Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Shared SNP's within different haplogroups

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,856
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T1a2b- SK1480
    mtDNA (M)
    H95a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-S8172
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b17

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Italy Ladinia Austria Tirol

    Shared SNP's within different haplogroups

    How useful are SNP which are shared by other haplogroups


    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS3767+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, BY143483+ )


    Grandfather via paternal grandmother = I1-Z131 ydna
    Great grandmother paternal side = T1a1e mtdna

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to vettor For This Useful Post:

     Smilelover (11-20-2016)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,060
    Sex
    Location
    Last of the Mohicans
    Ethnicity
    Gafasigirig
    Nationality
    Icecold
    Y-DNA (P)
    Q-Y16849
    mtDNA (M)
    H14a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-Z2103
    mtDNA (P)
    HV-T16311C!

    Turkey Afsharid Dynasty
    They developed independently from each other so I would think they are useful in that sense, unless its a site where mutation occurs frequently/random.
    Of all the countries, this is possibly the most beautiful. All that is beautiful and can be rarely seen in
    other countries can be seen everywhere here... Here live the people who wear the cleanest clothes and prepare the
    most flavorful dishes... Of all of Godís servants, the local people are the most compassionate and merciful...

    Ibn Battuta about Asia Minor 1333CE

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Afshar For This Useful Post:

     vettor (11-08-2016)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    685
    Sex
    Location
    Texas
    Ethnicity
    English, Irish, German
    Nationality
    US
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21>L226>FGC5639

    England Germany Netherlands France Ireland Switzerland
    I think the saga of L159 and L69 demonstrate the politics and usefulness of YSNPs that have multiple mutations of the same YSNP. First, these two YSNPs are dependent on each other since both are very near a YSTR structure. Today, YSEQ will not even add any YSNP mutations that are located near YSTR structures due to their unstable nature. FTDNA does allow some of these YSNPs into their haplotree but will generally remove them pretty quickly if they start finding inconsistent testing results (multiple mutations).

    When first discovered, L159 and L69 were part of the L21 haplotree. L159 mutates much less than L69 but both were added to the ISOGG haplotree and were tested a lot (before NGS testing became available). However, after a second mutation of L69 under L21 and the fifth known mutation, L69 was purged from the ISOGG haplotree as being too inconsistent to be reliable. There was a secondary push to remove L159 as well but L159.2 was a pretty major branch with a very active group of testers that successfully lobbied to keep L159.2 as part of the haplotree.

    L69 is still a viable YSNP mutation but two mutations were very close to each other on the haplotree which makes this YSNP less reliable in that area of the haplotree. I think the consensus to today, is to just eliminate these unstable types of YSNPs since there are just too many private YSNPs that could potentially replace these mutations. FTDNA continues to promote YSNP mutations that are in unstable areas as new branches. The vast majority of these have consistent testing results in the haplotree but there is a constant need to remove these types of YSNPs when inconsistent testing results are found. Many of these inconsistent results could be due to the error prone nature of the very economical Mass Array SNP packs that FTDNA is rolling out. Some of these YSNP branches could be later declared valid branches.

    I think FTDNA's approach is much better than YSEQ's approach. There are five significant L226 brenches that have consistent testing results today in unstable areas. FTDNA includes most of these branches in their haplotree yet YSEQ takes a more purist view and will not test any YSNPs found in unstable areas. FTDNA will correct these inconsistent test but it takes a lot of effort on all parties to monitor and make adjustments. These YSNPs cause a lot of confusion to all parties but can be extremely useful as well. ISOGG has also started to exclude many of these YSNPs mutations outright as well. I used to avoid these unstable YSNPs in my haplotree of R-L226, but have changed my mind about their usefulness. It is similar in genealogy as finding evidence of relatedness via land records that are not as reliable but add to the overall information associated with a family grouping.

    Most genealogists like having as much information as possible as brick walls can be sometimes be removed with many less reliable sources implying a relationship. In this case, FTDNA has the right approach - but this approach creates a lot of errors in their haplotree which comes along with using YSNPs in unstable areas. It also puts a lot more burden on the admins and FTDNA to resolve conflicts as well. Around 10 % of the L226 branches are declared unstable by the experts but have yielded consistent testing results to date. Z17669, DC33, BY4103, DC24 and DC40 are good solid branches under L226 that YSEQ refuses to test (include in their individual YSNP tests or YSNP panel tests) but most of these are included in the FTDNA L226 SNP pack.
    Last edited by RobertCasey; 11-08-2016 at 03:12 PM.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RobertCasey For This Useful Post:

     dp (11-09-2016),  vettor (11-08-2016)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,856
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T1a2b- SK1480
    mtDNA (M)
    H95a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-S8172
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b17

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Italy Ladinia Austria Tirol
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertCasey View Post
    I think the saga of L159 and L69 demonstrate the politics and usefulness of YSNPs that have multiple mutations of the same YSNP. First, these two YSNPs are dependent on each other since both are very near a YSTR structure. Today, YSEQ will not even add any YSNP mutations that are located near YSTR structures due to their unstable nature. FTDNA does allow some of these YSNPs into their haplotree but will generally remove them pretty quickly if they start finding inconsistent testing results (multiple mutations).

    When first discovered, L159 and L69 were part of the L21 haplotree. L159 mutates much less than L69 but both were added to the ISOGG haplotree and were tested a lot (before NGS testing became available). However, after a second mutation of L69 under L21 and the fifth known mutation, L69 was purged from the ISOGG haplotree as being too inconsistent to be reliable. There was a secondary push to remove L159 as well but L159.2 was a pretty major branch with a very active group of testers that successfully lobbied to keep L159.2 as part of the haplotree.

    L69 is still a viable YSNP mutation but two mutations were very close to each other on the haplotree which makes this YSNP less reliable in that area of the haplotree. I think the consensus to today, is to just eliminate these unstable types of YSNPs since there are just too many private YSNPs that could potentially replace these mutations. FTDNA continues to promote YSNP mutations that are in unstable areas as new branches. The vast majority of these have consistent testing results in the haplotree but there is a constant need to remove these types of YSNPs when inconsistent testing results are found. Many of these inconsistent results could be due to the error prone nature of the very economical Mass Array SNP packs that FTDNA is rolling out. Some of these YSNP branches could be later declared valid branches.

    I think FTDNA's approach is much better than YSEQ's approach. There are five significant L226 brenches that have consistent testing results today in unstable areas. FTDNA includes most of these branches in their haplotree yet YSEQ takes a more purist view and will not test any YSNPs found in unstable areas. FTDNA will correct these inconsistent test but it takes a lot of effort on all parties to monitor and make adjustments. These YSNPs cause a lot of confusion to all parties but can be extremely useful as well. ISOGG has also started to exclude many of these YSNPs mutations outright as well. I used to avoid these unstable YSNPs in my haplotree of R-L226, but have changed my mind about their usefulness. It is similar in genealogy as finding evidence of relatedness via land records that are not as reliable but add to the overall information associated with a family grouping.

    Most genealogists like having as much information as possible as brick walls can be sometimes be removed with many less reliable sources implying a relationship. In this case, FTDNA has the right approach - but this approach creates a lot of errors in their haplotree which comes along with using YSNPs in unstable areas. It also puts a lot more burden on the admins and FTDNA to resolve conflicts as well. Around 10 % of the L226 branches are declared unstable by the experts but have yielded consistent testing results to date. Z17669, DC33, BY4103, DC24 and DC40 are good solid branches under L226 that YSEQ refuses to test (include in their individual YSNP tests or YSNP panel tests) but most of these are included in the FTDNA L226 SNP pack.
    Thanks

    I asked because recently I was given a new SNP ( Z19945 and new branch in yfull) there is an equivalent SNP to Z19945 called CTS1848 ( under T haplogroup )...........myself and the only other T person with positive Z19945 , have CTS1848, with me showing negative and the other person as Positive .................this SNP CTS1848 is also under the R haplogroup

    Another SNP is L25 ...............shared between T and J haplogroups ..............I am negative for L25


    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS3767+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, BY143483+ )


    Grandfather via paternal grandmother = I1-Z131 ydna
    Great grandmother paternal side = T1a1e mtdna

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to vettor For This Useful Post:

     Smilelover (11-20-2016)

  9. #5
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    347
    Sex
    Location
    Ohio
    Ethnicity
    German
    Nationality
    Galactic Empire
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Z324, Z5055, L188+
    mtDNA (M)
    H5

    Basic problem with the statements concerning stability - THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED!!! Can you explain the stability issue in terms of time or generations, and relationship of one occurrence relative to another? What is an "unstable area" on the Y? Are there mutations present every 5 generations, or what? Let's stop using the historically inaccurate concepts to describe situations related to stability and mutation usefulness and get around to using terminology based upon solid facts of occurrence rates.

  10. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,449
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by vettor View Post
    Thanks

    I asked because recently I was given a new SNP ( Z19945 and new branch in yfull) there is an equivalent SNP to Z19945 called CTS1848 ( under T haplogroup )...........myself and the only other T person with positive Z19945 , have CTS1848, with me showing negative and the other person as Positive .................this SNP CTS1848 is also under the R haplogroup

    Another SNP is L25 ...............shared between T and J haplogroups ..............I am negative for L25
    You have already sent your BAM to YFull and they have already sent you the results of their analysis?

  11. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    685
    Sex
    Location
    Texas
    Ethnicity
    English, Irish, German
    Nationality
    US
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21>L226>FGC5639

    England Germany Netherlands France Ireland Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Cofgene View Post
    Basic problem with the statements concerning stability - THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED!!! Can you explain the stability issue in terms of time or generations, and relationship of one occurrence relative to another? What is an "unstable area" on the Y? Are there mutations present every 5 generations, or what? Let's stop using the historically inaccurate concepts to describe situations related to stability and mutation usefulness and get around to using terminology based upon solid facts of occurrence rates.
    The old methodology was to remove YSNPs that have mutated three or four times. The old methodology did allow quite of few YSNPs in unstable areas to be part of the haplotree but forced painful removals of those that had inconsistent testing results. For $1 per YSNP, YSEQ will respond to you and inform why they think these are in unstable areas. There are at least of a dozen scenarios: 1) located too close to YSTR structure; 2) found in the palindromic region where mass cross over can happen; 3) located near the re-combinational area of the XY pairing; 4) Since the Y chromosome originally came from the X chromosome and some areas are very static, it is hard to tell apart the X and Y in certain regions; 5) ISOGG states that inserts and deletes are unstable (really ??); 6) YSNPs that are very close to each other tend to track each other and ISOGG will not allow these potentially branching YSNPs. This is only half of the reasons that YDNA mutations are considered in unstable areas.

    The new methodology is still somewhat in flux. However, consistent results from YSNPs in unstable areas is blessed by FTDNA (not totally but they are making a major effort on this front) and promoted by Alex Williamson's BigTree as well. It is ironic though that YSEQ is now the hold out for ignoring any YSNP in unstable areas. This bad for their business model. Many admins do allow YSNPs branches in unstable areas - and that trend seems to be growing as well. I used to ignore these branches but Dennis Wright convinced me that there are too many that have consistent testing results. Like tracking YSEQ YSNP results, removing YSNPs in unstable areas with inconsistent testing results will remain a challenge for all to monitor and keep the haplotrees up to date. FTDNA does introduce a lot of these YSNPs as valid branches and get it wrong up front - but they seem willing to make corrections when presented the supporting documentation.

    FTDNA remains monopoly like by not acknowledging valid branches and equivalents discovered by their competitors. A6097 remains a major branch under L226 that they will not only add to the haplotree - but they refuse our requests to add these kinds of branches to their individual YSNP tests or include them in their SNP pack updates. They have added YSNPs of the leadership (FGC5647 and FGC5639, DC69, FGC122XX) but fail to add those branches where individuals go out on their own and discover these new branches like A6097. This attitude just ends up with unnecessary higher costs for the genetic genealogy community.

    Again, discovery of new branches via individual testing at YSEQ is running very consistent at 10 % the cost per branch as Big Y testing. Of course, no new private YSNPs are discovered but 400 private and equivalent YSNPs is being ignored as well. Fortunately, the new L226 YSNP pack has revealed six new branches (not fully vetted though) at about 66 % of the cost of Big Y. Not that impressive from a cost point of view. But these SNP packs have greatly increased testing coverage which has allowed prediction of branches below L226 to increase from 50 % to 70 %. There is just under two predicted for every submission that is thoroughly YSNP tested being revealed. As the haplotree gets more tested, the ratio of predicted to tested will drop of course but SNP pack testing will continue to chip away at the outliers that have not been thoroughly YSNP tested. It remains to be seen just how much prediction via signatures will continue to create a robust descendant chart where analysis can finally be done to make much better testing recommendations.

    However, charting of L226 with around 25 % YSNP tested allows for 70 % to be charted (via prediction via signatures of tested submissions). These charts make it painfully obvious to those that should test Big Y (a lot), those that should take the SNP pack test (a lot), those that should test individual YSNPs at YSEQ (not that many as expected) and those few that need the resolution of Y Elite 2.1 (bottlenecks in the trunk of the L226 haplotree where there is a significant lack of divergence of YSTRs) as well as the obvious testing for genealogical YSNPs under 1,000 years old (a lot more is needed here).
    Last edited by RobertCasey; 11-09-2016 at 05:06 PM.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RobertCasey For This Useful Post:

     Amerijoe (01-09-2017),  Michał (01-09-2017),  palamede (11-18-2016),  Smilelover (11-20-2016)

  13. #8
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    347
    Sex
    Location
    Ohio
    Ethnicity
    German
    Nationality
    Galactic Empire
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Z324, Z5055, L188+
    mtDNA (M)
    H5

    You continue to use the term "unstable area" without defining it. I think what you could be referencing are those poorly assembled regions in the sequence. These regions have the same stability as other parts of the y or other chromosomes. What you term "unstable" represents low quality assembly data regions specific to the protocol and assembly parameters utilized to create the sequence. Let's get away from using the inappropriate terminology and move towards one which reflects the what is present in the specific referenced bit of data. Different sequencing technologies from Sanger, to NGS gen 1, gen 2, gen 3, gen4 will have different regions where they have their issues.

    In terms of Elite and WGS results they are just as critical for use on older branches as for the newer ones. Wherever you have more than 2 descendant branches you most likely are missing an intermediate level. The higher resolution tests increase the likelihood of identifying and placing intermediate levels that low resolution tests such as Big-Y miss. Within the R-Z326 region there are two levels within a 6 level segment that were identified from WGS results. We had to wait for SNP pack results to properly align 5 brother branches that Big-Y was incorrectly positioning.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cofgene For This Useful Post:

     Afshar (11-10-2016),  Amerijoe (01-09-2017),  Michał (01-09-2017),  palamede (11-18-2016)

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    685
    Sex
    Location
    Texas
    Ethnicity
    English, Irish, German
    Nationality
    US
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21>L226>FGC5639

    England Germany Netherlands France Ireland Switzerland
    The first paragraph gives six examples that are considered "unstable" areas by the various experts. "Unstable" areas mean parts of the Y chromosome where the reliability of consistent testing results is not always possible due to nature of how DNA works. For instance, any YSNP used near a YSTR structure is not really a random mutation but is a result of the YSTR expanding and contracting and affecting neighboring YSNPs that are very close to the YSTR structure. You also can not depend on YSNP in the palindromic region as very large strands of YDNA get wholesale replaced resulting in what appears to be dozens of random YSNP mutations that are actually only one massive replacement. Parts of the YDNA is very similar to XDNA since the YDNA strand started out as a XDNA pair. Some areas have so much in common between XDNA and YDNA that the YDNA enrichment process (which separates YDNA from all other chromosomes) can not tell XDNA and YDNA apart. This partially because current technology cuts up the DNA into small strands where it is impossible to tell XDNA from YDNA.

    I think that there are two very special scenarios where getting extra resolution really helps: 1) if you are trying to discover YSNPs in the genealogical time frame; 2) if your NGS testing candidates are found in the trunk of the haplotree where very little YSTR genetic diversity happens (YSTR provides very little genetic information to work with). For other scenarios, extra resolution always helps some - but you can also have 30 % more Big Ys vs. 30 % more coverage per NGS test. So there is less impact on haplotree development since 30 % more tests are somewhat equivalent 30 % more coverage - both at the same cost and both have pretty similar overall discovery capabilities. Having 30 % more resolution for the other two scenarios is really needed.

    I definitely agree that different technologies have different reliability which many people do not understand. The Array chip tests - Nat Geo, CROMO2, Living DNA have the lowest quality and many YSNPs just do not have reliable output. Also, Array chip sets have significant set up costs and can not be updated frequently due to the costs of developing the Array tests for YSNP testing. FTDNA usage of Mass Array is producing inconsistent results as well since it is very difficult to set up each SNP pack. However, this test allows a lot of branches or even private YSNPs to be included and can be updated frequently which offsets the reliability issues. Even NGS tests have major differences as well due to read length. YElite 2.1 will more reliably read the same areas since longer read lengths reduce the error rates associated with NGS tests.
    Last edited by RobertCasey; 11-10-2016 at 04:18 AM.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RobertCasey For This Useful Post:

     Amerijoe (01-09-2017),  Michał (01-09-2017),  palamede (11-18-2016)

  17. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertCasey View Post
    For instance, any YSNP used near a YSTR structure is not really a random mutation but is a result of the YSTR expanding and contracting and affecting neighboring YSNPs that are very close to the YSTR structure.
    I fear this is a hopeless newbie question, but I've been looking for an answer for weeks and finding no clues. If SNPs can be located by a position which is the number of bases from the marker to the end of the chromosome, and those numbers are consistent between different tests and test systems (at least within a particular reference file version), how do STRs fit into this location system? Your post is the first I've seen that explicitly mentions an effect on SNPs when nearby STRs expand or contract. Something has to give... How does that work? Is there some technical term I should be searching for?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A lot of shared matches
    By firemonkey in forum MyHeritage
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-25-2019, 01:32 AM
  2. Shared DNA vs shared matches ?
    By firemonkey in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-13-2019, 08:21 AM
  3. Non Shared Variants
    By mwauthy in forum FTDNA
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-09-2019, 07:36 PM
  4. Yfull: Shared SNPs vs Assumed Shared SNPs?
    By Dibran in forum R1a-Z283
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-26-2018, 12:29 AM
  5. Big-Y shared novel variants
    By gstockman in forum FTDNA
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-03-2017, 01:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •