View Full Version : Question about Z2573->S20941

06-14-2015, 07:09 PM
Under Z2573, would S20941+ be phylogenetically equivalent to Z29624+ and Z29620+?
I know 1K Genomes men HG01783, HG01353, HG01413 are negative for S20941+ at position 18404076 G>A, but Kit#364759 and myself are positive.
I am negative for these below

8422618-A-T Z29614
7194007-C-T CTS1090
8427039-C-T Z29615
8627694-A-T Z29616
14241224-G-A Z29618
15753554-T-C Z29619
17242912-T-G Z29621
17816865-T-C Z29622
18863549-C-T Z29623
21408755-T-A Z29625
23768425-C-T Z29626

06-20-2015, 12:15 PM
Looking at S20941 18404076-G-A that kit#364759 and I share. The mutation looks to me as possibly being more recent and may have happened in the British Isles. S20941 looks to have been discovered in a Chromo 2 test by Jim Wilson (2014) of BritainsDNA. When I look at the only other known z2573 men who are 1k Genomes testers HG01353 Colombia, HG01413 Puerto Rico, HG01783 Spain they all do not share S20941. I would be interested in what anyone may think.

06-20-2015, 12:49 PM
I think that long string of shared novel variants from your BigY (that nobody but 364759 shares, so far) is more significant than your list of negatives from YSEQ, testing a list from 1000 Genomes or whatever. The hidebound believers in the SNP-counting method of dating genetic events might say your branch of Z2573 is 3.6 thousand years old or something; I still don't understand their docile acceptance of the dogma that mutations happen sequentially at an average rate. If one is a "private" SNP, then all (26? without even looking at a .bed file) probably are -- and I think counting them and multiplying by some number between 140 and 170 would just be silly. Maybe your MRCA worked in the tin mines, always had his lunch sitting on the same rock, and it was uranium ore. I have no idea; just don't think that many, in one apparently young lineage, could have been sequential.