclade on the branch. The word "private" was previously used to mean singleton, but the word private has all sorts of other meanings, some of which have to do with body parts, so thankfully it isn't used much anymore.

The objective then becomes for someone else to come along and match you on one or more of your singletons, thereby creating a new shared subclade on your branch lower than the one above. This of course removes the singleton from your singleton list."

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:57 pm
This is an interesting website.

http://cruwys.blogspot.ie/

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:42 pm
dartraighe wrote:This poster must have gotten out of the wrong side of the bed yesterday morning and wrote this.
"First, FTDNA uses a variety of non-sensical words that have entirely different meanings in general usage than the absurd meanings that FTDNA assigns to them, as follows:

"terminal" of course means end of the line, but at FTDNA it's a meaningless term that can apply to a clade level from several thousand years ago, if that's as far down the branch as you've tested, so far. They really mean "current clade", and you haven't got remotely close to your true terminal SNP, yet. In other words, the way that FTDNA uses this word, it's meaningless, so please stop using a word that FTDNA has robbed of any sensible meaning.

"high" of course means way up there in comparison to the huge amount of stuff in the middle of something, but at FTDNA it means "average" as far as the quality of your Big Y SNPs is concerned. In other words, the way that FTDNA uses this word, it's meaningless, so please stop using a word that FTDNA has robbed of any sensible meaning.

"known" of course means that it's already been discovered, but at FTDNA it means that it was already discovered as of 3 or 4 years ago. Consequently, there are thousands upon thousands of SNPs discovered over the last several years that nevertheless don't qualify as "known", even though a lot of them now nevertheless perversely appear on the FTDNA tree. In other words, the way that FTDNA uses this word, it's meaningless, so please stop using a word that FTDNA has robbed of any sensible meaning.

"novel" of course usually means a work of fiction, or otherwise something un-matched anywhere else, but at FTDNA it's an aggregation of ancestral SNPs way up the line from thousands of years ago, AND any number of inconsistent extremely recurrent mess things not worthy of the term SNP for useful genealogical purposes, AND any number of SNPs located in areas of various weird dimensions that make them individually un-testable, AND a few actually useful SNPs, all congregated together. In other words, the way that FTDNA uses this word, it's meaningless, so please stop using a word that FTDNA has robbed of any sensible meaning. AND, stop using their Big Y reports and use ours instead, because ours is actually useful, AND we don't use dumb words.

Finally there is the difference between "haplogroup" and "subclade". Well, actually there is no difference. But in general usage, the word haplogroup is usually used to mean a significant branch such as U106, whereas subclade is used to mean the clade layers that continue to fall layer by layer below there down the branches. However, FTDNA uses haplogroup to mean subclade all the way down the line. They're not wrong in this instance, but they're also not helpful.

In order to qualify as a subclade, at least two people need to match as having the same SNP below a parent clade that includes at least one person, and preferably two, who don't share the descendant mutation that creates the subclade. Consequently, it creates a new shared layer by those two or more people that differentiates them from the rest of the parent group.

Nearly everyone with FGC or Big Y results also has "singleton" SNPs below the lowest shared subclade level on their branch. This word means that the tester is the only person who has these SNPs, so far, on his line of descent. Since the person is the only one with these SNPs, there is no way to determine their line of descent below the lowest shared subclade on the branch. The word "private" was previously used to mean singleton, but the word private has all sorts of other meanings, some of which have to do with body parts, so thankfully it isn't used much anymore.

The objective then becomes for someone else to come along and match you on one or more of your singletons, thereby creating a new shared subclade on your branch lower than the one above. This of course removes the singleton from your singleton list."



When some posters refer to private SNPs they mean those that belong to the same surname going back 20 or more generations, and not the 30-40 singletons that testers have after their NGS test.

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:00 am
>Why does the FGC 8590 testers with most singletons have Scottish names. Does that suggest that the Scottish have the most FGC 8590 diversity?

The number of singletons has nothing to do with it. That's like saying "I have thirteen apples - which apple tree did they come from?" What matters is how and when they link together.

I said that FGC8590 is nominally distributed among the British Isles and eastern Europe. When we look at any clade, we need to think about the biases in our data. The BigY testers aren't that representative of the FGC8590 population at large. Of the British Isles population, the Scottish and Irish families have tested deeply, while the English families have not. So the BigY tests are biased against the English.

As a whole, we know we are biased towards the British Isles populations and away from other parts of Europe. Estimating this bias isn't easy, but at my last count there was one person testing for every 40,000 of the Scottish population, one for every 300,000 of the Scandinavian population, one per 1,250,000 for central Europe, and one per 6,000,000 for eastern Europe. That implies a bias of about 150 Scottish testers for every eastern European tester we should find. The real bias is probably less than this, because it includes people outside these countries who can trace their ancestry back to those countries. However, it shows that we still don't have a good enough sample of people to use the branching of clades and their diversity as the sole basis for ascribing an origin.

In general, having the greatest diversity within a clade is not necessarily a good indicator of origin. In the case of FGC8590, there is a large, recently formed group of Lithuanians (A689) that skew the diversity towards close relations, while the more numerous Scottish lines probably have high diversity because we have so many Scottish diaspora who test. So diversity alone isn't a good measure of anything. That is what led to the erroneous ideas of R-M269 arising in Doggerland.

Instead, one has to follow the tree structure, taking into account not only the diversity and frequency of clades as a percentage of the unbiased population, but also the diversity and frequency of clades with respect to their parent clades and child clades. This is not an exact science. Nevertheless, it is clear that we do not have enough information solely from the next-generation sequencing testers (BigY or FGC) to tell much except the tree structure from these tests alone. We need the data from the STR testers too.

Dr Iain Mc Donald

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:03 am
dartraighe wrote:>Why does the FGC 8590 testers with most singletons have Scottish names. Does that suggest that the Scottish have the most FGC 8590 diversity?

The number of singletons has nothing to do with it. That's like saying "I have thirteen apples - which apple tree did they come from?" What matters is how and when they link together.

I said that FGC8590 is nominally distributed among the British Isles and eastern Europe. When we look at any clade, we need to think about the biases in our data. The BigY testers aren't that representative of the FGC8590 population at large. Of the British Isles population, the Scottish and Irish families have tested deeply, while the English families have not. So the BigY tests are biased against the English.

As a whole, we know we are biased towards the British Isles populations and away from other parts of Europe. Estimating this bias isn't easy, but at my last count there was one person testing for every 40,000 of the Scottish population, one for every 300,000 of the Scandinavian population, one per 1,250,000 for central Europe, and one per 6,000,000 for eastern Europe. That implies a bias of about 150 Scottish testers for every eastern European tester we should find. The real bias is probably less than this, because it includes people outside these countries who can trace their ancestry back to those countries. However, it shows that we still don't have a good enough sample of people to use the branching of clades and their diversity as the sole basis for ascribing an origin.

In general, having the greatest diversity within a clade is not necessarily a good indicator of origin. In the case of FGC8590, there is a large, recently formed group of Lithuanians (A689) that skew the diversity towards close relations, while the more numerous Scottish lines probably have high diversity because we have so many Scottish diaspora who test. So diversity alone isn't a good measure of anything. That is what led to the erroneous ideas of R-M269 arising in Doggerland.

Instead, one has to follow the tree structure, taking into account not only the diversity and frequency of clades as a percentage of the unbiased population, but also the diversity and frequency of clades with respect to their parent clades and child clades. This is not an exact science. Nevertheless, it is clear that we do not have enough information solely from the next-generation sequencing testers (BigY or FGC) to tell much except the tree structure from these tests alone. We need the data from the STR testers too.

Dr Iain Mc Donald



"The apple does not fall far from the tree" We know the testers with these singletons ancestors are from the Isles with Scottish names. That is important and a lot of time has passed since they had a common ancestor.

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:07 pm
Below are the estimated dates for some of the major branches within U106 which were established during the west European Bronze-Age. Estimated dates by Dr. Iain McDonald.
Z381 3075 BC
Z156 2980 BC
S5520 2756 BC
Z305 2683 BC
DF98 2511 BC
S1911 2075 BC
DF96 1941 BC
FGC8363 1796 BC
Z301 2877 BC
FGC20667 2450 BC
FGC13959 2524 BC
L48 2677 BC
FGC13737 2054 BC
L47 2369 BC
Z159 1937 BC
Z9 2396 BC
Z30 2256 BC
S9342 2020 BC
Z7 2053 BC

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:17 am
A post by Wayne @U106 group.
"The FGC Elite provides more variants from the larger coverage. This means one can obtain an average of about one variant every 53-60 years. This makes Elites or WGS results more practical in working on genealogical time frame issues. Do note that with either Big Y or Elite results you may need to use additional complete tests to work with some of the identified variants that are relevant to your research since they cannot be tested for using Sanger technology (YSEQ)"

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:18 pm
Dr Iain McDonald on U106 today.

"I've dated the origin of U106 to between 3867 BC and 2558 BC, and most likely close to the middle of that range. We see a virtual absence of haplogroup R in Europe before 3500 BC, and a proliferation of both R1a and R1b from 2800 BC onwards. We have few burials to identify what's going on in the intervening period, but the archaeologically big ones affecting central Europe are obviously the Corded Ware culture and Bell Beaker cultures.

In the early part of this period, we see the R-Z2013 branch of R-M269 present in the Eurasian steppe, and there is a growing wealth of evidence that the Yamnaya homeland represents the origin of both the Indo-European cultures and their R-M269 carriers into the Europe.

The timing of this is unclear. There was a mass movement from east to west, but it consisted of both R1a and R1b. The early Corded Ware burials we have are all R1a. This may be a population effect or it may indicate that R1b didn't participate in this early advance. The earlier R1a burials concentrate further north in modern Russia than the R1b Yamnaya burials. My money is on both R1a and R1b-M269 participating in the Corded Ware migration, but perhaps starting from mostly different origins - a little bit like the American land grab started from multiple European countries. This would fit in with the latter part of the probability range. But it's not the only interpretation.

Similarly, we see those same R-Z2013 branches in south-eastern Europe, following Kurgan Wave III into the Danube valley and beyond, but not generally in north-western Europe. There's the possibility, raised by I forget whom on this forum last year, that the R1b-M269 arrival comes from this migration, and later the Globular Amphorae culture that cut up through Germany to the western Baltic. This would fit in with the earlier part of the probability range, so I don't think it can be ruled out.

That would place the origin of L11 somewhere in the Corded Ware / Globular Amphorae regions. From the earliest burials, this seems likely to have been in or near modern Germany. It's where the northern distribution of L48+Z18 and the southern distribution of Z156+U198 have the greatest overlap. My suspicion is that it was probably somewhere within a couple of hundred miles of Hamburg. Last I checked, U106's brother clade, DF100, seems to have a similar distribution. P312 would be the weirdo, having spread and diversified further very rapidly, and now no longer having a distribution indicative of its origin.

I see a geographic split at some point in the early part of U106, corresponding to the aforementioned L48+Z18 and Z156+U198 groups. I suspect the former group went into the Nordic Bronze Age, while the latter group was carried off into the Rhine valley Bell Beaker groups. I suspect what we're seeing here is cultural appropriation: it starts off as being a "native" European culture, then gets appropriated by sections of the Corded Ware culture (the Bell Beaker burials are mostly P312) and then gets adopted by Z156 and U198. These two clades seem to join the party too late to carry it off into the more southern parts of Europe, and end up sticking in the Rhine valley. The geographic split seems quite clear, but the inaccuracy in the dates makes it hard to pin things down more definitely.

For the future, I'm not sure I expect many early U106 burials. The tree structures of U106 and P312 indicate that U106 started out as a fairly minor clade which grew slowly, while P312 blossomed and diversified very quickly, then settled down into a more stable population. I'm going to try to compute actual numbers for this in the coming weeks, if I can.

Take this all with a pinch of salt. Anyone who's been around this game for a year or more will see how the interpretations change as more data comes in. A lot of this origins business isn't very "good" science: it's speculation and interpretation. So expect the above to change, and my opinions with it."

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:28 pm
Dr Iain McDonald;
"S5520 a bit of a funny haplogroup, for a number of reasons. One of the things that makes it odd is that it has had a lot of family-level testing (McMullen, Linville) which makes you look like you're left high and dry. The reality is that these are well-tested groups, partly because a lot of money and effort has been invested in them (nod to Lyn-David) and partly because they are recent expansions. If you go back 1500 years, chances are that S5520 was about the same size as FGC39801, and we only have six BigY testers there.

That said you do find yourself dangling on a 3500-year-long thread by yourself. Don't despair: until I got my closest BigY match last month (thanks to the support of the forum!), I was in the same situation.

As for origins, S5520 is also a difficult beast, partly because we have to remove the biases created by these recent family expansions, as well as the usual biases in our testing. There's a big Scots-Irish group, but also a big (possibly bigger) continental group in the S5556>"13 19-24 11" cluster. The latter has attracted the attention of the Hungarian DNA project, and we hope to work with them to explore this clade further to determine its size, age, geographical extent and origins.

The migrations that formed these groups seem to be pre-Norman. It's unclear by how much. The over-riding ethnicity of Z156 seems to be pre-Celtic, and we see implications of Celtic ancestry throughout the Z156 tree. The direct evidence in S5520 is scarce, but I would guess it probably has a pre-Celtic origin itself. If one goes through the S5520+ project members and tries to mentally construct a tree, picking out uniquely Insular and uniquely Continental clusters, the meeting points of those clusters should converge at some date prior to the migration. A quick judgement on this suggests between 2300 BC and 1500 BC as the earliest migration date. Based on this, my guess - and it is only that - is that S5520 flourished in the Rhine valley during the late third millennium BC, following which it spread over parts of Europe in at least two distinct waves, possibly starting as early as the second millennium BC, and possibly finishing as late as the early Medieval period. I don't think there's enough evidence yet to be more precise."
Next

Return to General DNA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests