GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-06 > 1087193497


From: Mike Humphrey <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup Triage
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1e0.230926a2.2dfe394a@aol.com>


I think Ann hit the bullseye. I'm interested equally in my family
genealogy & human population studies/history, & I hope the $1000
genome appears in the near future & provides for good correlation
of genealogical surname eras with recent human history.

Meanwhile, my SNP money remains in my pocket. :-) I'm fortunate enough
to have some 12/12 matches with some folks who've been SNP tested.

Mike ...
=====================================================


--- wrote:
> In a message dated 06/13/04 12:53:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> > As Patrick said, it is now possible to parse R1b3 (most of Northern
> > European R1b) into a to g.
>
> True enough, but people might read more into this statement than is
> warranted. First of all, the R1b3 notation is a 2003 revision of the 2002 Y Chromosome
> Consortium tree. The outline levels have changed. A new SNP M269 united
> several small branches, which used to be in the R1b1 to R1b8 section. The a to g
> notation now applies to R1b3, but they are the same SNPs that were known several
> years ago, and they apply to only a very small fraction of the R1b3
> haplogroup. From memory, Dennis Garvey once calculated that 90% or more of what we now
> call R1b3 could be tested for subhaplogroups R1b3a, b, c, d, e, f, and g and
> they would get negative results. When haplogroups get down to that level, the
> STR results will be more likely to overlap, so they will not provide much
> guidance as to which marker to test first, either. In other words, most people will
> be R1b3*, where the * means not otherwise classified, even after paying for a
> bunch of SNP tests.
>
> I know my verbal description of the haplgroup levels leaves something to be
> desired; it's much clearer if you look at the diagrams:
>
> 2002 tree:
> http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/nomenclature_system/frontpage.html
>
> 2003 tree in Jobling's "Y chromosome comes of age":
> http://www.le.ac.uk/genetics/maj4/JoblingTS.03.NRG.Review.pdf
>
> My own prediction is that development of the haplogroup tree may simmer along
> with a few discoveries, finding some SNPs which apply to some reasonable
> percentage of the population and therefore date back more than a few hundred
> years. But the real explosion will come with the advent of the "$1000 genome,"
> if/when it becomes practical to actually sequence longer stretches of the Y
> chromosome. Then we'll be able to pick up SNPs that are rare (because they have
> appeared within the last few hundred years), and they'll apply to lineages we can
> correlate better with genealogy.
>
> I know there are a few people who are intensely interested in haplogroups
> (and are very vocal about it <g>), but if I were doing due diligence for a
> venture capitalist, I wouldn't recommend investing in SNP tests at this stage of the
> game. The genealogical market is far larger than the "historical" market (for
> lack of a better word), and it is well-served by the STR tests.
>
> Ann Turner - GENEALOGY-DNA List Administrator
> Search or Browse the archives, Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/DNA/GENEALOGY-DNA.html
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>


=====
Mike Humphrey - FTDNA Humphrey Surname Project Admin
HPC Computer Consultant - http://humphreygenealogy.com
Trombonist

This thread: