PDA

View Full Version : Z209 (DF27>Z196>Z209) and subclades - including NS Cluster and M153



Webb
05-05-2013, 10:05 PM
I thought I would start a new topic for the NS cluster individuals.

TigerMW
05-06-2013, 07:35 PM
I thought I would start a new topic for the NS cluster individuals.

I've got a kit that is North-South Cluster and has a test in progress right now for Z220.

Just to make sure everyone knows. The North-South Cluster STR signature is 437=14 448=18 GataH4=10. The long known M153, so called "Basque marker", SNP turns out to be a subclade of these people.

razyn
05-06-2013, 09:18 PM
I guess I should at least say hi on this thread -- since I was unable to post here for a couple of weeks, though wanting to.

When my cousin gets his Z210 result from Geno 2, I'll probably make some organized commentary based on it. We're Z220+ and L484.NS+, but Z216- (as both Webb and Mikewww know -- but the assumption must be that someone might read this thread who doesn't know us from elsewhere). So far, I don't think any phylogenic distinction has been made between Z216 and Z278 (formerly called rs1469371); they are different, but seem to track in a 1:1 relationship. Everybody tests positive for both, or negative for both. The same seems to be true of Z209 and Z220; you have both SNPs, or lack both. Presumably, the guys who have only tested Z220+ also belong in this thread. We haven't yet made the call whether L484.NS splits from the main group above, or below, Z210.

Finding these branching points -- even if a particular SNP affects only a few families that we know of -- is also helpful in dating the other branches (relative to each other).

TigerMW
05-07-2013, 12:27 PM
I've got a kit that is North-South Cluster and has a test in progress right now for Z220.
... The North-South Cluster STR signature is 437=14 448=18 GataH4=10.

Okay, I'm in for step one. My father's maternal grandfather's line has come back as Z220+

269087 Samuel Pletcher, b.1846, ?Belmont Co., Ohio, USA (They are from Ohio for sure, we have references to "Belmont".) They were Anna-Baptists and reportedly came from Pennsylvania through Indiana to Ohio. Pletcher genealogists are convinced they are from the German/Swiss border and migrated to the US right before the Revolutionary War. They were thrown out of the border region at the end of religious conflicts and were the "odd" man out, so to speak.

Webb
05-11-2013, 01:37 AM
I asked Mark J if he could compare my 67 marker string and the Vanderhoof 67 marker string. I match Vanderhoof's at 37 markers step 4, and at 67 markers we have a GD of 10. They are Z220 as well. He came up with an average of 1060 AD, give or take 500 years. This means my ancestors split from the Vanderhoof's, presumably in the Netherlands, because that is where they are from, and entered Britain as early as 500 and as late as 1500. I am leaning towards the 1500 timeframe, because according to the Wilder family history, our earliest ancestor came into Britain with King Henry III army around 1450. So my line has its own history as to how we ended up in Britain. But it poses the question, how did the brunt of Z220 end up in Britain? If it is found in the Netherlands, then it could have gotten there by people who were also settling in Britain, or it could have come in later with the Anglo-Saxon invasions or Viking settlements. Since it is found in the Netherlands, then one would have to assume that is is also found amongst the Flemish, which also means it could have come in with the Normans as there was a sizable force with William from Flanders at Hastings because his sons mother was from Flanders. And then there is the Flemish migrations of the weavers into Britain around 1300. These Flemish settled in wales, Bristol, and Manchester. A lot of possibilities.

TigerMW
05-14-2013, 12:28 PM
Has anyone heard anything about Z210?

I noticed ISOGG has it under investigation.
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

I wrote to Thomas Krahn about Z210 a few weeks ago when it became apparent it is upstream of Z216 and not phylogenetically equivalent.

Thomas,

Here is that information on Z210.

The Geno 2.0 results for the individuals below show that Z210 is above Z216, whereas it the citizen-scientists formerly had it placed as downstream of Z220 and equivalent to Z216.

Regards,
Mike

--- In [email protected], "mikewww7" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I just ran through the same exercise as David C did.
> I found theses Geno 2.0 results with Z210+
>
> N94262 Victoriano Perez/Peres Z210+, Z214-, Z216+, Z220+, Z274+, Z278+
> N8661 Ramon Borquez Z210+, Z214+, Z220+, Z274+, Z278+
> 211471 Unknown Z210+, Z216-, Z220+, Z274+
> N50965 Joseph Trinquier Z209+, Z210+, Z214+, Z216+, Z220+, Z274+, Z278+
> N2640 John Chalmers Z209+, Z210+, Z214-, Z216-, Z220+, Z274+, Z278-
>
> The highest level SNP that we know is below Z210 is Z216 because we see both
Z216+ and Z216- folks above.
>
> Assuming that the draft by the citizen-scientists is correct at
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Draft_P312_Tree_v005.png
> then Z210 is below Z220.
>
> Hence, Z210 is above Z216 and below Z220 and should be moved up the line
halfway on the draft tree.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b-P312-Project/message/5647

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Draft_P312_Tree_v005.png
The graphic is from Richard Rocca's web site and I think he created it.

razyn
05-14-2013, 03:41 PM
I hadn't noticed that ISOGG had it under investigation (as of 19 March, and with a bunch of others in sequence). They still don't have L484 under investigation; but meanwhile, I'm investigating whether L484.NS is above, below, or separate from Z210... by waiting for a cousin's Geno 2.0 results, FTDNA #217955. He hadn't received them yet, as of May 10. I'll hear, when he does -- then his positive SNP results at least can be posted to his regular FTDNA account, but the raw data will need to be mined, for any negatives.

I previously speculated elsewhere that the Z210 SNP might mark the event during which the GATA H4 value of people in the North/South cluster shifted from 11 to 10. In that case, our L484.NS bunch might not have a back mutation at GATA H4, but have the former value that mutated for most people at Z210, and has thus shifted the Z220 "modal," though it did not coincide with the Z220 SNP event itself. (This is pure speculation, at the moment. But a Z210- for kit #217955 would tend to support it.) Mike commented on this speculation, before I was able to log in here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?827-Where-did-DF27-originate-and-when-and-how-did-it-expand&p=5554&viewfull=1#post5554

Webb
05-14-2013, 04:18 PM
I hadn't noticed that ISOGG had it under investigation (as of 19 March, and with a bunch of others in sequence). They still don't have L484 under investigation; but meanwhile, I'm investigating whether L484.NS is above, below, or separate from Z210... by waiting for a cousin's Geno 2.0 results, FTDNA #217955. He hadn't received them yet, as of May 10. I'll hear, when he does -- then his positive SNP results at least can be posted to his regular FTDNA account, but the raw data will need to be mined, for any negatives.

I previously speculated elsewhere that the Z210 SNP might mark the event during which the GATA H4 value of people in the North/South cluster shifted from 11 to 10. In that case, our L484.NS bunch might not have a back mutation at GATA H4, but have the former value that mutated for most people at Z210, and has thus shifted the Z220 "modal," though it did not coincide with the Z220 SNP event itself. (This is pure speculation, at the moment. But a Z210- for kit #217955 would tend to support it.) Mike commented on this speculation, before I was able to log in here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?827-Where-did-DF27-originate-and-when-and-how-did-it-expand&p=5554&viewfull=1#post5554

If in fact that is what happened, regarding the GATA H4 scenario, then you have made a big discovery.

TigerMW
05-14-2013, 05:38 PM
We should note the STR off-modal signature for what we are calling the North-South Cluster. The pattern of 437=14 448=18 GataH4=10 is off-modal for the father group, R1b-P312, which also (P312 that is) pretty much has the equivalent modal haplotype as the Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype (WAMH).

So 437=14 448=18 GataH4=10 is a unique pattern that so far as done an excellent job of marking people who are Z209+ Z220+.

The actual name "North-South Cluster" comes from Ken Nordtvedt, who discovered this group of people several years ago.

R1b-NS ("North/South") is a cluster first identified by Dr. Kenneth Nordtvedt in 2006, and was confirmed as P312+ in late 2008. It is typically identified by the following off-modal values: DYS437=14, DYS448=18, GATAH4=10, DYS392=13, DYS531=11, DYS388=12, DYS426=12, and DYS454=11.http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-P312-WTY/

392=13 531=11, 388=12 426=12 DYS454=11 are all the modal for P312 so the three that matter most are still 437=14 448=18 H4=10. We should note that 437=14 448=18 are very consistent but sometimes H4 seems to back-mutate to 11. A number of the M153+ people are H4=11 and we know that M153's brothers are cousins under Z220 as well as parts of M153 itself are H4=10 so we assume it is a back-mutation in M153 where it occurs.



Someone today asked me about my variety R1b-NS (north/south). I had not looked at it in some time. It is quite robust; there being 84 haploytpes in SMGF database which is between one and two orders of magnitude more than one should expect statistically for independent markers.

It looks like Atlantic R1b but for three changes; 14 at DYS437, 18 at DYS448, and 10 at H4 Atlantic R1b is 15,19,11 at these three markers. In the new FTDNA marker set it tends to have 12 at 406 rather than 10.

This variety of R1b is spread robustly from Spain up to England, with decent amounts in between.

I found lots of it in the Spain project, but not in the Galicia or Portugal projects. There is lots in the Mexico project.

Which ancient peoples could have been responsible for this R1b variety?

Is it regional in Spain as well as being sparse in the far west of the Iberian peninsula? Perhaps the administrators of the Spain project could extract the 14,18,10 R1b haplotypes to see if their places of origin in Spain form any kind of pattern?
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2006-09/1157164942

razyn
06-10-2013, 10:49 PM
After some crunching assistance by David Carlisle I think it would be OK to say that my differently surnamed cousin's Geno 2 result appears to indicate that he is (and thus presumably I am, and the rest of the Z220+, L484.NS guys are) Z210+, Z295+ (that one is under ISOGG investigation) -- and according to NatGeo, his terminal SNP for Y-DNA is CTS4065. New one on me... I checked GBrowse and there's only been one positive test for it. I'd guess that's the anonymous (British?) sample tested by Chris Tyler-Smith, in which the SNP was discovered.

The FTDNA kit for this cousin is #217955. His Geno 2 results aren't yet transferred to FTDNA, but will be very shortly. He's in the group currently called Jra in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project. That will be the default place to look at his upgraded list of SNPs: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/ (select Y-DNA Results, SNP, and Find: 217955).

TigerMW
06-10-2013, 11:37 PM
After some crunching assistance by David Carlisle I think it would be OK to say that my differently surnamed cousin's Geno 2 result appears to indicate that he is (and thus presumably I am, and the rest of the Z220+, L484.NS guys are) Z210+, Z295+ (that one is under ISOGG investigation) -- and according to NatGeo, his terminal SNP for Y-DNA is CTS4065. New one on me... I checked GBrowse and there's only been one positive test for it. I'd guess that's the anonymous (British?) sample tested by Chris Tyler-Smith, in which the SNP was discovered.

The FTDNA kit for this cousin is #217955. His Geno 2 results aren't yet transferred to FTDNA, but will be very shortly. He's in the group currently called Jra in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project. That will be the default place to look at his upgraded list of SNPs: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/ (select Y-DNA Results, SNP, and Find: 217955).

Where is Z295 considered to be? between Z220 and Z216? Have Z220+ Z295- folks been found?

Is Z210 stand-alone / a la carte orderable yet? We do know there are Z220+ Z210+ folks as well the citizen-science Rocca draft tree has that there are Z220+ Z210- people.

R.Rocca
06-11-2013, 12:30 AM
After some crunching assistance by David Carlisle I think it would be OK to say that my differently surnamed cousin's Geno 2 result appears to indicate that he is (and thus presumably I am, and the rest of the Z220+, L484.NS guys are) Z210+, Z295+ (that one is under ISOGG investigation) -- and according to NatGeo, his terminal SNP for Y-DNA is CTS4065. New one on me... I checked GBrowse and there's only been one positive test for it. I'd guess that's the anonymous (British?) sample tested by Chris Tyler-Smith, in which the SNP was discovered.

The FTDNA kit for this cousin is #217955. His Geno 2 results aren't yet transferred to FTDNA, but will be very shortly. He's in the group currently called Jra in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project. That will be the default place to look at his upgraded list of SNPs: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/ (select Y-DNA Results, SNP, and Find: 217955).

Congrats...CTS4065 looks like a valid DF27 specific SNP. It was found in a single DF27+ sample from Tuscany (NA20518). NA20518 was also Z220+ Z216-

Assembly GRCh37 Y:15372323 A>C

razyn
06-11-2013, 01:02 AM
It looks as if CTS4065 is upstream of L484.NS -- couple of guys report it in FTDNA projects for Ware surname, and Clans Fraser and MacLean, same guy; they don't have our L484.NS off-modals. But otherwise, I don't see how it's distinguished from Z210 (or for that matter, Z220/Z209 -- though Geno 2 doesn't test Z209).

I don't think I've seen the Z220+ Z210- mentioned by Mike. I was hoping they'd find that (Z210-) in our 217955 guy. Trying to find some more branching points, here. All I know for sure is that the L484.NS guys are not Z216/Z278+. But a lot more of Z220+ is not Z216+, either.

Do we know whether Z295 is above or below Z210?

DavidCar
06-11-2013, 05:23 AM
I just surfed into this thread while googling on CTS4065. I'll post my notes here.


Lopez -- Kit # N113609 in M153 Project
Borquez -- Kit # N8661 in P312 Project
Trinquier -- Kit # N50965 in P312 Project
Peres -- Kit # N94262 in P312 Project
Travis -- to be uploaded to P312 Project, cousin to Hulin Kit # 195834
Sarabia - Kit # 144165 in Clan MacLean Project & Clan Fraser Project
Ware -- Kit # 112585 in Ware Project
Morgan -- Kit # 23193 in P312 Project
Short -- Kit # 211471 in P312 Project
Chalmers -- Kit # N2640 in P312 Project


Z220+* * * * * -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres, Travis, Sarabia, Ware, Morgan, Short, Chalmers

Z210+* * * * * -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres, Travis, Sarabia, Ware, Morgan, Short, Chalmers
Z295+* * * * * -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres, Travis, Sarabia, Ware
CTS12074+ -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres
Z270+ * * * -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres
Z273+ * * * * -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres

Z278+ * * * * -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres


Note: Travis, Sarabia and Ware are CTS4065+, and Travis is presumed L484+

DavidCar
06-11-2013, 05:27 AM
Do we know whether Z295 is above or below Z210?

I think the evidence proves Z295 is below Z210 and just above the CTS12074/Z270/Z273 group.

Webb
06-11-2013, 10:15 AM
Also please note that Chalmers, Short, Morgan, and Ryon are all Z295-. This puts dicks group actually just between Z210 and Z278/Z216. Sorry, David, it may seem like I'm posting what you just posted, but a lot of people may only be familiar with the Z220>Z278/Z216>Z214>M153 tree.

razyn
06-11-2013, 12:27 PM
Ware only tested 12 markers, but Sarabia has 67 -- at the key markers for the NS cluster he's 14, 17, 10 (not 14, 18). Since he's CTS4065 and we're below that, I think that puts paid to my theory that our GATAH4=11 preserves the original state. Looks more like the back-mutation idea is correct. One sample is not statistically weighty, but that's the impression.

Anyway to me the phylogeny appears to divide at Z295 (I don't know about Z210-, I think Mike has seen somebody with that); the Z295+ line divides again at CTS4065 and we go with the derived state; it divides again with L484+ which Ware and Sarabia don't have.

Meanwhile the main lineage (Z295+ CTS4065-) has another division, that includes CTS12074+ (and probably Z216, etc.).

Once these shake out there will be a lot of opportunities for TMRCA revision. With regard to the geographies, it's still the case that the small sample of identified L484.NS lines includes English, French and Polish ones.

DavidCar
06-11-2013, 02:40 PM
N2640 Chalmers is the Mikol Ryon kit. He posted that in the Yahoo group on March 21.

I don't see that it's been proven that Sarabia and Ware are L484-.

TigerMW
06-11-2013, 06:55 PM
Anyway to me the phylogeny appears to divide at Z295 (I don't know about Z210-, I think Mike has seen somebody with that); the Z295+ line divides again at CTS4065 and we go with the derived state; it divides again with L484+ which Ware and Sarabia don't have.


(Given that Z210+ Z216- and Z210+ Z216+ have been found and) Assuming that the draft by the citizen-scientists is correct at
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Draft_P312_Tree_v005.png
then Z210 is below Z220.

Hence, Z210 is above Z216 and below Z220 and should be moved up the line halfway on the draft tree. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b-P312-Project/message/5647

In the above comparison on the yahoo group I used following Geno 2.0 Z220+ people. N94262 Perez (Z210+ Z216+) and 211471 Unknown (Z210+ Z216-) prove Z210 is upstream of Z216.

I've now added their CTS4065, CTS12074 and Z295 results. A question mark ("?") means no result is on the Y DNA SNP report. This probably means they are negative/ancestral but there is a possibility of a "no call" by Geno 2.0 so someone needs to look at the raw results file for these question mark systems.

N94262 Victoriano Perez/Peres Z210+, Z214-, Z216+, Z220+, Z274+, Z278+
CTS4065? CTS12074+ Z295+

N8661 Ramon Borquez Z210+, Z214+, Z216?, Z220+, Z274+, Z278+
CTS4065?, CTS12074+, Z295+

211471 Unknown Z210+, Z216-, Z220+, Z274+
CTS4065?, CTS12074?, Z295?

N50965 Joseph Trinquier Z209+, Z210+, Z214+, Z216+, Z220+, Z274+, Z278+
CTS4065? CTS12074+ Z295+

N2640 John Chalmers Z209+, Z210+, Z214-, Z216-, Z220+, Z274+, Z278-
CTS4065? CTS12074? Z295?

Every Z295+ I could find was also Z210+. Therefore, I think 94262 Perez (Z210+ Z295+) and 211471 Unknown (Z210+ Z295?) along with a couple of other Z210+ Z295? types make it likely will prove that Z210 is upstream of Z295 and also Z210 is probably upstream of CTS12074. Someone needs to check the raw data files though for Z295- versus no-calls.

I couldn't find any CTS4065 at all in the Y DNA SNP report for the P312 project.

razyn
06-11-2013, 07:16 PM
I don't see that it's been proven that Sarabia and Ware are L484-.

It isn't proven with Sanger sequencing, just with common sense. I realize that isn't what gets anybody on the ISOGG tree, or whatever.

About a year ago there was a flurry of interest in L484.NS and a lot of Z220 guys ordered it. The only ones that were positive/derived are among those now found (with their several known relatives, not always of the same surname) in group Jra of this: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx?vgroup=atlantic-r1b1c&section=yresults They share many off-modals, 14 of them at the 111 marker testing level. If the L484- results interest you, they are also visible in SNP results on the same project. They don't have our off-modals. And neither do Ware and Sarabia.

Incidentally, Sarabia 144165 is in a Clan MacLean grouping with the heading "Niall." As a DF27 person, he perhaps shouldn't be.

DavidCar
06-11-2013, 07:38 PM
Someone needs to check the raw data files though for Z295- versus no-calls.

I couldn't find any CTS4065 at all in the Y DNA SNP report for the P312 project.

I've seen the raw data for Peres, Borquez, Trinquier and Chalmers/Ryon. No no-calls at either CTS4065 or CTS12074.

R.Rocca
06-11-2013, 08:13 PM
I was looking through the samples again last night and this is the tree I came up with:

469

I have some question marks around some of the branches due to sample NA12874 (CEU) which might have some alignment issues as it is derived for Z216, Z270 and CTS4065. NA20518 (TSI) and three unpublished British samples are all derived for CTS4065 and ancestral for Z216 and Z270.

Webb
06-11-2013, 08:20 PM
When I spoke with Henry Zenker a couple of months ago, he was aware of Z295 and suspected it was actually down by Z278/Z216 but didn't have enough hard evidence to say for sure. I think Dick's cousin's Geno results is what firmed that up for me. I would imagine that once FTDNA starts offering these for individual testing, we should hopefully start to see more seperation between those who have Z210 and nothing else downstream, those who have Z220 and nothing else downstream, and maybe even those who are Z295 and nothing else downstream.

razyn
06-12-2013, 03:23 AM
my differently surnamed cousin's Geno 2 result appears to indicate that he is Z210+, Z295+ -- and according to NatGeo, his terminal SNP for Y-DNA is CTS4065...

The FTDNA kit for this cousin is #217955. He's in the group currently called Jra in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/ (select Y-DNA Results, SNP, and Find: 217955).

I couldn't seem to edit that post, so I've just replied to it with the modifications necessary. The positive results have been transferred and are displayed in the project.

Also, an order has now been placed for L484 for his kit, to prove with the required sequencing that he has that one (and as far as we know, it's terminal).

R.Rocca
06-12-2013, 03:23 PM
When I spoke with Henry Zenker a couple of months ago, he was aware of Z295 and suspected it was actually down by Z278/Z216 but didn't have enough hard evidence to say for sure. I think Dick's cousin's Geno results is what firmed that up for me. I would imagine that once FTDNA starts offering these for individual testing, we should hopefully start to see more seperation between those who have Z210 and nothing else downstream, those who have Z220 and nothing else downstream, and maybe even those who are Z295 and nothing else downstream.

Is that what the kit result is telling us, because that is no the case in the 1000 Genome samples???

Webb
06-12-2013, 04:16 PM
Is that what the kit result is telling us, because that is no the case in the 1000 Genome samples???

As I have never seen the 1000 genome results, I would have no idea what they are saying. I am going off the Geno 2.0 results. There are 10 Z210+ individuals. At Z295 we loose three of them and are down to 7 individuals. At Z278/Z216 we loose three more and are down to 4.

R.Rocca
06-12-2013, 05:20 PM
As I have never seen the 1000 genome results, I would have no idea what they are saying. I am going off the Geno 2.0 results. There are 10 Z210+ individuals. At Z295 we loose three of them and are down to 7 individuals. At Z278/Z216 we loose three more and are down to 4.

I re-read your post and I think you are simply saying that Z295 is below Z220 and Z210 which is the case in the 1000 Genomes samples, but there are some Z295+ samples who are also negative for the SNPs below it (i.e. Z278 and Z216).

Webb
06-12-2013, 05:31 PM
I re-read your post and I think you are simply saying that Z295 is below Z220 and Z210 which is the case in the 1000 Genomes samples, but there are some Z295+ samples who are also negative for the SNPs below it (i.e. Z278 and Z216).

Exactly. So far it is looking like this....

Z220

Z210

Z295 -----> L484 and possibly other groups?

Z278/Z216

Z214

M153

R.Rocca
06-12-2013, 06:09 PM
Exactly. So far it is looking like this....

Z220

Z210

Z295 -----> L484 and possibly other groups?

Z278/Z216

Z214

M153

OK, got it. I also checked and there were no 1KG L484+ samples. There were two CTS12074+ samples but there were also two other that were heterozygous. Again, it might be an alignment issue.

DavidCar
06-12-2013, 06:18 PM
I don't know if reformatting my notes makes this more useful. Unfortunately the extra spaces I used to align the SNPs all get lost in posting.


Lopez -- Kit # N113609 in M153 Project
Borquez -- Kit # N8661 in P312 Project
Trinquier -- Kit # N50965 in P312 Project
Peres -- Kit # N94262 in P312 Project
Travis/Rogers -- Kit# 217955 to P312 Project, cousin to Hulin Kit # 195834
Sarabia - Kit # 144165 in Clan MacLean Project & Clan Fraser Project
Ware -- Kit # 112585 in Ware Project
Morgan -- Kit # 23193 in P312 Project
Short/Elkins -- Kit # 211471 in P312 Project
Chalmers/Ryon -- Kit # N2640 in P312 Project


Chalmers/Ryon: Z220+, Z210+
Short/Elkins: Z220+, Z210+
Morgan: Z220+, Z210+

Ware: Z220+, Z210+, Z295+ (Also CTS4065+, L484?)
Sarabia: Z220+, Z210+, Z295+ (Also CTS4065+, L484?)
Travis/Rogers: Z220+, Z210+, Z295+ (Also CTS4065+, L484?)
Hulin: Z220+, Z210+, Z295+ (Also CTS4065?, L484+) (Also Z216-)

Peres: Z220+, Z210+, Z295+, CTS12074+, Z270+, Z273+, Z278+ (Also Z211+, Z212+)(Also Z216+)
Trinquier: Z220+, Z210+, Z295+, CTS12074+, Z270+, Z273+, Z278+ (Also Z211+, Z212+, Z214+, Z279+, Z299+)(Also Z216+)
Borquez: Z220+, Z210+, Z295+, CTS12074+, Z270+, Z273+, Z278+ (Also Z211+, Z212+, Z214+, Z279+, Z299+)
Lopez: Z220+, Z210+, Z295+, CTS12074+, Z270+, Z273+, Z278+ (Down to M153+)

TigerMW
06-12-2013, 09:59 PM
Does this now reflect the full stack of Z274 to M153? I don't have everything from Rocca's paper/HG studies but these are the primary discernible SNPs as I understand them. Let me know if I'm wrong or something is unstable/untestable and should be discarded.
http://tinyurl.com/R1b-DF27-Tree

breckenheimer
06-12-2013, 10:30 PM
Mike, I see you have Z274 upstream from Z209. It is also upstream from DF17 as shown by Kit 26772 (Hart) in the P312 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx?section=ysnp). Hart is both DF17+ and Z274+.

TigerMW
06-12-2013, 11:22 PM
Mike, I see you have Z274 upstream from Z209. It is also upstream from DF17 as shown by Kit 26772 (Hart) in the P312 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx?section=ysnp). Hart is both DF17+ and Z274+.

I knew I was missing something important about Z274.
http://tinyurl.com/R1b-DF27-Tree

razyn
06-12-2013, 11:23 PM
L484's cloud should be below CTS4065, because of 217955. If you look at the other two CTS4065 guys, Ware N112585 and Sarabia 144165, there is nothing in their haplotypes that would point to L484+. Even at 12 markers, we have 4 off-modal values that they lack. [Ware's test is only to 12 markers. At 67 markers we have 8 off-modals, and Sarabia lacks all 8.] So that looks like a branching point, to me.

There might be some other points of comparison in that welter of positive SNPs beginning with CTS, F, P, PF, and YSC. I haven't yet focused much on Geno 2, because I keep hearing about its ambivalent results for this and that, and people's lists of new SNPs seem to shrink.

TigerMW
06-12-2013, 11:29 PM
L484's cloud should be below CTS4065, because of 217955. If you look at the other two CTS4065 guys, Ware N112585 and Sarabia 144165, there is nothing in their haplotypes that would point to L484+. Even at 12 markers, we have 4 off-modal values that they lack. So that looks like a branching point, to me.

....

Can we get these guys to test for L484 so we know rather than rely on STR uniqueness?

razyn
06-12-2013, 11:46 PM
I don't administer any group Ware and Sarabia are in. I got Travis to test L484 (ordered last night).

DavidCar
06-13-2013, 01:00 AM
Can we get these guys to test for L484 so we know rather than rely on STR uniqueness?

I emailed the Clan MacLane administrator yesterday, but no reply as yet.

Also emailed the Ware Project administrator tonight.

DavidCar
06-13-2013, 02:18 AM
According to my notes without double-checking or filling in the missing names, this is the "full stack" on Richard Rocca's old chart. The ones on the chart but not in this list are not in the Geno 2.0 raw data.
Three are on Geno 2.0 but are not working. Z271 used to be in the raw data but not working, and is now not in the raw data.


Z196+ (Not on Geno 2.0 chip)
Z195+

Z274+

Z294+ (Not on Geno 2.0 chip)

Z209+ (Not on Geno 2.0 chip)
Z215+
Z268+
Z296+ (Apparently not working on Geno 2.0 chip)

Z220+: -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres, Travis, Sarabia, Ware, Morgan, Short, Chalmers

Z210+: -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres, Travis, Sarabia, Ware, Morgan, Short, Chalmers
Z295+: -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres, Travis, Sarabia, Ware -- Repositioned
Z216+ (Apparently not working on Geno 2.0 chip)
CTS12074+ :-- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres
Z270+ : -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres
Z273+ : -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres

Z278+ : -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres
Z211+ : -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres
Z212+ : -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier, Peres
Z217+ (Apparently not working on Geno 2.0 chip)

Z214+ : -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier
Z279+ : -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier
Z299+ : -- Lopez, Borquez, Trinquier

M153+ : -- Lopez Only

TigerMW
06-13-2013, 04:06 PM
According to my notes without double-checking or filling in the missing names, this is the "full stack" on Richard Rocca's old chart. The ones on the chart but not in this list are not in the Geno 2.0 raw data.
Three are on Geno 2.0 but are not working. Z271 used to be in the raw data but not working, and is now not in the raw data
...
Z294+ (Not on Geno 2.0 chip)
...

Can Z294 be ordered a la carte?

If understand Rich's chart in reply #22 below correctly then NA20752 and HG00141 are Z294+ Z209- which means this is a discernible branch. Am I right?

BTW, I tried to order Z210 for myself a la carte and still can't. Does anyone know FTDNA's status on this?

DavidCar
06-13-2013, 04:32 PM
The chart suggests Z294 is a discernible branch, but can't (as of today) be ordered at FTDNA.

TigerMW
06-13-2013, 07:31 PM
The chart suggests Z294 is a discernible branch, but can't (as of today) be ordered at FTDNA.
My perspective is that since Rocca is showing two people in that Z294+ Z209- group from the human genome projects and it is such a high level (early) branching then it could be important to understanding the whole North-South Cluster.

Hence, even though it can't be ordered today, I'll include it in the descendency chart and spreadsheet haplogroup labeling/Y DNA SNP report scanning so it won't be forgotten.

TigerMW
06-13-2013, 08:29 PM
Mike, I see you have Z274 upstream from Z209. It is also upstream from DF17 as shown by Kit 26772 (Hart) in the P312 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx?section=ysnp). Hart is both DF17+ and Z274+.

I forgot but FTDNA apparently doesn't think Z274 will be useful.
Thomas Krahn wrote to me,

Z274 itself is located in a highly repetitive region. If you blast a ~500 bp region around Z274 you'll find literally hundreds of alternative (almost exact) hits on the Y chromosome itself. This is also the reason why I gave up designing primers for Z274. But this also means that Z274 is questionable for any phylogenetic purpose and the DF17 position could be anywhere above or below its current
location.

Likewise, I've gotten similar feedback on Z210.

I've never ordered those primers because they'll likely not work. If you blast a region around Z210 you'll get a million hits on other chromosomes.



So, here, I'll try again:
http://tinyurl.com/R1b-DF27-Tree

DavidCar
06-14-2013, 06:04 AM
Mike, I see you have Z274 upstream from Z209. It is also upstream from DF17 as shown by Kit 26772 (Hart) in the P312 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx?section=ysnp). Hart is both DF17+ and Z274+.

FWIW, I see there is a kit that parallels the Hart kit in being Z274+ and CTS7768+, which I understand is synonymous with DF17+. The kit is N30509 in the French Heritage Project.

Some trivia: I see Hart is not listed as M343+, but the French kit is M343+, so I assume Hart has a no-call at M343.

breckenheimer
06-15-2013, 01:18 PM
So far, the 9 DF17 men who tested for CTS7768 have all been derived for it. The French kit you mention hasn't tested for DF17, but has 12 markers that look quite DF17-esque: DYS390=23, DYS19=15.

CTS7768 hasn't been added to the ISOGG tree yet because, despite the fact that the numerous Z209 kits and L176.2 Geno 2.0 kits have not shown to be positive for it, there is a chance they are all no-calls, rather than ancestral, albeit a very small likelihood of that. So far, no Z209 or L276.2 have tested CTS7768 a-la-carte at FTDNA.

razyn
06-15-2013, 01:45 PM
CTS7768 hasn't been added to the ISOGG tree yet...

But it was added to investigation there, 19 March. CTS4065 is still under the radar (except for Mike's chart).

FWIW the raw data for Travis 217955 (who is Z220+, etc.) doesn't show a CTS7768 derived result. The mutation there would be A to C, per Gbrowse -- Travis has the ancestral A.

razyn
07-01-2013, 02:14 PM
I've had another exchange with Hans van Vliet, who has been comparing his whole genome results (where possible) with some of the Geno2 results that are genetically near him. So far, his Excel file for the Z220 side of the tree only compares himself with five other people (Trinquier, Peres, Short, Morgan, Chalmers). I have suggested that he add these four:

Sarabia -- Kit # 144165 in Clan Fraser Project http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Clan_Fraser/default.aspx?section=ysnp
Ware -- Kit # 112585 in Ware Project http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ware/default.aspx?section=ysnp
Corden # B3990 and Travis # 217955 both of whom are in the R1b-P312 project (but posted there since Hans created his spreadsheet).

One that Mike mentioned earlier in this thread, # 211471 Unknown (Short?) should also be in the mix, particularly with regard to the position of Z295. He doesn't show either CTS12074 or CTS4065. I neglected to mention #211471 to Hans, but will correct that oversight.

Hans (# 109279) is CTS4065+, same terminal SNP as Travis (and me) if we continue to ignore L484. (But really, it divides the phylogeny again, under CTS4065.)

Incidentally, looking at the way the "North/South Cluster" gradually unfolds and differentiates, to me it appears that CTS12074 is more south(west) and CTS4065 is more north(east). Early days, yet; I just mention it. As more data points and branches of the phylogen[et]ic tree become available, this pattern (or whatever other pattern develops) is likely to have chronological and geographical implications.

Webb
07-01-2013, 06:35 PM
These are some of the North/South Cluster Geno 2.0 results I have been tracking as they become available on Semargl. Keep in mind that the order of the SNP's is based numerically and not the way they should be on a phylogenic tree. I noticed the same pattern Razyn did right away. The UK samples seem to be more in line with the North East samples. The North East samples lack the downstream SNP's that the South West samples have. There does exist some UK samples that seem to come out of the South West pattern. I would venture that if we had enough people tested in Britain, we might find a pretty good split between the North East variety of Z220 and the Sout West variety of Z220. Any thoughts?

DavidCar
07-01-2013, 10:46 PM
So if Hans is L484- and CTS4065+, that should be the proof I was looking for that L484 is clearly below CTS4065

TigerMW
07-01-2013, 11:50 PM
These are some of the North/South Cluster Geno 2.0 results I have been tracking as they become available on Semargl. Keep in mind that the order of the SNP's is based numerically and not the way they should be on a phylogenic tree. I noticed the same pattern Razyn did right away. The UK samples seem to be more in line with the North East samples. The North East samples lack the downstream SNP's that the South West samples have. There does exist some UK samples that seem to come out of the South West pattern. I would venture that if we had enough people tested in Britain, we might find a pretty good split between the North East variety of Z220 and the Sout West variety of Z220. Any thoughts?

We are trying to setup a DF27 haplogroup type of project. If we get that going, we need to decide on recruiting criteria, but I would say we ask these kinds of NS folks to join and encourage them to test, probably for Z220. Anyway, thank you for tracking these folks. Let's keep track of any project and Ysearch ID (if available) on them as well so we can contact them.

DavidCar
07-03-2013, 04:58 AM
I see kit B3990 is also CTS12074+. I don't quickly see that kit number mentioned in this thread.

razyn
07-03-2013, 01:46 PM
I see kit B3990 is also CTS12074+. I don't quickly see that kit number mentioned in this thread.

I listed him in post #46 (and have told Hans).

swknuckles
07-15-2013, 09:41 PM
Hi Mikewww,

I'm still stuck at Z220+ for a while now. Did you receive your result?

Steve in St. Louis (R-Z220+ and N/S)

razyn
08-02-2013, 01:28 PM
So if Hans is L484- and CTS4065+, that should be the proof I was looking for that L484 is clearly below CTS4065

Right, I don't see how that could be questioned now. The L484+ test at FTDNA for Travis #217955 posted yesterday in his projects. Since he had a Geno 2 test (that called CTS4065+ his terminal SNP), it just appears in the sea of positive SNP results he has from Geno 2. But L484+ is not tested on that chip; it was ordered for him a la carte, so it wouldn't require accepting the fact that he's my cousin.

TigerMW
08-02-2013, 03:15 PM
I've been combing through the Iberian descendant type projects, French Heritage and now German Language looking for NS-Cluster folks. I should have pretty good list when I'm done. They'll be in the P312xL21 spreadsheet but of course these are mostly people who have not SNP tested since the SNP tested ones are likely in the DF27 project.

DavidCar
10-16-2013, 08:18 PM
I've lost track of this conversation, so someone remind me:

Are Travis, Sarabia and Ware all CTS4065?

If so then we've now got one case of Z295*, CTS4065-.

hearding
10-18-2013, 03:12 PM
If so then we've now got one case of Z295*, CTS4065-.

I take it yer talkin' bout little ol' me? (Hardin)

razyn
10-18-2013, 05:42 PM
Right, and Chris Morley has been apprised of that. His (mostly) Geno2 phylogeny at the last revision had 16/16 Z295 guys accounted for -- 10 were Z270+ and the other 6 were CTS4065+. Now Hardin is neither -- so he's a paragroup of one. Probably, not for long (but who knows).

DavidCar
11-11-2013, 05:45 PM
Some notes on Z274

I had a look at the Z274+ group on the DF27 SNP page the other day and made some observations.

There are four cases with a high number of new SNPs, which raises the question of whether they could be false positives. Sometimes it seems that a kit with about 100 Y no-calls has 4 or 5 false positives. It is already known that two of these four kits are like that, Borquez (N8661) has 116 Y no-calls and 3 unusual positives, and Hall (N115093) has 91 Y no-calls and 5 unusual positives. I’ve not seen the raw data for the other two cases, which would be interesting to see if the pattern holds true. Those are Leyton (27539) with 4 unusual positives, and Genesse (N80344) with 7 unusual positives.

The Corden kit (B3990) is the only kit that is Z214+, Z299+ but has no result listed for Z279. This could either be a negative or a no-call for Z279, so it would be interesting to see the raw data for this kit.

The position of Z270 with respect to Z216 is unclear, but could be determined by doing some Z216 tests on the Hardin (74838), Carpenter (N11536) and de Kacote (262674) kits. Z216 is already on the ISOGG tree, so Z270 can’t be placed there until its position with respect to Z216 is resolved.

If Hardin is Z216+, then Z216 is above Z270. The Bjorkman kit proves Z216 is below Z295. In this case the Carpenter and de Kacote kits would be proven to be Z216+

If Hardin in Z216- and the Carpenter and de Kacote kits are Z216+, then Z216 and Z270 would be shown to be phylogenetically equivalent, at least until some new information comes along.

If Carpenter and de Kacote are Z216-, then Z216 is below Z270. In this case the Hardin kit would be proven to be Z216-. Then it becomes possible that the Roche kit (289627) is also Z216-, which would push Z216 below 5 other SNPs.

That’s according to what I see on the FTDNA SNP page. Someone like Richard Rocca who studies other sources of information could possibly rule out some of these options.

Note: The Z216 probe on the Geno 2.0 chip doesn't work, so Geno 2.0 tests can't be used to prove anything about the location of Z216.

jcorden
11-11-2013, 06:26 PM
I am the donor of the Corden kit (B3990) and the Z279 result is negative. Both my brother and I are T at Z279 which I believe is the negative sequence.

DavidCar
11-11-2013, 11:03 PM
I am the donor of the Corden kit (B3990) and the Z279 result is negative. Both my brother and I are T at Z279 which I believe is the negative sequence.

Yup, T is ancestral for Z279, so that answers that question through two independent tests.

razyn
11-11-2013, 11:44 PM
Z216 is already on the ISOGG tree, so Z270 can’t be placed there until its position with respect to Z216 is resolved.

Historically, several things have been on the ISOGG tree in wildly inappropriate places, and when better data came in they got moved.

Anyway, with respect to this specific phylogeny, shouldn't CTS12074 also be part of what you are agonizing over? Geno 2.0 does report that one (if derived).

Also, the full genome scan (by DNA-DTC) of our friend Spanjool should be informative for the upper level issues, from Z274 down through Z270 (for which he is negative). The interesting subdivisions of the N/S cluster start happening just under Z295.

DavidCar
11-12-2013, 04:27 AM
...
Anyway, with respect to this specific phylogeny, shouldn't CTS12074 also be part of what you are agonizing over? Geno 2.0 does report that one (if derived).
...

The reason for the interest in Z216 and Z270 is that there is an FTDNA single-snp test available for Z216, and there are several kits in a position to resolve information about the snp-tree by taking the test.

As far as CTS12074 goes, it appears in kits on the DF27 SNP page together with Z273, Z278, Z211 and Z212. If a kit is positive for one it is positive for all, so there is no prospect for separating those at the moment. However, on Richard Rocca's old chart, Z278, Z211, Z212 and Z217 (Z217 is not in Geno2) are positioned in a group below the group which includes Z273, so that suggests that at some point in the future we should see a kit whose terminal-snp, or current-lowest-snp, is Z273. If and when such a kit appears, it will be interesting to see if CTS12074 appears with it. Currently there is no FTDNA single-snp test for CTS12074.

DavidCar
11-12-2013, 04:34 AM
Also, the full genome scan (by DNA-DTC) of our friend Spanjool should be informative for the upper level issues, from Z274 down through Z270 (for which he is negative). The interesting subdivisions of the N/S cluster start happening just under Z295.

Probably we'll soon be seeing such a deluge of new information from the various new tests that the whole effort of tree-building will become much more difficult. If there are a bunch of new Chromo2 SNPs, how are they going to be positioned relative to the Geno2 SNPs? I think the situation with the Full Genomes SNPs with their varying levels of confidence will make the situation even more complicated.

razyn
11-12-2013, 05:26 AM
If there are a bunch of new Chromo2 SNPs, how are they going to be positioned relative to the Geno2 SNPs?

I worry about that issue, too. Mainly because I have relatively little confidence that we'll find out the locus and mutation for each of the new S series SNPs -- except maybe in the fullness of time, like when they get released on a Geno 5.0 chip or something. I should live so long.

But there have been times when I've been pleasantly surprised by something, and that could be one.

TigerMW
11-12-2013, 05:43 AM
I worry about that issue, too. Mainly because I have relatively little confidence that we'll find out the locus and mutation for each of the new S series SNPs -- except maybe in the fullness of time, like when they get released on a Geno 5.0 chip or something. I should live so long.

But there have been times when I've been pleasantly surprised by something, and that could be one.

All I know to do is to ask get them to document their SNPs and that means mapping them against the ones that are on ISOGG. They have worked with ISOGG in the past to get that done. I think there are enough UK people in ISOGG to make sure they find a way they include BISDNA.

I have been in communication in Dr. Wilson. He will send me lists of downstream SNPs and will product SNP trees. I just need to make sure he integrates that into the existing ISOGG defined tree. From what I gather, he is really busy so this make take a while. I guess that can be viewed negatively, or positively that a lot of people have ordered Chromo 2. They apparently have a lot of good stuff for L165 people. Z220 people, I don't know. I'm waiting.

razyn
01-07-2014, 03:10 PM
They apparently have a lot of good stuff for L165 people. Z220 people, I don't know. I'm waiting.

Part of my CTS4065+ SNP test report from YSEQ, received today, included two more names for it: S1221 (that would be at BritainsDNA) and Z2355 (presumably, at FTDNA). This SNP test was formerly available only on the Geno2 chip. It's below Z220 (and Z295), and appears to be above my L484.NS.

Webb
01-27-2020, 07:09 PM
I have a new 37 marker match that is interesting enough, I thought it worth sharing. This new match at 37 markers has the last name Deane. It shows he did a FF test and Y111, but not BigY, unless he did and his results have not come back, but it does show he has a terminal SNP, CTS6352. He is not in the DF27 project despite his branch being, Z195>Z274>Z209>Z295>Z270>Z211>Z278>CTS12074>Z697>Z214>Z279>BY182411>CTS11473>CTS6352. Among my other 37 marker matches is Vanderhoof, Z195>Z274>Z209>FGC83504>Z295>Z270>Z211. Years ago Vanderhoof and I shared some emails and I talked him into doing some SNP testing, because at 67 markers we are off by 9, and according to Mark Jost, Vanderhoof and I should have had a common ancestor around 1060AD, but obviously after snp testing it is apparent that even though our STRs show we should be close matches, SNPs have shown we are very distant, yet we are both under the old North/South cluster of Z209. What I don't know is whether Deane and Vanderhoof are 67 marker matches with each other or not. I also believe that Vanderhoof tested Z278 and came back negative, but that is going off memory. If Vanderhoof is Z278-, then this new match, Deane is another completely unrelated DF27 man, who happens to have STR values very close to me and Vanderhoof. Could be an interesting coincidence. Also, Deane is now the first non Iberian CTS6352 individual.