PDA

View Full Version : SNP-based TMRCAs for R1b-U106 and subclades



Michał
04-17-2014, 06:40 PM
I was asked to repost here my SNP-based estimates for R1b-U106 that I have originally announced in the R1b-U106 Yahoo group (as these estimates were produced using the Big Y results of the R1b-U106 FTDNA project members).

Taking opportunity of having an access to such a large sample of nicely analyzed Big Y results, I've used those Big Y data (from the recent Big Y 120 spreadsheet) to make some provisional SNP-based TMRCA estimates for selected subclades of R1b-U106. Based on my previous experience with doing similar calculations for R1a and other haplogroups (including some R1b clades upstream of R1b-U106), I've decided to use the mutation rate 0.66 x 10^-9 per bp per year, which should give us approximately 150 years per each BigY-tested mutation when the so-called "gold standard" region of about 10 Mb is considered. Although the sequenced region is actually slightly larger (11-13 Mb), it seems that the percentage of "reliable" mutations reported for some sequences located outside of the "gold standard" region is below 5% on average, so I didn't modify my calculations to take this into account.

The average number of reliable BigY-tested mutations downstream of U106 seems to be 39.6, which corresponds to 5940 years (when using the above-mentioned assumption). Since this number of downstream mutations may of course differ in particular sublineages, I've tried to base my calculations not only on an average number of mutations downstream of a given branching node but also on a number of mutations separating this particular node from U106. It is worth noting that this method gives reliable results only if a relatively large number of independent (!) downstream lineages is available. In all other cases, there is a huge risk of significant over- or under-estimation.

Below please find some of my results. As rightly pointed out by Raymond, you need to keep in mind that each such estimate has a relatively large margin of error, so don't take those estimates too seriously. :)

U106 - 5940 ybp
Z381 - 5796 ybp
Z156 - 5628 ybp
DF98 - 4868 ybp
DF96 - 4412 ybp
L1 - 3416 ybp
L48 - 5663 ybp
L47 - 5084 ybp
Z160 - 4652 ybp
Z9 - 5134 ybp
Z30 - 5085 ybp
Z2 - 4943 ybp
Z7 - 4758 ybp
Z334 - 4814 ybp
Z326 - 3442 ybp
CTS2509 - 2887 ybp
Z5054 - 1802 ybp

Since the number of mutations downstream of U106 in all sublineages of clade Z18 is significantly lower than in most remaining subclades of U106, I am reluctant to provide any relatively secure estimates for Z18 or Z372. We can of course imagine that such lower number of SNPs is likely to result from some natural random fluctuations that may potentially lead to a decreased (or increased) mutation rates in certain lineages. In this particular case, we can safely assume that such "local fluctuation" took place at some early stage, or close to the root of Z18 (so it significantly affected all descending sublineages). On the other hand, we cannot rule out that some other subclades (like L48, and more specifically D9) show an opposite phenomenon (i.e. an increased number of mutations due to some "random fluctuations"), and since those "overestimated" subclades are the most frequent ones, this may also lead to some bias when the average number of mutations downstream of U106 is calculated. One way to overcome this is to calculate the "overall average" by giving the same weight to all major subclades (irrespective of their frequency). Indeed, such average number of mutations would be slightly lower (closer to 38 instead of approaching 40), which would place the most recent common ancestor of all U106 members at about 5700 ybp (or 3700 BC), while the TMRCA values for all descending subclades would also be affected accordingly.

Here are some links to my previous SNP-based estimates that were posted on the Anthrogenica and Molgen forums:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting/page9&p=26002#post26002
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?t=1300&p=20293

Michał
04-17-2014, 06:44 PM
And here is another Yahoo post of mine that seems to be relevant to the above subject.
------------------
Although I am well aware that my SNP-based estimates are not consistent with most of the previously known STR-based estimates for different subclades of R1b, there are at least two important factors that seem to speak strongly in favor of the method I am currently using to calculate the TMRCA values.

Firstly, it is important to note that this particular SNP-based method has already been positively verified after having been confronted with the fully sequenced "Mal'ta boy" remains, securely dated (using the radiocarbon method) to 24 ky BP. This finding strongly confirmed my previous SNP-based calculation suggesting that the R1a and R1b lineages have been separated about 27 years ago (or roughly between 25 and 30 kya), while it has been commonly believed that R1 is much younger. Please see the discussion held on the Anthrogenica forum:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1507-Some-provisional-calculations-for-haplogroup-R1a-based-on-the-first-FGC-result/page4&p=20838#post20838

Secondly, when assuming that R1b-U106 (or at least its sister clade R1b-P312 that is definitely of about the same age) has significantly contributed to a sudden expansion of the so-called Bell Beaker people who have quickly spread over the entire Western half of the European continent between about 4900 and 4400 years ago, it seems practically impossible that P312 and U106 are only 3500 years old. Actually, it seems also impossible that any of these two major clades of European R1b descend from their single most recent ancestors who lived only 4500 years ago, as it is hard to imagine that the expanding Bell Beaker population was not large enough to have left more than two (or more than four when counting L11* and L51*) surviving sublineages, significantly predating the explosion of the Bell-Beaker culture.

Let's compare it with the demographic (and territorial or "military") expansion of some historically attested populations that were supposed to be strongly associated with some very specific Y-DNA subclades. One good example is the sudden territorial expansion (that was accompanied by some kind of a demographic explosion) of the Early Slavic (or Proto-Slavic) population, which apparently took place between 500 and 700 AD. Importantly, both the STR-based and SNP-based calculations indicate that all evidently "Slavic" subclades (like R1a-L1029, R1a-L260, I2a-Din and some specific "Slavic" subclades of R1a-Z280) that show a very characteristic internal structure that perfectly reflects such a sudden expansion can be traced back to their corresponding MRCAs living between 2000 and 3000 (or approximately 2500) years ago, which predates the very moment of their historically attested expansion by about 1000 years.

Another good example is the well known territorial expansion of the Norse Vikings who are believed to be responsible for the spread of some very specific subclades of R1a-Z284, namely the so-called Young Scandinavian clade L448 (or mostly its major subclade CTS4179) and four major subclades of the so-called Old Scandinavian clade Z287 (CTS2277, Z281, YP390 and YP401). Importantly, the internal structure of all these subclades shows relatively sudden split into many descending lineages, yet each of those five clades shows the TMRCA value of at least 2000-2500 years (thus predating the historically attested Norse Viking expansion by about 1000 years), while their parental clade Z284 (clearly associated with the Scandinavian ancestry) is even much older (more than 5000 years old).

All above makes perfect sense when one realizes that any ancient territorial expansion needed to be based on some earlier population growth that produced enough people(or enough lineages) to allow for such expansion to take place. Consequently, I am pretty confident that both R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 are at least 5500 years old, while the 5500-6500 time frame for their MRCAs is a very reasonable guess, especially when finding some substantial support for it in the SNP-based dating.

Assuming that my SNP-based estimates for R1b-U106 are more or less correct, the crucial question is why most of the STR-based calculations fail to give equally high TMRCA values. This is even more surprising when realizing that there is no such apparent discrepancy when comparing the STR-based and SNP-based estimates for different subclades of R1a. I can think of at least two factors that could potentially contribute to such hypothetical R1b-specific (or maybe only L11-specific) phenomenon.

One possible explanation is an exceptionally high level of homoplasy that is rarely seen in other haplogroups. Whether this is intrinsically related to some characteristic features of the R1b-L11 haplotypes (like for example a specific combination of some STR results that are more likely to oscillate around some "fixed" values), is hard to say without undertaking some advanced studies in this particular direction.

The other possibility that comes to my mind is related to some specific features of the demographic history of Western Europe. More specifically, I am wondering whether the almost uninterrupted growth of nearly all Western and Central-Western European populations since the Bronze Age till the modern times could have resulted in a kind of relatively slow and gradual "development" of the R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 trees, so they, for example, do not show any dramatic bottleneck effects that are so frequently seen among many major European subclades of R1a. Importantly, I am not talking here about any extremely peaceful long term growth of all Western European subpopulations, as assuming such an Utopian scenario would be totally unrealistic. Instead, I would rather like to point out that there are not many cases of any apparent population replacements in any part of Western Europe (within a discussed period), while Central-Eastern Europe seems to have undergone such significant population replacements on at least several occasions. In other words, there are some apparent differences when the entire structure of R1b-L11 is compared with the corresponding structure of R1a-Z282. For example, you can hardly find any subclade of R1b-L11 that would show a structure that is seen in R1a-M458, a subclade that is supposed to split off from the remaining subclades of Z282 in about 3500 BC (or about 5500 years ago) and does not show any significant branching until about 4500-4800 ybp when producing two daughter lineages (CTS11962/L1029 and L260) that again do not show any significant splitting during the next 2000 years (!) until these two single lineages suddenly explode about 2500 years ago, so today they show the frequency of about 30% (!) in some West Slavic countries (like Czech Republic or Poland).

It seems obvious that frequent bottleneck effects make the STR-diversification being much more apparent, while the "continuous growth" is less likely to produce any STR-defined clusters. Thus, I guess this may (to some extend) affect at least some STR-based approaches that use the STR diversification as a major sign of an "advanced age".

RCO
04-17-2014, 08:17 PM
Very good, agro-territorial SNPs. I would like to see the European substructure of R1b DF27 because it seems to be the most spreaded and complex in Western Europe and still underresearched. Also in comparison with the IJ haplogroup the R haplogroup substructures are "recent" ramifications, quite homogeneous and relatively simple in Europe.

TigerMW
04-18-2014, 02:36 PM
.... Actually, it seems also impossible that any of these two major clades of European R1b descend from their single most recent ancestors who lived only 4500 years ago, as it is hard to imagine that the expanding Bell Beaker population was not large enough to have left more than two (or more than four when counting L11* and L51*) surviving sublineages, significantly predating the explosion of the Bell-Beaker culture. ...

I'm not saying that L21 was or was not in initial Bell Beaker expansions.

However, I do want to comment on its stucture. There are a few true L21* (DF13- DF63-) folks. The DF63+ group is has several large family groupings but it is not a huge clade.

DF13 is different. DF13 is a huge clade where nearly all of extant L21 sits. It has at least 10 large old subclades and that number is growing as there are a lot of DF13* people out there left. We can not find any SNPs between the block of apparently equivalent SNPs L21, L459, Z245, Z260 and Z290. We can't find an equivalent to DF13 but it has many, many lineages.

I think we will see pretty good diversity at the older reaches of the DF27 tree, but I don't think it could approach DF13's.

Anglecynn
04-18-2014, 05:24 PM
And here is another Yahoo post of mine that seems to be relevant to the above subject.
------------------
Although I am well aware that my SNP-based estimates are not consistent with most of the previously known STR-based estimates for different subclades of R1b, there are at least two important factors that seem to speak strongly in favor of the method I am currently using to calculate the TMRCA values.

Firstly, it is important to note that this particular SNP-based method has already been positively verified after having been confronted with the fully sequenced "Mal'ta boy" remains, securely dated (using the radiocarbon method) to 24 ky BP. This finding strongly confirmed my previous SNP-based calculation suggesting that the R1a and R1b lineages have been separated about 27 years ago (or roughly between 25 and 30 kya), while it has been commonly believed that R1 is much younger. Please see the discussion held on the Anthrogenica forum:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1507-Some-provisional-calculations-for-haplogroup-R1a-based-on-the-first-FGC-result/page4&p=20838#post20838

Secondly, when assuming that R1b-U106 (or at least its sister clade R1b-P312 that is definitely of about the same age) has significantly contributed to a sudden expansion of the so-called Bell Beaker people who have quickly spread over the entire Western half of the European continent between about 4900 and 4400 years ago, it seems practically impossible that P312 and U106 are only 3500 years old. Actually, it seems also impossible that any of these two major clades of European R1b descend from their single most recent ancestors who lived only 4500 years ago, as it is hard to imagine that the expanding Bell Beaker population was not large enough to have left more than two (or more than four when counting L11* and L51*) surviving sublineages, significantly predating the explosion of the Bell-Beaker culture.

Let's compare it with the demographic (and territorial or "military") expansion of some historically attested populations that were supposed to be strongly associated with some very specific Y-DNA subclades. One good example is the sudden territorial expansion (that was accompanied by some kind of a demographic explosion) of the Early Slavic (or Proto-Slavic) population, which apparently took place between 500 and 700 AD. Importantly, both the STR-based and SNP-based calculations indicate that all evidently "Slavic" subclades (like R1a-L1029, R1a-L260, I2a-Din and some specific "Slavic" subclades of R1a-Z280) that show a very characteristic internal structure that perfectly reflects such a sudden expansion can be traced back to their corresponding MRCAs living between 2000 and 3000 (or approximately 2500) years ago, which predates the very moment of their historically attested expansion by about 1000 years.

Another good example is the well known territorial expansion of the Norse Vikings who are believed to be responsible for the spread of some very specific subclades of R1a-Z284, namely the so-called Young Scandinavian clade L448 (or mostly its major subclade CTS4179) and four major subclades of the so-called Old Scandinavian clade Z287 (CTS2277, Z281, YP390 and YP401). Importantly, the internal structure of all these subclades shows relatively sudden split into many descending lineages, yet each of those five clades shows the TMRCA value of at least 2000-2500 years (thus predating the historically attested Norse Viking expansion by about 1000 years), while their parental clade Z284 (clearly associated with the Scandinavian ancestry) is even much older (more than 5000 years old).

All above makes perfect sense when one realizes that any ancient territorial expansion needed to be based on some earlier population growth that produced enough people(or enough lineages) to allow for such expansion to take place. Consequently, I am pretty confident that both R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 are at least 5500 years old, while the 5500-6500 time frame for their MRCAs is a very reasonable guess, especially when finding some substantial support for it in the SNP-based dating.

Assuming that my SNP-based estimates for R1b-U106 are more or less correct, the crucial question is why most of the STR-based calculations fail to give equally high TMRCA values. This is even more surprising when realizing that there is no such apparent discrepancy when comparing the STR-based and SNP-based estimates for different subclades of R1a. I can think of at least two factors that could potentially contribute to such hypothetical R1b-specific (or maybe only L11-specific) phenomenon.

One possible explanation is an exceptionally high level of homoplasy that is rarely seen in other haplogroups. Whether this is intrinsically related to some characteristic features of the R1b-L11 haplotypes (like for example a specific combination of some STR results that are more likely to oscillate around some "fixed" values), is hard to say without undertaking some advanced studies in this particular direction.

The other possibility that comes to my mind is related to some specific features of the demographic history of Western Europe. More specifically, I am wondering whether the almost uninterrupted growth of nearly all Western and Central-Western European populations since the Bronze Age till the modern times could have resulted in a kind of relatively slow and gradual "development" of the R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 trees, so they, for example, do not show any dramatic bottleneck effects that are so frequently seen among many major European subclades of R1a. Importantly, I am not talking here about any extremely peaceful long term growth of all Western European subpopulations, as assuming such an Utopian scenario would be totally unrealistic. Instead, I would rather like to point out that there are not many cases of any apparent population replacements in any part of Western Europe (within a discussed period), while Central-Eastern Europe seems to have undergone such significant population replacements on at least several occasions. In other words, there are some apparent differences when the entire structure of R1b-L11 is compared with the corresponding structure of R1a-Z282. For example, you can hardly find any subclade of R1b-L11 that would show a structure that is seen in R1a-M458, a subclade that is supposed to split off from the remaining subclades of Z282 in about 3500 BC (or about 5500 years ago) and does not show any significant branching until about 4500-4800 ybp when producing two daughter lineages (CTS11962/L1029 and L260) that again do not show any significant splitting during the next 2000 years (!) until these two single lineages suddenly explode about 2500 years ago, so today they show the frequency of about 30% (!) in some West Slavic countries (like Czech Republic or Poland).

It seems obvious that frequent bottleneck effects make the STR-diversification being much more apparent, while the "continuous growth" is less likely to produce any STR-defined clusters. Thus, I guess this may (to some extend) affect at least some STR-based approaches that use the STR diversification as a major sign of an "advanced age".

Interesting! So you suggest that the modern distribution of R1b-U106 and R1b-P312 largely reflect's is distrubition since the Bronze Age, and for example U106 has not undergone a major expansion from a small source since then and the iron age in parts of central/northern Europe? As i remember some people were suggesting that U106 may have come from somewhere to the east and expanded from a smaller source only a few thousand years ago. If it has been quite stable that would be interesting, because in central Europe at least, non-U106 R1b seems to be associated with Bell Beaker and R1a with corded ware (judging by limited ancient remains), so U106 could have been dominant in a group between or near the meeting of these of these two cultures, or perhaps straddled the edges of one of them?

Michał
04-18-2014, 07:26 PM
Interesting! So you suggest that the modern distribution of R1b-U106 and R1b-P312 largely reflect's is distrubition since the Bronze Age
Not exactly, as what I wrote was rather related to the overall distribution of R1b-L51/L11. There certainly were some significant movements of very specific subgroupings of R1b people all around Western Europe in the post-Beaker period (until the end of the first millennium AD), but this did not include any substantial influx of non-R1b-L51 people from outside. The only exceptions I can think about included a very significant contribution of ancient Greeks to the Sicilian and Southern Italian Y-DNA pool, and a much more recent Slavic expansion that covered a significant part of today's Germany, but these were rather some peripheral processes that were unlikely to affect the core territory of Western Europe.



and for example U106 has not undergone a major expansion from a small source since then and the iron age in parts of central/northern Europe?
This is actually not what I was trying to say. I definitely agree with the common view that the R1b-U106 people were involved in some massive migrations within the Central-Western Europe, including for example the Germanic "invasion" of Britain, France and Southern Germany, but I don't think this resulted in a dramatic expulsion (or some kind of annihilation) of a local non-U106 population, even though in some regions (including England, among others) the proportions between particular haplogroups or subclades of R1b were significantly affected.



As i remember some people were suggesting that U106 may have come from somewhere to the east and expanded from a smaller source only a few thousand years ago.
If you are talking about a theory that assumes that the R1b-U106 people were originally limited to a territory east of Germany (let's say to a region that encompasses today's Poland) and have only recently (let's say between 1500 and 700 BC) migrated west and north-west, I find this hypothesis very unlikely. This has already been discussed in another thread some time ago, and I don't know any new data that would speak in favor of this "Eastern" theory:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1205-How-did-R1a-subclades-enter-into-Germanic-cultures



If it has been quite stable that would be interesting, because in central Europe at least, non-U106 R1b seems to be associated with Bell Beaker and R1a with corded ware (judging by limited ancient remains), so U106 could have been dominant in a group between or near the meeting of these of these two cultures, or perhaps straddled the edges of one of them?
What hypothetical group between the Bell Beakers and Corded Ware do you have in mind? It is hard to find any archaeological culture of that period that would fit this description.

I agree that R1b-P312 was likely a major contributor to the Bell-Beaker expansion. However, when taking into account that R1b-U106 is equally old and distributed mostly in Central-Western Europe, it is hard to imagine any other Eneolitic (or Chalcolitic) archaeological culture in Europe that could have included the early R1b-U106 people. Thus, the most likely scenario (IMO) would assume that the U106 people were a part of some specific subpopulation of Bell Beakers. One variant of this scenario that makes some sense to me is that this was a mixture of U106 and some specific subclades of P312 that represented a Central European (or "Danubian") variety of Bell Beakers. Later on, they could have expanded north-west with the Tumulus people while significantly contributing to the Nordic Bronze Age culture. However, I wouldn't rule out an alternative scenario in which the U106 people were among the first Bell Beakers reaching Northern Germany and Denmark about 2500-2400 BC (though they could have been accompanied by some P312 people).

MitchellSince1893
04-28-2014, 04:09 AM
...Below please find some of my results. As rightly pointed out by Raymond, you need to keep in mind that each such estimate has a relatively large margin of error, so don't take those estimates too seriously. :)

U106 - 5940 ybp
Z381 - 5796 ybp
Z156 - 5628 ybp
DF98 - 4868 ybp
DF96 - 4412 ybp
L1 - 3416 ybp
L48 - 5663 ybp
L47 - 5084 ybp
Z160 - 4652 ybp
Z9 - 5134 ybp
Z30 - 5085 ybp
Z2 - 4943 ybp
Z7 - 4758 ybp
Z334 - 4814 ybp
Z326 - 3442 ybp
CTS2509 - 2887 ybp
Z5054 - 1802 ybp

...Here are some links to my previous SNP-based estimates that were posted on the Anthrogenica and Molgen forums:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting/page9&p=26002#post26002
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?t=1300&p=20293

For comparison: Based on the percentage of discovery of known/named SNPs between BigY and FGC (BigY detected 74% of named SNPs FGC detected) and novel SNPs (BiGY is averaging 47.8% of the novel SNPs compared to FGC).

FGC is seeing a new SNP every 75-90 years (average= 82.5 years), Then 82.5/74% gives BigY detecting named SNPs every 111.5 years, and 82.5/47.8% gives BigY detecting a novel SNPs every 172.6 years.

FGC and BigY analysis of my BigY results yielded ~28 novel SNPs. Also 7 named SNPs were identified below R-U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150.

172.6 years x 28 novel SNPs = 4833 years before 1940 (year of my sample's birth) or 4907ybp.
111.5 x 7 named SNPs below Z150 = 781 years

Based on the above assumptions the age of the SNPs in my R-U152 line would be:

P312 = 6182 ybp (brother clade to U106)
U152 = 6100 ybp (L2 + 82.5 years)
L2 = 6017 ybp (Z49 + 82.5 years)
Z49 = 5934 ybp (Z142 + 82.5 years)
Z142 = 5852 ybp (Z150 + 82.5 years)
Z150 = 5770 ybp (7 Named + 82.5 years)
7 Named SNPs = 5687 ybp (Novel + 111.5 x 7 named SNPs = 781 years)
28 Novel SNPs = 4907 ybp (172.6 years x 28 novel SNPs + 74 years for the sample's age)

Lot of assumptions in the above calculations...and this is just an exercise/experiment to see what these assumptions produce; but brother clade P312 does come out within 250 years of the age you had for U106.

Acque agitate
04-29-2014, 11:02 AM
For comparison: Based on the percentage of discovery of known/named SNPs between BigY and FGC (BigY detected 74% of named SNPs FGC detected) and novel SNPs (BiGY is averaging 47.8% of the novel SNPs compared to FGC).

FGC is seeing a new SNP every 75-90 years (average= 82.5 years), Then 82.5/74% gives BigY detecting named SNPs every 111.5 years, and 82.5/47.8% gives BigY detecting a novel SNPs every 172.6 years.

FGC and BigY analysis of my BigY results yielded ~28 novel SNPs. Also 7 named SNPs were identified below R-U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150.

172.6 years x 28 novel SNPs = 4833 years before 1940 (year of my sample's birth) or 4907ybp.
111.5 x 7 named SNPs below Z150 = 781 years

Based on the above assumptions the age of the SNPs in my R-U152 line would be:

P312 = 6182 ybp (brother clade to U106)
U152 = 6100 ybp (L2 + 82.5 years)
L2 = 6017 ybp (Z49 + 82.5 years)
Z49 = 5934 ybp (Z142 + 82.5 years)
Z142 = 5852 ybp (Z150 + 82.5 years)
Z150 = 5770 ybp (7 Named + 82.5 years)
7 Named SNPs = 5687 ybp (Novel + 111.5 x 7 named SNPs = 781 years)
28 Novel SNPs = 4907 ybp (172.6 years x 28 novel SNPs + 74 years for the sample's age)

Lot of assumptions in the above calculations...and this is just an exercise/experiment to see what these assumptions produce; but brother clade P312 does come out within 250 years of the age you had for U106.


This discussion is very interesting and I agree with the thought of Michal.
5 months on this same forum: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1653-U152-L2-PF7600/page2

I hypothesized that the age of R-L2 could be 6400 years, in each case not less than 5600 years.

MitchellSince1893
04-30-2014, 01:08 AM
A quote from a post from this in depth post comparing an individual that tested with both FGC and BigY in another thread http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1565-FTDNA-s-Next-Gen-Y-Sequencing-Roll-out-Sale-vs-Full-Genomes-what-s-the-diff&p=38720&viewfull=1#post38720


...1 real mutation every 200/2.5= 80years for 15M or 1 mutation every 120 years for 10M. The 80 years per mutation would be the rate for FGC and 120 years for BigY.

FWIW: Using these figures would push the timeline up ~1450 years more recent than my first calculation.

P312 = 4754 ybp (brother clade to U106)
U152 = 4674 ybp (L2 + 80 years)
L2 = 4594 ybp (Z49 + 80 years)
Z49 = 4514 ybp (Z142 + 80 years)
Z142 = 4434 ybp (Z150 + 80 years)
Z150 = 4354 ybp (7 Named + 80 years)
7 Named SNPs = 4274 ybp (Novel + 120 x 7 named SNPs = 840 years)
28 Novel SNPs = 3434 ybp (120 years x 28 novel SNPs + 74 years for the sample's age)

alan
05-03-2014, 01:21 PM
4754 ybp for P312 would be pretty well bang on expected for a link to the beaker expansion phase. I assume that would at 80 years per SNP suggest that DF13 dates to about 2500BC which is absolutely spot on what would be expected archaeologically if it was linked to beaker in NW Europe. I think when ages much younger than that area arrived at for DF13 there is likely some problem. To be honest the key IMO is the date of P312. Its collectively the pan-European clade and beaker is the last pan-European culture in prehistory. So, IMO P312 simply cannot be younger than say 2700BC without the beaker model falling.


A quote from a post from this in depth post comparing an individual that tested with both FGC and BigY in another thread http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1565-FTDNA-s-Next-Gen-Y-Sequencing-Roll-out-Sale-vs-Full-Genomes-what-s-the-diff&p=38720&viewfull=1#post38720

The 80 years per mutation would be the rate for FGC and 120 years for BigY.

FWIW: Using these figures would push the timeline up ~1450 years more recent than my first calculation.

P312 = 4754 ybp (brother clade to U106)
U152 = 4674 ybp (L2 + 80 years)
L2 = 4594 ybp (Z49 + 80 years)
Z49 = 4514 ybp (Z142 + 80 years)
Z142 = 4434 ybp (Z150 + 80 years)
Z150 = 4354 ybp (7 Named + 80 years)
7 Named SNPs = 4274 ybp (Novel + 120 x 7 named SNPs = 840 years)
28 Novel SNPs = 3434 ybp (120 years x 28 novel SNPs + 74 years for the sample's age)

MitchellSince1893
05-14-2014, 04:55 PM
Richard Rocca just updated the U152 tree in post 72 in this thread http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2375-Updated-U152-Tree&p=40017&viewfull=1#post40017

You can see 7 SNPs down from U152 i.e. just below U152>L2>Z49>Z142>L652>Z57>17861407 branch, Sardinian samples begin to appear (the ones with the PF prefix). Richard estimates Bell Beaker arrived in Sardinia around 4500 years ago.

So how does this mesh with previous calculations from posts 7 and 9 in this thread?

If we use the age for Z142 from the method in post 7 above (assuming the Francalacci data is from full genome test thus using 82.5 years per SNP):
Z142 = 5852 ybp
L652 = 5770 ybp
Z57 = 5687 ybp (82.5 year after L652)
17861407 = 5605 ybp (82.5 after Z57)
14 SNPs below 1781407 found in Sardinian samples = 4450 to 5552 ybp

If we use the age for Z142 from the method in post 9 above (80 years per SNP for full genome)
Z142 = 4434 ybp
L652 = 4354 ybp
Z57 = 4274 ybp
17861407 = 4194 ybp
14 SNPs below 1781407 = 3074 to 4114 ybp

Based this exerise (which makes a big assumption that this branch was a source for Bell Beaker in Sardinia), between post 7 and post 9 dates, I would lean towards dates in post 7.

This was just experiment, but it illustrates the potential if we are able to see where SNPs begin to appear in a specific area e.g. an island, and we know a corresponding historical date tied to arrival of a people, we should be able to make better age estimates for these SNPs.