Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-12 > 1197769506

From: David Faux <>
Subject: [DNA] R1b1c in Relation to the New Underhill and Kivisild Paper
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:45:06 -0800 (PST)

Actually, the thrilling (to me, anyway) implication of Figure 7 is that if enough people take this kind of test that ADDITIONAL
phylogenetic resolution may be revealed.

Underhill and Kivisild criticize the team that undertook the analysis behind Figure 7 for having tested a very limited group of chromosomes (just 33, I think). When the number of tested chromosomes increases, the redundancy of the SNPs will diminish. The question is to what extent.

Vince and Ken:

The way that I read Figure 7 is that every single M269-R1b1c will have the same redundant set of 27 upstream SNPs. What is not known is whether for example those who are R1b1* might be further resolved into subclades.

As to the haplogroup I1a example, yes, there does not seem to be any order to things with M253 tacked in the middle of the list and the person assigned to I1 only. There is huge potential here for further definition and assignment to I1a subgroups with "new" SNPs. What they term I1b1 also looks promising.

With R1a1 it makes me wonder whether all 13 SNPs apply to each and every person who has the M17 deletion. However, supposedly if you are M17 from anywhere you must have all of the upstream SNPs - and that seems to be what is depicted in this chart. There are very few R1a* individuals (but more in the Indian SubContinent) so I very much doubt that this listing is going to provide anything more other than a list of redundant SNPs, although, just thinking out loud, I guess it is possible that some of the rs#s represent subclades (the chart is confusing - at least to me) since there is only one person who is tested.

David K. Faux.

This thread: