View Full Version : New subclades at the very top of the U106 tree

Wing Genealogist
11-25-2017, 06:43 PM
Michael Sager, who maintains FTDNA's haplotree has been monitoring the Big Y update process. He contacted the R-U106 admins about a SNP he had discovered (BY30097) during this update process. This SNP is located in the centromere area of the Y-chromosome, which is noted for having a lot of repeating patterns, and it is oftentimes very difficult to separate out the different segments.

Due to the additional clarity the new Build brought, the Big Y test has been able to separate the specific area where BY30097 is located from other similar regions. Even so, this SNP is only called sporadically in the new Big Y test results. Sager had to go in and visually inspect the BAM files in order to verify this SNP was indeed real.

He took several Big Y samples from every currently known subclade and examined them to see which ones were BY30097+ and which ones were BY30097-. He discovered that the A2150 & S19582 clades were negative (ancestral) for this SNP, but all the rest of the U106 subclades (BY11501, FGC396, S18632, S12025, FGC3861, Z18, & Z381) are positive (derived) for BY30097.

Another SNP within the centromere region is Z2265. This SNP was found in the old Big Y results, and like BY30097, it was only found sporadically. The U106 spreadsheet our project maintains documents where Z2265 is showing up in almost 30% of the Big Y results with the old Build (it is possible this percentage may increase with the update to the new Build). Sager also analyzed Z2265 and compared it with every currently known subclade of U106. He discovered where A2150 is negative/ancestral for this SNP and every other clade (including S19582 & BY30097) was positive/derived.

From this research, the very top of the tree has these new SNP/clades. This results in the often-seen instance of a clade having one really big subclade and one much smaller subclade. In this case, the smaller subclades are really small, each currently having only a handful of known individuals.

So the top of the tree goes like this:

U106 then breaks down into two subclades
A2150 & Z2265

Then Z2265 also breaks down into the following
S19589, BY30097, & a group of SNPs found in a Taylor family from VA/PA. (In addition, it is believed the RISE 98 specimen was Z2265+ [one call] but BY30097- [called under the old Build, so somewhat uncertain])

Finally BY30097 currently splinters into several haplogroups
BY11501, FGC396, S18632, S12025, FGC3861, Z18 & Z381, and other tiny clades currently limited to a single surname.

The A2150 clade has always been noted as "different" as it had the ancestral STR value of DYS392=12. All other U106 subclades have as a modal value DYS392=13. Since Z2265 includes all of the 392=13 clades but excludes the 392=12 clade, it is clear this STR mutation happened roughly around the same time as the Z2265 mutation itself.

The BY30097 SNP/clade includes all of the Z2265 clades except for S19589. We had no indication (from the STR results) about S19589 breaking off from all of the other clades so early, but with FTDNA planning on releasing STR results for roughly 300-400 new STRs from the Big Y results, we may be able to discover a STR change which occurred roughly when the BY30097 occurred.

So what does this mean to folks who are U106+? For the most part it really doesn't make any differences for most folks. It does not change the age analysis Iain McDonald was working on (because these SNPs fall outside of the defined SNP range he utilizes). What it does do is provide us with some indication of the very earliest splits in the U106 tree.

PLEASE NOTE: Just because these clades split off from the main group at the very top of the tree does NOT mean they are the oldest subclades. Rather, what happened was one descendant of the original U106 man had the Z2265 mutation (but other U106 males without this mutation were still alive). By the luck of the draw, Mr. Z2265 was VERY prolific with his male descendants but all of the other U106+/Z2265- males were unlucky and they only have a very tiny number of male line descendants who survive until today (and all of these currently known descendants have the A2150 mutation). Many generations later, one of the U106+/Z2265- men had the A2150 clade (which is identified by multiple SNPs, indicating many generations occurred before the common ancestor of all of the currently known A2150+ individuals was born) By chance, all of the other U106 lines died out (or have not yet been discovered) with the exception of Z2265 & A2150.

The same thing happened with BY30097. He was the son of someone who was Z2265+ but BY30097-. At the time of his birth there were other Z2265+ males alive. Mr. BY30097 was VERY prolific with his male descendants, but all the other Z2265 lines died out (or are still undiscovered) with the exception of a tiny line which has the S19589 mutation (as well as a second line currently limited to one surname). And similarly, many generations after BY30097 formed, a Z2265+/BY30097- male had the S19589 clade (which is also identified by multiple SNPs). By chance, all the other Z2265 lines died out (or have not yet been discovered) with the exception of BY30097, S19589 & a line currently limited to one surname, a Taylor family from Virginia or Pennsylvania.

Iain's graph at:http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/tree.html does a good job in showing the relative ages of the various clades. From it you will see where A2150 & S19589 are much younger than both Z381 & Z18 (the two largest subclades of BY30097). In addition, this age analysis shows
R-U106 3012 BC (3689 BC 2456 BC)
R-Z381 2953 BC (3578 BC 2422 BC)

We now know there were two clades (Z2265 & BY30097) between U106 & Z381. With this tight time-frame, it certainly is possible there were only three generations between U106 & Z381 and we have discovered one SNP mutation for each generation. OTOH (On the other hand) it is probably more likely there were more than three generations between the clades. These clades do not factor in the age analysis, but their existence proves at least three generations separate the founding of U106 from the founding of Z381.

12-07-2017, 12:19 PM
Wow! Pretty big news for us S19589+ people.

12-09-2017, 12:46 PM
Has the possibility of a further shared snp below z2265 between S19589 and RISE98 been completely ruled out? As they share the z2265 snp but not by30097.

12-09-2017, 12:53 PM
By 30097+ must be 99% of U106.

06-15-2018, 01:04 AM
I am likely to be A2150+ and am currently awaiting test results to confirm. I understand it may not be possible to know this but, does anybody have an idea of how A2150 came to the British Isles?

Wing Genealogist
06-15-2018, 10:25 AM
I am likely to be A2150+ and am currently awaiting test results to confirm. I understand it may not be possible to know this but, does anybody have an idea of how A2150 came to the British Isles?

While A2150 is quite rare, it is a subclade directly below U106 so it is more than a couple thousand years old. We currently have no way of knowing whether it participated in one or more of the major migrations to the British Isles (pre-Roman, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman). It is also possible it moved to the Isles in a small/isolated migration not connected to any of these major migrations.

06-15-2018, 11:48 PM
Thanks for the answer Wing Genealogist!

I guess a different way to state it would be that A2150's small size and old age are not in any way indicative of the size of the migrations or the time of the migrations in which it could have spread.

I guess I'll be holding out for ancient DNA to clarify things further!