Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1136112809

From: "Chris" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b update 464x test results get really interesting....
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 10:53:29 -0000
References: <001701c60e92$3a439700$0100a8c0@BigMem2>

Dear All,

This question has no doubt been answered in the past and very simplistic for
many of the group. But I must have missed it and am now somewhat confused
regarding DYS 464x. So I'd be grateful if someone would clarify my thoughts.
My understanding on DYS 464x is that:

1) It is now considered to be almost as important as an SNP for those who
are thought to be R1b?

However, I note that people refer to the repetitions such as ccgg!
2) I take it that this has to be separately tested for (as a SNP) and no
connection to the STR repetitions?
3) Thus 464 importance being less based on repetitions such as 15,15,15,16
but on whether for example the markers show a pattern of protein repetitions
such as ccgg?

As yet I've refrained from being SNP tested. Chiefly due to a) cost & b) my
interest in anthrogenealogy is less than that for the use of
geneticgeneaology. It would also appear quite clear from the Y Haplogroup
predictor that I am R1b.

I match with 4 individuals. All with the same surname. Three of whom are
DYS 464 a-d 15,15,15,16; the 4th not tested (via SMGF). Three of us are DYS
390 24 (one 25). All DYS 19 15. All DYS 389/1 13, DYS 389/2 28.

Two of us are: PCA7Y, T84DA
The others haven't put their data on Y search.

Many thanks for your help and a happy new year,

----- Original Message -----
From: "John McEwan" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 5:14 AM
Subject: [DNA] R1b update 464x test results get really interesting....

> Dear all
> I have updated the R1b SNP page at
> The major news is about the 464x test results. A brief summary, the 464
> region is typically repeated 4 times on the Y chromosome although some
> individuals have more or fewer copies. The normal pattern for non R1b
> haplogroups is for each copy to have to have 4 G variants or gggg (G is
> a specific nucleotide base at a specific location) while those within
> R1b are mainly cccg. Just where this event (a combination of a mutation
> and 2 or 3 RecLOH events) occurred is unknown, but one entry P25+ in the
> list has a gggg suggesting it may have happened after P25 and perhaps
> after M269. It is likely that this person has the ancestral state
> because too many mutations and RecLOH events would have had to take
> place otherwise.
> As discussed in an earlier e-mail one R1b1c individual also has either a
> cc or cccc pattern.
> What is extremely interesting is a number of R1b individuals showing up
> with a ccgg pattern. In an earlier e-mail from Thomas Krahn in October
> stated that this event had only been observed in only 1 out of 85 R1b
> individuals examined i.e. it was a rather rare event. However, the page
> now has SEVEN ccgg individuals listed! Five of these are from 1
> distantly related family the Beattie's, one to a Hudson and now one to
> an Eckersley. The Beattie results suggest the variant already provides
> them a good family marker. However, the newer Hudson and the Eckersley
> results differ on 12 markers out of 37 and each differs by 13-15 and
> 8-13 from the Beatties respectively. This begins to hint at some very
> tantalizing possibilities. Perhaps the most extreme but useful
> possibility is that the ccgg form is ancestral to the cccg form. If this
> was the case the variant would be very old and this would be supported
> by the differences observed at other markers. A subsidiary possibility
> is that it occurred later.
> The second issue is location of the known ccgg's. In the 1881 census
> there were 1874 Eckersley's and 1754 of them resided in Lancashire with
> a small smear through Yorkshire and the borders. Perhaps not
> surprisingly, Eckersley 3QQDV lists his origin as Lancashire! There are
> 24,529 Hudson's, but most reside in the Midlands with 8,300 residing in
> Lancashire and Yorkshire west riding. Then we have the
> Beatty/Beattie/Beaty surnames. Most Beaty's reside in
> Cumberland/Lancashire and there are 684 of them. There are 440 Beatty's
> and again Lancashire tops the list. Finally there are the Beattie's with
> 6,416 and they have an interesting spread largely from Aberdeen to
> Lancashire with 3 foci: Aberdeen, Lanarkshire/Dumfries and
> Cumberland/Lancashire. My guess is that a lot of the
> Beattie/Beatty/Beaty surname variants are related but maybe quite
> distantly and perhaps Beattie had several origins or migrated. Even more
> interestingly a Barlow ZW4EC is only 2 mismatches away from Eckersley on
> 39 markers and where does the Barlow name have its highest
> concentration? Of 16,181 in Britain in 1881 7900 came from Lancashire
> and Yorkshire West Riding....
> Note the Beatties inhabit R1bSTR7, Eckersley R1bSTR16 and Hudson maybe
> R1bSTR40. None of these clusters have S21+ tested results but few
> individuals have been sampled to date and no ccgg's. I understand at
> least one ccgg is being tested currently for the R1b SNPs.
> Looking at the ccgg individuals with 37 STRs there is no marker that
> differs consistently from the R1b modal.....
> Of course this could all just be circumstantial and there may be
> multiple origins for the R1b ccgg's and it is just chance that the
> ccgg's found to date appear to come from the Midlands. As a famous beer
> ad says in NZ "Yeah right!" IMHO this marker just got extremely
> interesting. If you are an R1b with a Yorkshire or Lancashire origin or
> a close match with any of the ccgg already discovered this may be just
> the marker for you.
> Cheers
> John McEwan
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:

This thread: