GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-07 > 1310437173


From: vernade didier <>
Subject: [DNA] Re : Re : Underexplored Y Tree possibilities
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 03:19:33 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <1310436547.78717.YahooMailClassic@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>


> 23andME type of testing was supposed
> to be the solution because of a relatively low cost for a
> large number of SNP tests.
> Unfortunately the last version (v3) was dispointing as it
> didn't try to include all new L series SNPs. I really hope
> that in the near future the Z series SNP (from the 1000
> genomes project) will be included.

Correction : L628 (not L638)
Here is a copy and paste of Thomas Krahn's announce :
"I've named the new SNP L628 and it is ancestral in all other R-P312 or R-L21 samples that have been tested. L628 is at position ChrY:5335014 and is a C to G mutation."


>
> I am adding to this answer a personal case : Thomas Krahn
> just mentioned to me a new SNP found in my WTY results ;
> L638 is born. The question with all these new SNPs will also
> be : who can test for these ?
>
> Didier
>
>
> Ken wrote :
> > I want to mention some y tree
> > possibilities for modification which are
> underexplored
> > because of the high expense versus low chance of
> payoff
> > situation.
> >
> > In y haplogroup I there are a number of key branch
> line
> > segments in the tree which have large number of
> presently
> > phylogenetically equivalent snps on them.  The
> extreme
> > case of this is our I1 snps; I believe there are at
> present
> > in excess of 30, maybe even approaching 40,
> phylogenetically
> > equivalent snps for haplogroup I1.
> >
> > Only an extremely small number of dna samples, if any,
> have
> > tested for all their presently phylogenetically
> equivalent
> > snps in the tree because of the large expense to do so
> and
> > small chance of learning anything new.  In the
> > economics-free world a very large fraction of our
> thousands
> > of folks who have done the snp testing would have
> done
> > exhaustive testing, and this may have led to breaking
> the
> > upstream phylogenetic equivalence of some of these
> > snps.  Many of these snps, however, are not even
> > offered for customer order.
> >
> > Some phylogenetic equivalences we see in the tree
> today
> > will remain so indefinately into the future no matter
> how
> > thorough the testing --- they are an intrinsic
> property of
> > the full y tree of mankind today.  Other such
> present
> > equivalences would be broken by saturation testing.
> >
> > In practical terms I don’t know what can be done
> about
> > this situation, but I thought I’d mention it in case
> it
> > springs ideas from others.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ken


This thread: