GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-02 > 1139100007


From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup N1 versus A2 versus D3
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:40:54 -0800
References: <43E5440A.5040800@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <43E5440A.5040800@comcast.net>


Thank you Bonnie!
Al

PS: By the way, I just copied the title of the article at the bottom of
your post and I pasted it onto google and hit search and there up near
the top of the list was a pointer to the article. I downloaded it. It
was free. There is also the supplementary data (".doc" file).


> Bonnie Schrack wrote:

>
> Al wrote:
>
>> That is interesting about haplogroup A. No subclades? Is that what
>> you meant? Wow! I didn't even pay attention to that. There must be
>> subcldes though, because my aunt and cousins and grandmother had
>> various other mtDNA mutations that were not accounted for ...
>
>
> Well, I don't think that's what Ian meant, really.
> Here are some data I just happened to run across from a very nice
> source, Tanaka (2004)*, on Japanese mtDNA, which has a very detailed
> phylogenetic tree that includes A1a, A1a1a, A1b1, A1c, A2, A2a, A3,
> A4, and A5.
>
> This paper no doubt has a different definition of A2 than wherever
> George found his definition of it.
>
>> I have read in several journals that there are haplogroups A2-A5. For
>> example, refer to "The Emerging Limbs and Twigs of the East Asian
>> mtDNA Tree" here:
>> http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/10/1737
>>
>> It is my understanding that A2 is characterized by 16111T, 16223T,
>> 16290T, 16319A, 16362C, 16390A, all of which I have and which is why
>> I have been saying that I'm probably "A2" instead of saying that I'm
>> probably "A."
>
>
> George, that Kivisild paper you cited is fine, but it's from 2002 and
> doesn't include any haplogroup A sequences. I see that A is included
> in its phylogenetic tree diagram, but without any labeled clades. So
> you must have found your definition of A2 somewhere else.
>
> None of the Asian sequences have the 16111 mutation, which as Ana
> pointed out is found only in American haplogroup A people, except for
> the Chukchi, who are thought to have migrated back across the Bering
> Strait (they still live just west of it).
>
> Ian wrote:
>
>> It is interesting to note that in respect of Haplogroup A the 8
>> mutations:
>> A235G A663G A1736G T4248C A4824G C8794T C16290T G16319A
>> all appear at the same point. So, for the present, no sequence has
>> been found that splits up Haplogroup A, over perhaps 15,000 years. We
>> have only got the single Haplogroup - everyone else appears to have
>> died out.
>
>
> What Ian means is that all the subclades of A that I've mentioned
> above, share all 8 of those mutations, which set them all apart from
> the next most closely related haplogroup, which according to Tanaka
> seems to be N9. The variation among the A clades has all occured
> after those 8 mutations took place. He's saying that it looks as if
> any lineages which had some of these mutations, but not all of them,
> have disappeared. It might have taken perhaps 15,000 years for that
> many mutations to occur one by one, and if so, it's surprising that no
> other lineages have survived that have only a few of those mutations.
> So then, I think, Ian speculates that perhaps many of these mutations
> happened all at once, instead of over such a long period of time.
>
>> if one mutation can arise then so can 8 of them !
>
>
> I don't know about what Ian said about cancer; there is plenty of
> scientific literature about what causes mitochondrial mutations.
>
> Bonnie
>
> * Mitochondrial Genome Variation in Eastern Asia and the Peopling of
> Japan
> Genome Res. Tanaka et al. 14: 1832
>
> **

This thread: