PDA

View Full Version : Big Y results for N-P189.2 show 326 novel variants



lgmayka
03-06-2014, 12:27 AM
Big Y results for an N-P189.2 man arrived last Thursday. He has 326 novel variants. Can anyone beat that? :)

Note, though, that a second N-P189.2 man also ordered the Big Y. His results have not yet arrived. He will presumably share at least some "novel variants" with the first man.

lgmayka
06-09-2014, 10:45 AM
I have posted this in another thread, but this subforum and thread is the more appropriate place.

Two men in the N-P189.2 clade have received Big Y results. Although the BAM files have not yet been evaluated by YFull, Chris Morley ran the VCF/BED files through his program. He found that, not counting SNPs at the level of N or above, and not counting "unresolved" SNPs:
- They share 153 SNPs distinctive to their clade, almost all not previously named
- They average 69 (64 vs. 74) private SNPs, almost all not previously named.

If we apply Michał's rule-of-thumb for VCF results (180 years per SNP), the two men in this exclusively European clade
- Diverged from the rest of N about 40,000 years ago
- Diverged from each other about 12,400 years ago.

Please note that N-P189.2 tests negative for Page56, but positive for M231. FTDNA's new haplotree shows this correctly, apparently because they used one or more N-P189.2 examples from Geno 2.0. (In my own project, at least one N-P189.2 transferred Geno results; and the All Stories page of Genographic lists two Croatian N-M231 which are almost certainly N-P189.2.)

RCO
06-09-2014, 11:34 PM
That can be an Eastern Asian Y DNA N probably brought to Eastern Europe via the Huns ? Let's wait if more cases of that same lineage can be found in places from Eastern Central Asia and China.

lgmayka
07-21-2014, 08:07 PM
One member of N-P189.2 has had his Big Y results analyzed by YFull. YFull found the following "private" SNPs (i.e., not shared by anyone in YFull's database):

94 best-quality
70 acceptable-quality
23 ambiguous
2 low-quality

If we use Michał's rule of thumb for YFull results (150 years per best/acceptable SNP), this yields an estimate of 24,600 years since the P189.2 clade branched off from the rest of N.

The number of SNPs found by FTDNA but rejected by YFull is very large. This man's Big Y Matches page lists 272 Shared Novel Variants (shared with the other Big Y N-P189.2, who has not yet submitted his BAM file to YFull).

Note that these results are very new--YFull's official haplotree does not yet reflect this.

cmorley
07-22-2014, 12:22 AM
Is the 94+70 figure for SNPs alone, or for SNPs and INDELs?

How many of the 94+70 "private" markers found by YFull were not found by my gratis analyses (with half-week turnaround)? Will you allow me to name all of the ones I found in at the start of April?

Note that my algorithm does not presuppose unreliability because of a mutation's position; it uses phylogenetic behaviour to judge the suitability of a candidate mutation. If -- as more data is acquired and the entire dataset is algorithmically reassessed -- a mutation turns out to act unreliably, it will end up getting excluded from the analysis.

lgmayka
07-22-2014, 11:22 PM
94+70 is for SNPs alone.

I don't have the list of 164 SNPs myself, so I don't know whether YFull found any that you did not find. I am more surprised by the fact that YFull apparently discarded such a large number.
Big Y Results page in FTDNA account: 371 Novel Variants
Big Y Matches page in FTDNA account: 272 Shared Novel Variants (shared with another N-P189 man)
ClarifYDNA: 155 shared SNPs, and an average of 64 private SNPs
YFull: 164 private SNPs (other N-P189 man has presumably not submitted his BAM file)

It is possible that YFull is exercising "an abundance of caution" because N-P189 is such an academia-shattering discovery. Academics will likely attack both YFull and FTDNA for including N-P189 on their respective published haplotrees. (An academic attacked ISOGG for that reason (http://forwhattheywereweare.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/a-review-of-haplogroup-n-y-dna/) last year.) FTDNA, of course, has much more evidence at its disposal.

Hector
11-12-2014, 04:10 PM
It is possible that YFull is exercising "an abundance of caution" because N-P189 is such an academia-shattering discovery. Academics will likely attack both YFull and FTDNA for including N-P189 on their respective published haplotrees.

It is more likely your wild imagination. A single SNP does very little in terms of inflating the age estimate of divergence. Actually it is more the lack of SNPs(not the presence of a single or multiple SNPs) associated with the other main line that may potentially cause a problem for the East Asian origin of N.(but overall even that is highly unlikely given the abundance of other arguments in support of that theory not to mention other yet to be verified N*s and NO*s in East Asia and the general location of O's)

lgmayka
12-03-2014, 04:12 PM
YFull has released a new haplotree for N (http://yfull.com/tree/N/), now based on 3 Big Y BAM files from N-P189.2 as well as the ancient sample of Hungarian N-Y6503. Here is how the SNP counts stand. I have included a translation into elapsed time, presuming the usual equivalence for Big Y BAM files analyzed by YFull (140-150 years per SNP):

The two Balkan N-P189.2 men diverged 420-450 years ago.
The Balkan men diverged from the Dutch N-P189.2 man 3600-3900 years ago.
N-P189.2 diverged from the ancient Hungarian N-Y6503 sample 8800-9400 years ago.
N-Y6503 diverged from the rest of N (N-Z7462 or N-L735) 23100-24700 years ago.

parasar
12-03-2014, 05:59 PM
YFull has released a new haplotree for N (http://yfull.com/tree/N/), now based on 3 Big Y BAM files from N-P189.2 as well as the ancient sample of Hungarian N-Y6503. Here is how the SNP counts stand. I have included a translation into elapsed time, presuming the usual equivalence for Big Y BAM files analyzed by YFull (140-150 years per SNP):

The two Balkan N-P189.2 men diverged 420-450 years ago.
The Balkan men diverged from the Dutch N-P189.2 man 3600-3900 years ago.
N-P189.2 diverged from the ancient Hungarian N-Y6503 sample 8800-9400 years ago.
N-Y6503 diverged from the rest of N (N-Z7462 or N-L735) 23100-24700 years ago.

So essentially these modern Europeans have a common ancestor going back ~3700 years.
If the 1000bc Hungarian is a migrant from Central Asia, which is not implausible in light of IR1's G2a1 mtDNA, does this not weigh on the side on these modern Europeans also having an eastern origin going back a just a few thousand years?
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20141028

A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830–980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques26.

lgmayka
12-03-2014, 06:40 PM
So essentially these modern Europeans have a common ancestor going back ~3700 years.
If the 1000bc Hungarian is a migrant from Central Asia, which is not implausible in light of IR1's G2a1 mtDNA, does this not weigh on the side on these modern Europeans also having an eastern origin going back a just a few thousand years?
When you write "eastern origin," I assume you mean Central Asia--e.g., autosomally ANE. The TMRCA of 9000 years seems to fit an ANE migration into Eastern Europe.

Your hypothesis that the 2900-year-old Hungarian is a recent migrant from Central Asia has no factual basis (and is in fact contradicted by autosomal DNA results). His yDNA haplogroup N-Y6503 is found only in Europe, and his mtDNA haplogroup G2a is found in Russia (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/g2_genbank_sequences.htm) as well. There may be some confusion between G2a and G2a1. G2a1 is now defined by T14200C (http://phylotree.org/tree/subtree_M.htm), but was formerly defined by a mutation at 16227 (http://www.genebase.com/learning/mtdna-phylogenetic-tree/G). If the authors were using the old definition, they would call it as G2a1 instead of simple G2a (which GenBank shows as Russian).

EDIT: IR1 does have the 14200C mutation (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf).

According to this Wikipedia table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G_%28mtDNA%29#Table_of_Frequencies_of_M tDNA_Haplogroup_G), G2a is commonly found among Kazakhs and Uyghurs, and in Kyrgyzstan, Buryatia, Tibet, Nepal, and Mongolia. It could thus be considered Central Asian or Old East Asian (as opposed to Modern East Asian, the progeny of agricultural expansion).

parasar
12-03-2014, 06:52 PM
When you write "eastern origin," I assume you mean Central Asia--e.g., autosomally ANE. The TMRCA of 9000 years seems to fit an ANE migration into Eastern Europe.

Your hypothesis that the 2900-year-old Hungarian is a recent migrant from Central Asia has no factual basis. His yDNA haplogroup N-Y6503 is found only in Europe, and his mtDNA haplogroup G2a is found in Russia (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/g2_genbank_sequences.htm) as well. There may be some confusion between G2a and G2a1. G2a1 is now defined by T14200C (http://phylotree.org/tree/subtree_M.htm), but was formerly defined by a mutation at 16227 (http://www.genebase.com/learning/mtdna-phylogenetic-tree/G). If the authors were using the old definition, they would call it as G2a1 instead of simple G2a (which GenBank shows as Russian).
IR1:
73G, 152C^, 263G, 489C, 709A, 750G, 1438G, 2706G,
4769G, 4833G, 5108C, 5601T, 7028T, 7600A, 8547C^,
8701G, 8860G, 9377G, 9540C, 9575A, 10398G, 10400T,
10873C, 11719A, 12705T, 13563G, 14200C, 14569A,
14587G^, 14766T, 14783C, 15043A, 15301A, 15326G,
16223T, 16278T, 16362C, 16519C*

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054360

The G2a clade defined by 7600-9377-9575-16227-16278 motif is mainly represented by samples from eastern India and China. Majority of these haplotypes form G2a1 branch defined by a transition at position 14200. The G2a1 subhaplogroup was shown to be a sister clade of Polish and Ukrainian haplotypes that localize on separate branch G2a6, defined by 16227 transition ...

parasar
12-03-2014, 06:56 PM
IR1:
73G, 152C^, 263G, 489C, 709A, 750G, 1438G, 2706G,
4769G, 4833G, 5108C, 5601T, 7028T, 7600A, 8547C^,
8701G, 8860G, 9377G, 9540C, 9575A, 10398G, 10400T,
10873C, 11719A, 12705T, 13563G, 14200C, 14569A,
14587G^, 14766T, 14783C, 15043A, 15301A, 15326G,
16223T, 16278T, 16362C, 16519C*

Supplement:

The youngest sample of our time series, IR1, belongs to haplogroup G, specifically
the sub-clade G2a1. Haplogroup G is typically East Asian 119. G2 is found in northern
China and central Asia, reaching peak frequencies in South Siberian populations 119.
This points clearly to an Asian maternal ancestry of the specimen IR1. The
archaeological context supports this hypothesis; IR1 has been associated with the preScythians,
a culture linked to immigration from the East 120

lgmayka
12-03-2014, 07:25 PM
these modern Europeans also having an eastern origin going back a just a few thousand years?
Precisely which 3700-year-old migration from Central Asia to Eastern Europe are you referring to?

parasar
12-03-2014, 07:56 PM
Precisely which 3700-year-old migration from Central Asia to Eastern Europe are you referring to?

I think IR1 could have been a relatively recent migrant from the steppes or central Asia as the authors suggest. I'm not familiar with that particular Hungarian culture but supposedly it was an iron-age one. The common 3700ybp ancestry may predate the influx.

I was looking at the autosomal break-up and IR1 appears closest to modern Russians, though with a complete absence of the green component that peaks in Neolithic farmers. Had he been living for long in that region, my guess is he would have shown some of that green component.
Supp Fig. 10 http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf

lgmayka
12-03-2014, 10:09 PM
I think IR1 could have been a relatively recent migrant from the steppes or central Asia as the authors suggest. I'm not familiar with that particular Hungarian culture but supposedly it was an iron-age one. The common 3700ybp ancestry may predate the influx.
You apparently assert, without evidence, that:
- IR1 arrived from Central Asia roughly 2900ybp, in a "pre-Scythian" migration unknown to archaeologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Archaeology).
- The MRCA of modern N-P189.2 men, who lived 3700ybp, also arrived from Central Asia, in a different migration also unknown to archaeologists.
- The two migrations happened to come from the same or similar N-Y6503 source populations, with a TMRCA of 9000ybp.
- The two migrations happened to terminate in roughly the same region.
- The original Central Asian N-Y6503 source population(s) survived for over 20,000 years but have now gone extinct.

This set of hypotheses is certainly not the most parsimonious explanation of the known data.

Shaikorth
12-03-2014, 10:38 PM
If this line was somewhere in Europe, the question becomes "where". Another presently very rare Y-haplo (C6) has already been stumbled upon twice in pre-Neolithic DNA. So it definitely had an ancient presence in Europe, but we still need comparable evidence for P189.2. However I do think that even an Iron Age presence might make it clearly older in Central Europe than N1c1. In that case, with help of new sequencing, we see some common types that either involve north germanic carriers or are a product of a quite recent founder effect in balts and then spread even later into neighbouring regions.

parasar
12-04-2014, 01:39 AM
You apparently assert, without evidence, that:
- IR1 arrived from Central Asia roughly 2900ybp, in a "pre-Scythian" migration unknown to archaeologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Archaeology).

That is indeed the contention in the IR1 paper.
They provide these references:
Cunliffe, B. Europe Between the Oceans: 9000 Bc-Ad 1000 Yale University Press (2011).
Kemenczei, T. in Hung. Archaeol. Turn Millenn. (ed. Visy, Z.) 177–179 (Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, Teleki László Foundation, 2003).




- The MRCA of modern N-P189.2 men, who lived 3700ybp, also arrived from Central Asia, in a different migration also unknown to archaeologists.
- The two migrations happened to come from the same or similar N-Y6503 source populations, with a TMRCA of 9000ybp.
- The two migrations happened to terminate in roughly the same region.

I did not posit two migrations just that the common 3700ybp ancestry may predate the influx.



- The original Central Asian N-Y6503 source population(s) survived for over 20,000 years but have now gone extinct.

Absence of N-Y6503 in Central Asia and the Asiatic steppes would indeed weaken the migration theory from those regions. But we have seen lines go extinct in locations they were previously present in.

Generalissimo
12-04-2014, 05:09 AM
You apparently assert, without evidence, that:
- IR1 arrived from Central Asia roughly 2900ybp, in a "pre-Scythian" migration unknown to archaeologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Archaeology).
- The MRCA of modern N-P189.2 men, who lived 3700ybp, also arrived from Central Asia, in a different migration also unknown to archaeologists.
- The two migrations happened to come from the same or similar N-Y6503 source populations, with a TMRCA of 9000ybp.
- The two migrations happened to terminate in roughly the same region.
- The original Central Asian N-Y6503 source population(s) survived for over 20,000 years but have now gone extinct.

This set of hypotheses is certainly not the most parsimonious explanation of the known data.

IR1's archeological context is the Mezocsat culture, generally thought to be of Cimmerian origin.

Cimmerians are thought to have come from the Kuban Steppe, near the Volga and North Caucasus, and Central Asia before that. IR1's genetic structure backs this up, even though he's clearly mixed, and in large part of local Carpathian Basin origin.

Here's an archeological paper that might be useful...

Contacts between the nomadic world and the societies from central Europe in Ist millennium BC (https://www.academia.edu/6176834/The_contacts_between_the_nomadic_world_and_the_soc ieties_from_central_Europe_in_Ist_millennium_BC)

Megalophias
12-04-2014, 07:24 AM
Absence of N-Y6503 in Central Asia and the Asiatic steppes would indeed weaken the migration theory from those regions. But we have seen lines go extinct in locations they were previously present in.
Do we know that N-Y6503 is absent from these regions? Has anyone ever surveyed them for this SNP?

lgmayka
12-04-2014, 09:24 AM
I did not posit two migrations just that the common 3700ybp ancestry may predate the influx.
The TMRCA of the living N-P189.2 men and the 2900-year-old N-Y6503 is roughly 9000 years.

lgmayka
12-04-2014, 09:30 AM
Do we know that N-Y6503 is absent from these regions? Has anyone ever surveyed them for this SNP?
We know that no member of N outside Europe has ever tested negative for Page56, whereas N-Y6503 is indeed ancestral at that location.

lgmayka
12-04-2014, 09:53 AM
Cimmerians are thought to have come from the Kuban Steppe, near the Volga and North Caucasus, and Central Asia before that.
The general belief is that Cimmerians were (more likely) Iranian or (less likely) Thracian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians#Origins). Are you suggesting that Iranian or Thracian speakers came from Central Asia, and if so when?

Wikipedia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians#Origins) presents an alternative view of the Cimmerians' geographic origin:
---
The origin of the Cimmerians is unclear. They are mostly supposed to have been related to either Iranian or Thracian speaking groups, or at least to have been ruled by an Iranian elite.[3][4]

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, of the 5th century BC, the Cimmerians inhabited the region north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea during the 8th and 7th centuries BC, in what is now Ukraine and Russia. The archeologist Renate Rolle and others have argued that no one has demonstrated with archeological evidence the presence of Cimmerians in the southern parts of Russia.[5]

Although the 2006 Encyclopĉdia Britannica reflects Herodotus, stating, "They [the Cimmerians] probably did live in the area north of the Black Sea, but attempts to define their original homeland more precisely by archaeological means, or even to fix the date of their expulsion from their country by the Scythians, have not so far been completely successful",[3] in recent research academic scholars have made use of documents dating to centuries earlier than Herodotus, such as intelligence reports to Sargon, and note that these identify the Cimmerians as living south rather than north of the Black Sea.[6][7]

Scholars in the 19th and 20th centuries had relied upon Herodotus's account, but Sir Henry Layard's discoveries in the royal archives at Nineveh and Calah have enabled the study of new source material that is several centuries earlier than Herodotus's history.[8] The Assyrian archeological record shows that the Cimmerians, and the land of Gamir, were located not far from Urartu, (an Iron Age kingdom centered around Lake Van in the Armenian Highland), south of the Caucasus.[6][7] Military intelligence reports to Sargon in the 8th century BC describe the Cimmerians as occupying territory south of the Black Sea.[9]
---

Generalissimo
12-04-2014, 10:47 AM
The general belief is that Cimmerians were (more likely) Iranian or (less likely) Thracian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians#Origins). Are you suggesting that Iranian or Thracian speakers came from Central Asia, and if so when?

Iranians most likely did come from Central Asia, because the Sintashta chariot complex and Andronovo are seen as proto-Iranian, and they were located east of the Urals in Central Asia. So if Cimmerians were Iranians, then they did at some point come from Central Asia, much like the Scythians after them, who were also probably Iranians.

In any case, it's very difficult to ignore that IR1 is very eastern compared to all of the earlier ancient European genomes, so it clearly is a genome with steppe influence, and the steppe stretches from Hungary to the Altai, with no natural borders between Europe and Asia in between. So some of IR1's ancestors could have even come from the Altai or South Siberia.

Indeed, this certainly makes sense if we look at the mtDNA of the Cimmerians tested to date, including IR1, because it mostly looks Central Asian or Siberian.

parasar
12-04-2014, 03:10 PM
Do we know that N-Y6503 is absent from these regions? Has anyone ever surveyed them for this SNP?

Not surveyed, so we don't know for sure, but with the paucity of N-M231* the likelihood of finding it is low.

Ebizur
12-04-2014, 09:09 PM
Not surveyed, so we don't know for sure, but with the paucity of N-M231* the likelihood of finding it is low.Is every known case of N-Y6503 negative for LLY22g?

NO-M214(xO-M175, N1c1-Tat, N1c2a-M128, N1c2b-P43) has been found in 33/988 = 3.3% of present-day East Asians (cf. Xue et al. 2006), with 24/988 being LLY22g+ and 9/988 being LLY22g-. Assuming that every N-Y6503 is LLY22g-, only about 1% of present-day East Asians potentially may belong to N-Y6503; however, the percentage of potential N-Y6503 appears to be somewhat higher (approx. 2% to 3%) in Japan.

Megalophias
12-04-2014, 10:06 PM
We know that no member of N outside Europe has ever tested negative for Page56, whereas N-Y6503 is indeed ancestral at that location.
But who has surveyed for Page56? I am sorry to keep hassling you, is this information compiled anywhere? It's impossible to put this into context without sample sizes and distribution.


Not surveyed, so we don't know for sure, but with the paucity of N-M231* the likelihood of finding it is low.
There is, so far as I can tell, about 1% N* in Central Asia/South Siberia. That is not very much, but we are speaking of very rare clades here. AFAIK it is simply impossible to say at present whether or not that N-Y6053 could have a source in Central Asia.

In European Russia (Balanovsky et al (2008) found N in 22% of 1228 men. Only 1 man (0.1%) was N(xN1c2b-M48, N1c1-Tat). I don't know what the breakdown is in other parts of Europe, but generally N of any sort is no more than a few percent, and usually under 1%, in Europe outside of Scandinavia and the northeast.

N*(xN1c2a-M128, N1c2b-P43, N1c1-Tat) is 5% in Tibet (Qi et al 2013); 2% in Altaians (Dulik et al 2012).

The most comprehensive survey of Central Asia I could find was the Cristofaro et al 2013 study of Aghanistan. N* here = N(xN1c2b-M48, N1c1-Tat). Iran - 1/186 N*; no other N. Tajiks - 2/142 N* - also 2 N-P43 and 1 N-Tat. Dungan - 1/12 N* (Chinese Muslim origin) - no other N. Kyrgyz - 5/132 N* - also 1 N-P43. 0/160 Mongols.

lgmayka
12-05-2014, 01:12 AM
Is every known case of N-Y6503 negative for LLY22g?
LLY22g is now known to be unreliable and therefore useless for phylogenetic purposes. Ignore it.


NO-M214(xO-M175, N1c1-Tat, N1c2a-M128, N1c2b-P43) has been found in 33/988 = 3.3% of present-day East Asians (cf. Xue et al. 2006), with 24/988 being LLY22g+ and 9/988 being LLY22g-. Assuming that every N-Y6503 is LLY22g-, only about 1% of present-day East Asians potentially may belong to N-Y6503; however, the percentage of potential N-Y6503 appears to be somewhat higher (approx. 2% to 3%) in Japan.
All known full-Y Asian N examples are Page56+ , whereas N-Y6503 is Page56- . Please consult YFull's haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/N/), which includes such examples. Even before the Big Y was available, I had proved the phylogenetic position of N-P189.2 via individual testing of the Page56 SNP.

lgmayka
12-05-2014, 01:22 AM
But who has surveyed for Page56?
All full-Y Asian N examples are Page56+ . Again, consult YFull's haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/N/).


AFAIK it is simply impossible to say at present whether or not that N-Y6053 could have a source in Central Asia.
All we can say is that so far, we have found zero examples of N-Y6503 (or any other Page56-negative N) outside of Europe.


In European Russia (Balanovsky et al (2008) found N in 22% of 1228 men. Only 1 man (0.1%) was N(xN1c2b-M48, N1c1-Tat). I don't know what the breakdown is in other parts of Europe, but generally N of any sort is no more than a few percent, and usually under 1%, in Europe outside of Scandinavia and the northeast.
Although found in various places across Europe, N-P189.2 is somewhat common only in the former Yugoslav republics. When YHRD was fully functional, N-P189.2 haplotypes would show up easily in that region.

Megalophias
12-05-2014, 06:53 AM
All full-Y Asian N examples are Page56+ . Again, consult YFull's haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/N/).
Hopefully the next survey of East Asia will get around to actually testing for the new SNPs.


All we can say is that so far, we have found zero examples of N-Y6503 (or any other Page56-negative N) outside of Europe.
How many have been tested? That is what I cannot find. The Y-Full tree only lists a few cases; some Chinese from Beijing, a couple of Vietnamese, a few Russians (but that is very vague); no one from Central Asia. It is impossible to assess the significance of the result without the sample sizes.


Although found in various places across Europe, N-P189.2 is somewhat common only in the former Yugoslav republics. When YHRD was fully functional, N-P189.2 haplotypes would show up easily in that region.
Thanks! Very interesting. Would it be possible to estimate the frequency?

lgmayka
12-05-2014, 11:03 AM
Would it be possible to estimate the frequency?
With haplotypes, even short ones, I could easily. Dienekes here summarizes a research paper on Serb yDNA (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02/serbian-y-chromosomes.html). The diagram shows that 2 out of 104 Serbs belonged to N-M231. I would dare to predict that the majority of Serb N is N-P189.2.