GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-12 > 1104297049


From: "ljcrain" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] 385a,b Upheaval in R1b (WAS: Can 385a,b = 14,15 be 15/14?)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:10:49 -0600
References: <LPBBIOAAMGMFKIJPLJBCMEJIDKAA.dclwilson@earthlink.net>


> In R1a (the old Hg 3), modal values for 385a,b are 11,14.
> In R1b (the old Hg 1), modal values for 385a,b are 14,11.


I don't understand this. My husband and about 5 other CRAIN's have 11, 14.
And they were all predicted R1b. I cut and pasted the following from the
chart. Should someone get a SNP test?

5 385a 11
6 385b 14

Janet Crain







----- Original Message -----
From: "David Wilson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:27 PM
Subject: RE: [DNA] 385a,b Upheaval in R1b (WAS: Can 385a,b = 14,15 be
15/14?)


> I agree with Ken's earlier post that this 385a,b distinction has a
definite
> "wow" factor. I thank Ann for calling the Kittler paper to our attention.
>
> I read the Kittler paper, and leaving out the part about testing and
> dismissing hypotheses that didn't go anywhere, it boils down to this:
>
> In R1a (the old Hg 3), modal values for 385a,b are 11,14.
> In R1b (the old Hg 1), modal values for 385a,b are 14,11.
>
> The haplogroup labels could probably be reversed if used consistently. I'm
> just following Kittler's lead since he's the guy who made the finding. I
am
> already comfortable thinking the sequence "14,11" or (with obvious
> exceptions for identical pairs) "big, little" for 385a,b in R1b
haplotypes.
>
> This difference is huge both statistically and metaphorically. It makes a
> more obvious distinction between R1a and R1b than we have previously been
> able to see at a glance.
>
> Unfortunately, I think this is going to be an unusable extension of
> knowledge for the thousands of people whose values at 385a,b were
determined
> without the benefit of the isolating primers that Kittler and his
colleagues
> developed. We may be able to look at boatloads of R1b haplotypes in the
> literature and guess that values like 11,14 or 11,13 (to be parochial for
a
> moment) are really 14,11 and 13,11 -- but without the refined analysis we
> will never know. Is the Arizona lab going to adopt these new primers and
> redo thousands of samples? I can't believe that's in the cards, though I
and
> others like me might be willing to spend $10 or $20 more just to have the
> question resolved in particular cases. But if not everyone wants the
> refinement (or even hears that it is available), how would one present the
> new data alongside unamended data in, say, a Ysearch table? What is the
> implication for other haplotypes like the various subclades of I that Ken
> has been so determined and productive in sorting out?
>
> Very interesting development. In my own mind, the R1b 385a,b columns in my
> Wilson Surname Project table are going to flash yellow or orange when I
look
> at them. I am going to have to decide if I want to put some kind of
explicit
> comment on the web page as well. I don't want to confuse project members
who
> may already be uneasy about DNA data in general, but I sure don't want to
> leave an interesting and potentially relevant piece of the picture
> undisclosed.
>
> Does this trigger new thoughts for anyone about when R1a and R1b may each
> have separated from the larger R haplogroup?
>
> Is it possible that other polymorphic loci like YCAii and CDY are also
> subject to ordering reversal? I think we all know that the 464 variants
are
> presented in arithmetic order, not distinguished by position. I wonder if
it
> might ever be possible to isolate each variant in its own locus.
>
> I almost titled this post "The R1b/385 Catastrophe" since catastrophe in
> Greek means "overturning." But a deep breath and a moment's reflection led
> me away from temptation.
>
> David Wilson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug McDonald [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:04 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Can 385a,b = 14,15 be 15/14?
>
> <<snip>>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 12/28/04
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 12/28/04
>


This thread: