PDA

View Full Version : New R-S1051 Project



George Chandler
08-23-2014, 03:42 AM
A new project has been created for the S1051 group which will focus on the persons paternal geographic origin, and discovering SNP's common to those areas.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-S1051/default.aspx

George

George Chandler
09-21-2014, 06:43 PM
Although the new SNP's are yet to be posted the 9919A3's found under S1051 are another old and unique line. Testing is under way to confirm it but it appears that the Big Y testing misses 2 of the 5 main Patriarch SNP's found under DF13. The 2 missing SNP's appear to be FGC9657 & FGC9658 which is something to consider when testing.

George Chandler
10-05-2014, 08:00 PM
It has been confirmed that Big Y doesn't cover either FGC9657 or FGC9658 as both were negative and yet (with the same person) both results were positive using individual YSEQ testing. The 9919A9 kit is also being retested through YSEQ to verify the results. I was hoping that this would have given us the position of FGC9657 or FGC9658 but it looks like we're back to square one not knowing the position for any of the oldest 5 under DF13.

So it's looking like the 5 main SNP's could be common to all S1051's below DF13 and that means that the most recent of the 5 SNP's is must have had many sons and yet no evidence to date seems to show a surviving branch above it. So we could be looking at an isolated haplogroup below DF13 that existed for ~500-1,000 years but was reduced to a very low then had rapid expansion with a lot of sons.

George

Celtarion
10-28-2015, 10:57 PM
We have our first S1051 into the Bretagne/Brittany project and potentially a second one soon.

Thanks to George Chandler for the follow up with both breton participants :thumb:

George Chandler
12-20-2015, 11:17 PM
For those who are in the R-S1051 project there is a new FTDNA haplogroup designation for some under the FGC17906 subclade called FGC19437. The reason it isn't found within the spreadsheet is that it can be "iffy" in terms of sequencing. People in that green section from FGC19414-FGC19456 can test for it with FTDNA if they choose to (who haven't already tested positive). Over time if there are enough people positive (who should be positive) it can be added to the spreadsheet. It "should be" located within the FGc19414-FGC19454 block but if there are sequencing problems it may be difficult to tell.

George

George Chandler
04-15-2016, 05:31 PM
Here are the most recent links for the S1051 project:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-S1051?iframe=yresults

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E1iiiFeUgXGA-Trg_whSqbK_sTZI5csja4dRFWZ5-bE/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YsOmg_EaoSh3QVKn9u_216ZtN3nI8LO5-NRA5Oscg4s/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OqY8pFyQqKORigWMMVFIFC954u02J5mmIHe6ygWEtdg/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OqY8pFyQqKORigWMMVFIFC954u02J5mmIHe6ygWEtdg/edit?usp=sharing

Although the problematic positions have been removed these are still being researched. The only positions that have been posted to ISOGG are the following:

R1b1a1a2a1a2c1o = S1051 (equivalent positions FGC9655, FGC9661, FGC9657 & FGC9658)
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1o1 = FGC17938
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1o2 = S1050
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1o3 = FGC17906 (Iberian Gaels)
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1o3a = FGC17907
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1o3b = FGC29039

George

George Chandler
04-23-2016, 04:49 PM
With the addition of Z39589 and reorganization of the ISOGG tree we're now designated as the following:

R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a9 = S1051 (equivalent positions FGC9655, FGC9661, FGC9657 & FGC9658)
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a9a = FGC17938
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a9b = S1050
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a9c = FGC17906
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a9c1 = FGC17907
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a9c2 = FGC29039

George

KCosta
04-23-2016, 06:28 PM
Hi George,
FGC17907 represents the Iberian group and is 1 SNP downstream from FGC17906, is that correct?

Kevin

George Chandler
04-23-2016, 07:09 PM
Hi Kevin,

Yes..FGC17907 is an ancient SNP located below FGC17906 that is unique to your Iberian cluster and a single person from Ireland. The member with the Irish ancestry tested positive for FGC17907 SNP and it was the only Sanger validated SNP that connected him to your Iberian cluster below FGC17906. If we tested him using Y Elite 2.1 it's possible we may find a couple more matches from your results (or tested him for your FGC results through YSEQ or FTDNA) as a secondary validation.

George

KCosta
04-26-2016, 01:29 PM
Hi George,
I'd like to know when FGC17907 (or a downstream SNP) first migrated/back-migrated to Iberia. Would retesting the McAvoy sample for additional Iberian Cluster SNPs give a more precise time frame?

Kevin

George Chandler
04-26-2016, 04:36 PM
Hi George,
I'd like to know when FGC17907 (or a downstream SNP) first migrated/back-migrated to Iberia. Would retesting the McAvoy sample for additional Iberian Cluster SNPs give a more precise time frame?

Kevin

Hi Kevin,
Right now it's difficult to say anything until more kits test positive for FGC17907. Testing McAvoy for Y Elite 2.1 may reveal some new information in terms of the placement of FGC17907. It could be that FGC17907 came to the Isles with the rest of the FGC17906 Gaels and it was in it's infancy and your cluster stayed in Iberia while the McAvoy line was part of the migration at that time to the Isles.

I suspect that you are correct about a back migration though only because we "should see" a larger cluster of Iberian S1051's...but we don't...which makes me suspect that your Iberian FGC17907 groups was in the Isles and part of the same genetic bottleneck events that happened to the rest of us. It's possible that your FGC17907 Iberian cluster stayed in Iberia and was hit pretty hard by the Roman wars within Iberia and the events are independent of one another. I still haven't been able to find out more about the Peruvian sample which tested positive for only some of the main five ancient SNP's the rest of us share in the group.

George

George Chandler
07-05-2016, 02:58 AM
The most recent S1051 test results with now 14 main ancient subgroups identified below S1051:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E1iiiFeUgXGA-Trg_whSqbK_sTZI5csja4dRFWZ5-bE/edit#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ds8zx4F3y8vb2YxS1Zt6mPjoqzE6427r7XramYsN9zY/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YsOmg_EaoSh3QVKn9u_216ZtN3nI8LO5-NRA5Oscg4s/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VaNKMFUePcVc17HR0vycf8k0M-GXMI5h2G_EjOgBIcA/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OqY8pFyQqKORigWMMVFIFC954u02J5mmIHe6ygWEtdg/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qDjjxQYqNS8Jb_2s53TZZwRypUx-nwGj_lOq-z3QeSA/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

George

KCosta
07-05-2016, 03:39 PM
6DRIF-18 has 3 of the 5 defining patriarchal SNPs plus FGC9854 :beerchug:

George Chandler
07-05-2016, 09:33 PM
6DRIF-18 has 3 of the 5 defining patriarchal SNPs plus FGC9854 :beerchug:

Hi Kevin,

Trinity University in Dublin still needs to confirm what I found in terms FGC9654 and the two new mutations on the same segment (A11185 & A11186) that appear so far to be unique to 6DRIF-18. They confirmed FGC9655 but wouldn't confirm absolutely FGC9661 and FGC9658 because there are "damaged segments". Given what we know about FGC9655, FGC9661 and FGC9658 being (so far) ancestral to all of us in the S1051 project and FGC9654 being identified as well I think it's pretty conclusive.

Unfortunately they have no plans in the near future to test the other two bodies found in the grave with 6DRIF-18. What I find interesting (if I'm understanding it correctly) is that the 6DRIF-18 was classified as a phase 4 grave which "should mean" 4th century +/-. The Romans had all but deserted the community by about 415 AD and given that this person stands out as blond haired and blue eyed with a very unique isotope return it makes me wonder if the 6DRIF-18 grave is in fact "possibly" very early Boernician and not Roman period Gladiator. Realizing that some Celts were known to have blond hair and blue eyes too (not just Scandinavians) I just find it interesting that my male line who were supposed to come from a Danish Viking and yet knowing that S1051 is a non typical Scandinavian haplogroup it makes me wonder "if" and "how" this may have happened as York was then "post Roman" under control of the Boernician/Angles and again later with a later strong Viking population. Could be something as simple as a broken male line? A lot can happen in 1600-1800 years. Pretty interesting results though and I would love to see if the other two bodies in the grave were S1051's or had Scandinavian "typical" haplogroups.

Currently I'm going with the Roman Gladiator theory but keeping my mind open to this possibility.

Thanks again to the University for allowing me to go through the BAM of 6DRIF-18.

George

dkm1987
10-01-2016, 05:54 PM
given that this person stands out as blond haired and blue eyed Hi George, I posted this over on our project but wanted to include it here as well.

6DRIF-18 HIrisplex results.
I know they mention this in the studies concerning the Headless Romans. But inputting his results on both Irisplex and HIrisplex show.

Iris Plex
Display Predicted Phenotype Download Predicted Phenotype

Predicted phenotype
p-value AUC Loss
blue eye 0.858 0
intermediate eye 0.081 0
brown eye 0.061 0

HIrisPlex
Predicted phenotype
p-value AUC Loss
blue eye 0.858 0
intermediate eye 0.081 0
brown eye 0.061 0
blond hair 0.743 0.004
brown hair 0.216 0.001
red hair 0.003 0.011
black hair 0.038 0
light hair 0.949 0
dark hair 0.051 0

Which is how they drew their conclusion saying 6DRIF18 was blonde haired blue eyed.

Now problem being is my results show a stronger incidence P value of having blue eye versus brown and and even lower P value of having brown even though my eyes are brown. This is seen in both Irisplex and Hirisplex. It also indicates I have blond hair or light hair. I have light brown hair (well lots of gray now).
Irisplex
Predicted phenotype
p-value AUC Loss
blue eye 0.917 0
intermediate eye 0.052 0
brown eye 0.031 0

Hirisplex
Predicted phenotype
p-value AUC Loss
blue eye 0.917 0
intermediate eye 0.052 0
brown eye 0.031 0
blond hair 0.798 0.007
brown hair 0.1 0.002
red hair 0.084 0.027
black hair 0.018 0.002
light hair 0.983 0
dark hair 0.017 0

Here is my genotype compared to 6DRIF-18 we both have no calls in one of the hair color snps which makes calling a prediction in hair color virtually nil but the results are included anyway. My results are from my 23andMe test. I have not looked at my Ancestry DNA or FTDNA atDNA results to see if they tested me for rs1805009.
SNP Ref Alt 6DRIF-18 Dan
rs11547464 G A GG GG
rs885479 G A GG GG
rs1805008 C T CC CT
rs1805005 G T GG
rs1805006 C A CC CC
rs1805007 C T CC CC
rs1805009 G C GG
rs2228479 G A GG AG
rs1110400 T C TT TT
rs28777 C A AA AA
rs16891982 C G GG GG
rs12821256 T C TT TT
rs4959270 C A CC AC
rs12203592 C T CC CC
rs1042602 C A CC CC
rs1800407 C T CC CC
rs2402130 G A AA AA
rs12913832 A G GG AG
rs2378249 G A AA AA
rs12896399 G T GG GT
rs1393350 G A GG GG
rs683 C A AA AA

So my point is I find it hard, with any degree of certainty, to say that 6DRIF-18 was certainly Blonde haired and Blue eyed based on the same criteria.

If anyone has tested with atDNA and would like to see if you have the Hirisplex snps and then run your own you can go to http://www.erasmusmc.nl/47743/3604975/HIris?lang=en
11941

George Chandler
10-05-2016, 08:33 PM
Thanks for the information Dan. Very interesting.

George Chandler
10-26-2016, 08:13 PM
The new S1051 panel is available at FTDNA which was appreciated..what wasn't appreciated is that the point of contact is the R1b Admin and not the R-S1051 Admin (where the information came from). Too many times other admins have recommended testing for a certain SNP which is incorrect and I get left with the angry members wondering why they were advised to test for an obviously incorrect SNP.

A lot of time and money has been put into this testing..don't recall any R1b group admin being involved in the funding of testing or analysis?? This may have been an FTDNA error but still...

George

dkm1987
10-26-2016, 11:13 PM
Wow did not know that. Well then Thank you George for doing this. I have ordered the test for myself (even though already tested with FGC) for comparison. I also contacted you privately via email.

George Chandler
10-27-2016, 02:26 AM
Away from my email for a week or two but will PM you Dan. Not too impressed with FTDNA right now..the actual "brains" behind sorting out the S1051 SNP's (a credit should go to YSEQ). When I wait patiently for 12 weeks to get a single SNP listed and say nothing nasty..spend that kind of money personally funding testing and to have an email sent out like that to the R-S1051 members thanking someone else for all their hard work and to contact them. Sort of like me having a basic understanding of U106 and asking the U106 for some SNP's...for them to send out an email to the U106 members as though I'm the U106 expert thanking me and making me the contact for it. That email just cost them a lot of business in a lot of areas from me. The point is to share the data to benefit all and I actually had some reservation about it because how quick and helpful YSEQ has been with quality control but as an admin figured it was only fair. Pretty insulting actually and for someone who has had every opportunity to be publically critical of "certain FTDNA issues and complaints" but have not criticized them publically.

The best part though are the results which I have kept private and won't be released or added to the spreadsheet. I won't be funding any more Big Y tests for people unfortunately inside or outside of the R-S1051 group. Good for others though as my money will be pointed in their direction. I've always given people the option that I would help out or fully fund a Big Y if that is the test they want because it helps the group.

George

KCosta
10-27-2016, 12:15 PM
Well stated, George! FTDNA was unexcusably insulting. You've been our guiding light and without your brilliant insights and leadership there would be no R-S1051. Who at FTDNA should I write to express my dissatisfaction?

dkm1987
10-27-2016, 01:16 PM
George, I do think it was merely an oversight. It appears this is a form letter that then gets rehashed with minor additions based on the snps and Project. With that said though, I can see where you were taken aback and rightfully so. You have spent a great deal of money and time on this project and I personally feel that you do deserve to be recognized and the actual point of contact.

dkm1987
10-27-2016, 05:24 PM
The best part though are the results which I have kept private and won't be released or added to the spreadsheet. I honestly hope you reconsider that point. Regardless of FTDNA's action, as you mentioned,
The point is to share the data to benefit all and since I have just donated the funds to test two people using the FTDNA S1051 panel I would like to see their results in the spreadsheet.


I won't be funding any more Big Y tests for people unfortunately inside or outside of the R-S1051 group. Good for others though as my money will be pointed in their direction. I've always given people the option that I would help out or fully fund a Big Y if that is the test they want because it helps the group.
GeorgeGranted I haven't funded nearly the amount you have but have made several donations so I can understand what you are saying.

Mikewww
10-27-2016, 08:37 PM
The new S1051 panel is available at FTDNA which was appreciated..what wasn't appreciated is that the point of contact is the R1b Admin and not the R-S1051 Admin (where the information came from). Too many times other admins have recommended testing for a certain SNP which is incorrect and I get left with the angry members wondering why they were advised to test for an obviously incorrect SNP.

A lot of time and money has been put into this testing..don't recall any R1b group admin being involved in the funding of testing or analysis?? This may have been an FTDNA error but still...

George
I am sorry you weren't cited, George, and that I am. I asked not to be cited except for in the cases of the L21 top-layer, the M343 Backbone and the L513 packs. It just goes right by them. I think because they sold a lot of the M343 Backbone packs that I must be magic or something.

I think the problem is I talk with the Y development team whereas FTDNA's marketing-communications folks must sit somewhere else. Their departments seem to be disconnected. They earlier had a mistake on the sequence in releasing the new DF21 packs.

The last thing I need is for people to be upset with me for things I'm only loosely associated with. I have enough to worry about and cause my own problems easy enough.

Mikewww
10-27-2016, 08:58 PM
Here is what they list in the R1b-S1051 SNP Pack:

Includes the following SNPs on the haplotree:
S1051, S1041, S1050, FGC9655, FGC17938, FGC14900, FGC21433, FGC43084, FGC9676, FGC9679, FGC9682, FGC9683, FGC9685, FGC9699, FGC36050, FGC36061, FGC20613, A4604, A4603, A4605, A4611, A4625, A4615, FGC32343, FGC32344, FGC33831, FGC33841, FGC17866, FGC17868, FGC17889, FGC43113, FGC41747, FGC17907, FGC46604, FGC39789, FGC32876, FGC32877, FGC32878, FGC33208, FGC31785, FGC31786, FGC31787, FGC33265, FGC23335, FGC23331, FGC23332, FGC23333, FGC23339, FGC19414, FGC19423, FGC17906, FGC9661, FGC17980, FGC17983, FGC17986, FGC17987, S1047, S1048, FGC28627, FGC35327, FGC28625, FGC28631, FGC28633, FGC28634, FGC28637, FGC28638, FGC17982, FGC18003, FGC17993, FGC29516, FGC29517, FGC29518, FGC29519, FGC29523, FGC29538, FGC41194, FGC41195, FGC41199, FGC46759, BY10450, BY10451, BY10453, FGC20612, FGC20615, FGC20619, FGC20633, FGC20618, A4634, A4606, A4610, FGC21509, A4612, A4613, FGC19450, FGC19436

Includes the following SNPs that are NOT on the haplotree:
FGC17981, FGC17990, FGC18002, FGC19425, FGC19440, FGC19446, FGC29021, FGC31784, FGC29522, FGC29039, FGC23334, FGC22891, FGC23330, FGC19454, FGC32879, FGC33331, FGC33519, FGC33571, FGC33657, FGC33660, FGC33669, FGC33671, FGC37546, FGC38467, FGC41185, FGC35325, FGC35326, FGC33772, FGC42315, FGC42316, FGC42321, FGC42326, FGC42369, FGC42371, FGC42372, FGC46621, FGC50143, FGC9657, FGC9658, FGC9670, FGC9684, FGC9691, FGC9702, FGC9705, FGC9826, FGC9828, FGC9835, FGC9836, FGC9837, FGC9845, FGC9846, FGC9848, FGC9851, FGC9852, FGC9854, S1046, A11185, A11186, FGC17918, FGC17929, FGC17936, FGC17939, FGC17945, FGC17950, FGC17968

I don't see too many BY SNPs in the list above but if you have trouble looking up the position-anc-der details for them, here they are:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/BY_SNP_Details.xlsx

I have an outline tree format format for L21 that includes synonyms as well as the pos-anc-der details but I haven't had time to try to put the list of SNPs in the packs into that tree format yet.

There is an opportunity right now for last minute requests. They generally allow about 3 business days before closing off and finalizing the their list of SNPs for the first run. The FTDNA guy who leads the Pack development is Carlos Nossa. He has nothing to do with marketing, emails, web pages, etc. but he vets SNPs to be added to a Pack so he is the guy to go to if an important branch is uncovered and an SNP or two needs to be added. Please don't bog him down with general FTDNA complaints and inquiries, etc.

George Chandler
10-30-2016, 02:56 PM
I am sorry you weren't cited, George, and that I am. I asked not to be cited except for in the cases of the L21 top-layer, the M343 Backbone and the L513 packs. It just goes right by them. I think because they sold a lot of the M343 Backbone packs that I must be magic or something.

I think the problem is I talk with the Y development team whereas FTDNA's marketing-communications folks must sit somewhere else. Their departments seem to be disconnected. They earlier had a mistake on the sequence in releasing the new DF21 packs.

The last thing I need is for people to be upset with me for things I'm only loosely associated with. I have enough to worry about and cause my own problems easy enough.

My frustration is with FTDNA and not meant to be directed at you personally (or Gail). It's not as much the citation but where it's directed to..a panel for L21, U152, U106 etc should be directed to the project admin for those specific groups regardless of who requested it. I totally understand you and Gail are competent with the R1b project but keep getting people coming back to me complaining they were advised to test certain positions from other Admins when it was obvious to me they will be negative and the SNP test was a waste of money. The R1b project is big and there is no need for you both to be inundated with email questions when you don't have to be either..doesn't make much sense.

Plus I'm getting old and cranky.

George

Mikewww
10-31-2016, 12:02 PM
My frustration is with FTDNA and not meant to be directed at you personally (or Gail). It's not as much the citation but where it's directed to..a panel for L21, U152, U106 etc should be directed to the project admin for those specific groups regardless of who requested it. I totally understand you and Gail are competent with the R1b project but keep getting people coming back to me complaining they were advised to test certain positions from other Admins when it was obvious to me they will be negative and the SNP test was a waste of money. The R1b project is big and there is no need for you both to be inundated with email questions when you don't have to be either..doesn't make much sense.

Plus I'm getting old and cranky.

George
I understand. I am inundated on a variety of topics. I try to steer newbie R1bers to a r1b project so we can get them on the R1b-YDNA group and project.
However, this is the S1051 Pack and no Packs except the M343 Backbone Pack are related to the R1b project.

Mikewww
11-08-2016, 05:46 PM
My frustration is with FTDNA and not meant to be directed at you personally (or Gail). It's not as much the citation but where it's directed to..a panel for L21, U152, U106 etc should be directed to the project admin for those specific groups regardless of who requested it. ...
George

I just receive an email from FTDNA related to the new T-M184 SNP Pack. My father-in-law is hg T so that's why I'm getting it. The email mentions Gareth Henson but if bold letters it includes:

"If you are not sure whether or not this is the right test for you, we recommend contacting the T Haplogroup Project Administrators."

It looks like they are learning a little and at least have a generic reference to the project administrators.

EMayham
12-12-2019, 04:57 PM
Hello All,
I'm Eric Mayham, /newbie to all this..... I cannot trace my Y ancestors prior to showing up in the US, so I've been farting around with DNA. Recently I took the plunge and did upgraded to the big y 700 resulting in a haplogroup of a4603. It only took 1 night to exhaust google's search results on a4603 and s1051. Would someone be willing to take a "few" minutes to discuss all of this with me? I usually catch on pretty quickly, but I've researched enough to known I am in way over my head and need to pick someone's brain. Is anybody willing to give of their time and knowledge, by phone maybe?

Thank you,
Eric Mayham