GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1193348728


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Hg H2a1 FGS Match
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:45:28 -0600
References: <8C9E5627B9CCB2C-91C-68AA@FWM-M39.sysops.aol.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Hg H2a1 FGS Match


> >Wow,? they really stretch (backward in time) the meaning of "private
>>mutations" in the mtDNA domain.? Ken?
>
> ----
>
> To tell you the truth, I think the genetic
> genealogists are going to be writing the next
> official Mitomap phylogenetic tree, not the
> scientists because we are getting way ahead
> of the researchers, especially when dealing
> with the H2 tree.
> .
> So what is labeled "private" today is probably
> going to be public tomorrow. I am happy to see
> that some interesting new SNPs are being discovered
> that will be valuable to us in the future. I am sure Ann
> Turner is only using the term private, because no one
> else has published these SNPs yet.
> .
> As Bennett says, a FGS mtDNA match is equivalent to a
> 37 marker match on the Y-DNA. But we don't really
> know yet if it will break down a lot of brick walls
> in genealogy. I just find it exciting from the
> discovery stand point. Hopefully, we can get
> enough clusters on the European map to show the
> geographic origins and the migration patterns.
> .
> Building the H2 tree, one person at a time.
> Kathy J.

Do we really know that an FGS is equivalent to a 37 marker ydna match? Why?
I'd consider a 37 marker ydna exact match something like an exponentially
decreasing probability for MRCA with time depth of 5 generations. I don't
think my FGS exact match has a similar interpretation. But my question of a
few days ago for the average mutation rate over the 16,000 or so mutational
sites in the mtDNA was put out there so I could assess what my FGS exact
match might mean? No one was willing to throw out an average mutation rate?
If no one has such a rate, how can they make estimates of the times back to
the mtDNA haplogroup founders that appear in many papers? This time
estimate depends directly on the assumed average mutation rate.


There is something funny about calling any mtdna mutation beyond the
defining ones for a haplogroup as "private". We certainly would not do that
with ydna STRs or SNPs. We would think further sub-haplogroup or clades,
especially if we found other near matches or matches. My FGS has a bunch of
mutations beyond the definition of U5b (although different people still
define U5b differently), but within a couple days of receiving my FGS I
found there was already an exact match out there. So I'd think
sub-haplogroup, not private mutations.

Ken


This thread: