GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266799504


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:45:04 +1300
References: <710313.29722.qm@web25902.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <710313.29722.qm@web25902.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>


Didier,

You said...
>>>>>>>
I also wish that these interesting markers not in standard orders (at FTDNA)
would become incorporated. Extensive testing on many groups has now teached
us that some markers are not as useful as expected (CDY ...). Historically
DYS463 and DYS452 were tested by other companies than FTDNA but the times
are changing and I hope a revised set of standard markers can focus on those
markers really helpful.
<<<<<<<

I wish that FTDNA would tidy up their marker panels, and put all of their
advanced order markers not in the 67 markers into one or two panels which
could be ordered as "standard orders". If there are too many (about 60) for
one panel, they could be put into about 2 panels, one of slow markers, one
of fast markers.

(Perhaps there is a difficulty here in the way primers are used in batches?
Or perhaps FTDNA are going to offer a Y-DNA chip with 200 or 300 or more
STRs on the one chip at a cost less than family finder tests? Genealogical
DNA testing will surely heat up a lot when a company offers to the market a
single chip test with 300+ STRs, including some of the very slow STRs. The
first company to do that will no doubt be the leader of the pack in
Genealogical DNA testing in coming years.)

If these added markers were included in additional standard order panels,
they could be incorporated in FTDNA TiP calculations to increase resolution.
As some of my important off modal slow markers are DYS452 and DYS463 the
significance of those rare matching mutations are not allowed for with TiP.

I have distinctive marker scores at both DYS463 and DYS452, quite rare
together in R1b. For years I have been raving about these markers in
particular, but in very slow markers like them in general. I call the slow
markers "more honest", because they are seldom confused by back or parallel
mutations.

However, of recent times I have been testing more of the very fast markers,
(eg CDYa,b, DYF399x, DYF397 etc) and although the results have been
confusing, and "less honest", I feel that they are some help, particularly
when you can find 2 or more markers to define sub branches of families.

I recently tested fast mutating DYF399x (3 part marker) and DYF397 (4 part
marker) for my Y-DNA clan. So far of 49 total alleles tested, there appears
to be at least 7 distinctive mutations, possibly 2 or more parallel
mutations, and one 2 step mutation. Although I potentially have 10 separate
mutations to work with, I as yet only have 2 sharing one of these mutations,
but it is a case where I strongly suspect they have had parallel mutations.


Although that sounds grim, I am an optimist, and now that I have found these
10 apparent mutations in branches, I am testing the individual branches to
see if I can isolate where particular mutations have or have not occurred in
branches.

As to DYS452=29(10) and DYS463=25(23), this combination which I have is rare
in R1b1b2a1b. I have traced the combination back in my Y-DNA clan to about
1500 with certainty, but it is looking like the combination existed more
than 700 years ago, and possibly even 1500 years ago. The combination of off
modal slow markers has been very stable over that time, and is accompanied
with a couple more off modal very slow markers for the same time periods.
Very "honest" markers. I have also found one off modal very slow marker
which divides my Y-DNA clan perhaps 700 years ago, and that has answered a
lot of questions.

John.



This thread: