GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-11 > 1101222398
From: "Terry Barton" <>
Subject: FW: [DNA] Getting up to speed
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:06:38 -0500
I addressed this directly to Rolla without realizing it and not knowing that
Ann's answer would be there when I went back to my in-box. As there is info
of general interest, I am resending it to the whole list. Terry
From: Terry Barton [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:46 AM
To: Rolla Queen
Subject: RE: [DNA] Getting up to speed
Rolla, I am impressed with 27 participants in 3 months. The list would
probably like to hear how you did that - I know I would.
My cut at answers to your questions:
1. The first 12 are more historic than significant. The early work was done
2. FTDNA's new calculator gives weight to their assessed mutation rate for
each marker, while others say that the average rate is more important, as
any marker can mutate at any time. I am also R1b and my 13 on 388 occurs
only 3% of the time, according to Whit. As long as the calculator gives you
a clear reading, don't worry. If you had a 100, you'd be a "Super Western
Atlantic Modal Haplotype"
3. As I have puzzled this out, originally 6 of the first 12 markers were
called the Atlantic Modal Haplotype. Later, FTDNA came up with the "Western
Atlantic Modal Haplotype" moniker to go with a particular result on their
first 12 markers. When Whit sifted the data, he used the most common result
for each of the 37 markers in FTDNA's test to come up with the "Super
Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype" His work can be accessed from the World
Families Network Y-Haplogroup reference page:
As I have been intrigued with this concept, I compared our Barton Lineage I
to the "SWAMH" and showed our variations from it in purple (see link below).
The results in red are shared mutations that identify a branch within our
Lineage I, while the mutations shown in yellow have no relevance (yet) As
background, all of these men were first tested at Relative Genetics for 26
markers. There were few mutations, and many families with no paper
connections, but with pedigrees stretching into the 1600s. We hand picked a
group of about 1/3 of our men and tested them for FTDNA's 37 markers. We
found some useful mutations, especially the one that gives us a key branch
at CDYb. We have also upgraded some of these men with RG's 43, a part which
is still underway.
4. We have a pair who are 10/12 to each other, also 23/25 and 35/37 - in
fact, they are 46/48. Once we complete our upgrades to RG43, we expect to
have several of these combinations. However, our approach is to compare
each man to the Lineage I haplotype instead of to each other, so I don't
talk about this within our project.
The big problem is when you only have 12 markers and only a few results.
You then have no choice but to compare to each other. If your results are
R1b, accept the fact that 12 markers isn't enough for you and immediately
upgrade to at least 25 markers, as you'll always wonder at 12. We had one
man who is 10/12 to about 30 other men in Lineage I. He was also 23/26 and
we thought he was "related" (since surnames). When tested to 42 markers
(RG26 + FTDNA37), he is only 32/42 to Lineage I.
If you haven't browsed the site at World Families network, you may find some
useful info there: http://worldfamilies.net/
I'll be happy to have your or any other reader's suggestions for additions
or improvements to the WFN site (privately please)
From: Rolla Queen [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:50 AM
Subject: [DNA] Getting up to speed
I am new to the list, and may be in over my head for the time being, so
humor me. I have
a few basic questions, and so far most of the online documents that try to
explain stuff get way too complicated way too fast. We just started a
YDNA test at FTDNA about 3 months ago and have about 27 participants so far.
I have been trying to decipher and absorb as much as I can to help the other
members of our group understand what we are seeing in the results.
1) Is there some significance to the selection and order of the 3 groups of
markers in the FTDNA test? To rephrase, why are the first twelve markers
chosen first? Are they more stable over time, slower mutation rates, etc.?
Why not start with the second group of markers?
2) If the first 12 markers are special and better at showing group
the population level, what significance should I read into a rare marker #12
(7%) for DYS392. When I enter this number into the Whit Athey predictor, it
dramatically drops the probability of membership in Haplogroup R1b from
about 95% to 72% for my results.
3) Is there a set of DYS markers and alleles that form the Atlantic and
Western Atlantic Modal Haplotypes? Is this a subset of the 12 marker panel,
or a specific marker sequence in the 12 marker panel? I am still trying to
understand the significance of these groups and membership in these groups.
According to FTDNA, one of our members is likely in the Western Atlantic
Modal Haplotype. In what way is this different from the Atlantic Modal
4) I seem to see a lot of debate so far on the relative value of mis-matches
in the 12 marker panel versus the remaining markers in the 25 and 37 marker
panels. It seems to me that if there is a relatively constant rate of
mutation in the model, stated as .002 or 1 mutation for every 500
transmission events, then why would a mutation in the 12 marker panel be
weighed or rated more heavily in early screening than any other marker in
the overall scheme of things? Is it not possible to have a 2 marker mismatch
at the 12 marker level, and end up with a 35/37 match at the 37 marker
level? Or does this go against some fundamental assumption or givens about
the markers being chosen?
I hope these questions are not too simplistic - so if I need to go back to
woodshed for more learnin' so I can ask better questions, please point me to
the right door.
|FW: [DNA] Getting up to speed by "Terry Barton" <>|