PDA

View Full Version : The L51 SNP Block - Revisited in 2018



Earl Davis
07-19-2018, 01:58 PM
I am trying to understand the current 2018 thinking of the composition of the L51 block in terms of the equivalent mutations that comprise that block.

The table below lists my understanding of the possible known mutations in the block together with their synonyms and if they are included on the FTDNA tree, the ISOGG tree and the Yfull tree as L51 equivalents.

24732

If you click on the table it will display bigger.

So the three different trees show a total of 6 mutations in this block between them. Of the 6 mutations the FTDNA tree lists 4, the ISOGG tree lists 2 and the YFull tree lists 5. The only mutation all three sites list is L51 itself. FTDNA and Yfull agree on PF6414, PF655 and Y410.

ISOGG includes CTS8595 but the other two do not.
Yfull include FGC39 but the other two do not.

None of the three sites seem to report only any more complex findings like the ZZ series that Alex Williamson looks for in the P312 descendant part of the tree. I don't know if it's just a case that no one has been searching for these more complex mutations within the L51 but or if they have looked and there are simply none there. Also I don't know if any fairly stable indells have been found in the block.

Finally I would have expected that the newer chromium long read technology would have found more mutations in this block and others like it in the earlier subclades of R1b but I have not seen any reports on any such mutations named and placed as yet.

Does anyone have any insights or updates into newer findings in the block or agree / disagree with any of the findings I listed in the table above.


Earl.

R.Rocca
07-19-2018, 02:45 PM
I am trying to understand the current 2018 thinking of the composition of the L51 block in terms of the equivalent mutations that comprise that block.

The table below lists my understanding of the possible known mutations in the block together with their synonyms and if they are included on the FTDNA tree, the ISOGG tree and the Yfull tree as L51 equivalents.

24732

If you click on the table it will display bigger.

So the three different trees show a total of 6 mutations in this block between them. Of the 6 mutations the FTDNA tree lists 4, the ISOGG tree lists 2 and the YFull tree lists 5. The only mutation all three sites list is L51 itself. FTDNA and Yfull agree on PF6414, PF655 and Y410.

ISOGG includes CTS8595 but the other two do not.
Yfull include FGC39 but the other two do not.

None of the three sites seem to report only any more complex findings like the ZZ series that Alex Williamson looks for in the P312 descendant part of the tree. I don't know if it's just a case that no one has been searching for these more complex mutations within the L51 but or if they have looked and there are simply none there. Also I don't know if any fairly stable indells have been found in the block.

Finally I would have expected that the newer chromium long read technology would have found more mutations in this block and others like it in the earlier subclades of R1b but I have not seen any reports on any such mutations named and placed as yet.

Does anyone have any insights or updates into newer findings in the block or agree / disagree with any of the findings I listed in the table above.


Earl.

As I reported previously, Y410 is a train wreck and appears in many other haplogroups. For the purpose of tree building, it is junk.

See here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160096&viewfull=1#post160096

Earl Davis
07-19-2018, 04:40 PM
As I reported previously, Y410 is a train wreck and appears in many other haplogroups. For the purpose of tree building, it is junk.

See here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160096&viewfull=1#post160096


Thank you that is very helpful although a shame it turned out that way.

Cofgene
07-20-2018, 11:21 AM
As I reported previously, Y410 is a train wreck and appears in many other haplogroups. For the purpose of tree building, it is junk.

See here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160096&viewfull=1#post160096

And the appearances are separated by how many years? Number of appearances is NOT the issue. That is an accounting issue and the community is lazy on keeping track of these things. The issue is whether it QUICKLY flips between two close haplogroup levels on the same branch. How fast does it revert back?

R.Rocca
07-20-2018, 12:32 PM
And the appearances are separated by how many years? Number of appearances is NOT the issue. That is an accounting issue and the community is lazy on keeping track of these things. The issue is whether it QUICKLY flips between two close haplogroup levels on the same branch. How fast does it revert back?

If I recall correctly, it appears in just about every single R1b group and just about every non-R1b haplogroup, so it has nothing to do with laziness. It has to do with the SNPs worthlessness.

razyn
07-20-2018, 01:41 PM
I went through the same song and dance with the irrelevant SNP L484, several years ago. And I argued eloquently for its usefulness "in my branch," since the first 8 or so people who shared my numerous off-modal STR alleles were all testing positive for L484, and it looked stable for several centuries to any possible MRCA. Then about the 9th such guy turned out negative for it -- weakening my argument -- while we were finding L484+ in other branches of DF27, not to mention in haplogroups other than R1b. So, I recanted. Belief in L484 was heretical, and the orthodox position turned out to be right. (Not that it always does.)

For me, the most convincing argument about the "flippy snippy" category (a term used by David Reynolds, and whatever became of him?) has being the ability to search a group (say, the DF27 group) at YFull for a position on the Y chromosome, and see the GATCs light up -- in glorious technicolor, breathtaking Cinemascope, and stereophonic sound. If the results display as a nearly uninterrupted column of one color (green, if everybody in the selected group, plus the reference sequence, has an A at that locus) -- but one guy has a G there, and unlike everybody else on the planet, his sample displays orange -- then that guy really has a mutation, and it really identifies his new subclade. A flippy snippy toggles back and forth, randomly, between two colors. Other unstable loci may vary among several colors; they are even more useless for drawing the phylogenetic tree.

Earl Davis
07-21-2018, 12:44 PM
One of the things that strikes me is the apparent lack of reported new discoveries in blocks like this during the last few years. I think all 6 of the mutations in the table in post 1 were known by the time BigY launched way back in 2013. I think YElite2 is supposed to 'find' 50% or snips than BigY and the Chromium Long Read test about 100% more so I would have thought we would know of a lot more finds especially in the last couple of years.


Earl.

rms2
07-21-2018, 09:02 PM
Maybe those five (I'm not counting Y410) are it and there wasn't much of a bottleneck at L51.