Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Puzzling results

Expand Messages
  • Jane Murtishaw Lindsey
    My Little Surname Project has the first 37 markers in for two new members - a father and son. They appear to be close fits (GD of 2 or 3) with the 1113 group
    Message 1 of 8 , May 6, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      My Little Surname Project has the first 37 markers in for two new members – a father and son.  They appear to be close fits (GD of 2 or 3) with the 1113 group of Little’s but both have a 10 for DYS391, where the others in this group have 11. 

      What is really puzzling me is the son matches the group with 12 at DYS439, but the father has an 11.  If it had been the opposite, I would have thought nothing about it.  But the son’s mutation makes him match the large 1113 combo group closer than his father. 

      Is it likely one of their ancestors mutated from the standard 12 to 11 and then the son back mutated to the 12?    

      Would greatly appreciate any comments or advice.

      Jane

    • mikewww7
      Jane, what is the kit # and what project can we find these haplotypes in? Are they 385=11,11? All the Little/Lytle folks that are L513+ L193+ are 385=11,11.
      Message 2 of 8 , May 6, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Jane, what is the kit # and what project can we find these haplotypes in?

        Are they 385=11,11? All the Little/Lytle folks that are L513+ L193+ are 385=11,11.

        Mike W

        --- In 1113Combo@yahoogroups.com, "Jane Murtishaw Lindsey" <jmurt@...> wrote:
        >
        > My Little Surname Project has the first 37 markers in for two new members -
        > a father and son. They appear to be close fits (GD of 2 or 3) with the 1113
        > group of Little's but both have a 10 for DYS391, where the others in this
        > group have 11.
        >
        > What is really puzzling me is the son matches the group with 12 at DYS439,
        > but the father has an 11. If it had been the opposite, I would have thought
        > nothing about it. But the son's mutation makes him match the large 1113
        > combo group closer than his father.
        >
        > Is it likely one of their ancestors mutated from the standard 12 to 11 and
        > then the son back mutated to the 12?
        >
        > Would greatly appreciate any comments or advice.
        >
        > Jane
        >
      • Jane Murtishaw Lindsey
        Mike, Project is the Little_Klein_Cline_Kline,Little_Klein_Cline_Kline project. Results are both on WorldFamilies and FTDNA. Father s kit is 279182. Son s
        Message 3 of 8 , May 7, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          Mike, 

          Project is the Little_Klein_Cline_Kline,Little_Klein_Cline_Kline project.  Results are both on WorldFamilies and FTDNA.  Father’s kit is 279182.  Son’s kit is 279183.

           

          Thanks,

          Jane

        • Jane Murtishaw Lindsey
          Crud, I forgot to answer the other questions. Yes they are both 11,11 at 385.
          Message 4 of 8 , May 7, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

            Crud, I forgot to answer the other questions.

            Yes they are both 11,11 at 385.

          • mikewww7
            Jane, I see they are in the Little 385=11,11 group so it is highly probable they are also 406s1=11 617=13 and L193+. I recommend testing for L193 a la carte
            Message 5 of 8 , May 7, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Jane, I see they are in the Little 385=11,11 group so it is highly probable they are also 406s1=11 617=13 and L193+.

              I recommend testing for L193 a la carte (advanced orders $39) to confirm this.

              I think you have pretty good evidence that the son's 439=12 is just a back-mutation. In a way that's a shame for future comparisons as 439=11 was distinguishing marker for this particular lineage within the Little L193+ group.

              This lineage probably has some other distinguishing STR markers though. Testing for more markers would probably uncover them.

              Regards,
              Mike W

              --- In 1113Combo@yahoogroups.com, "mikewww7" <mwwdna@...> wrote:
              >
              > Jane, what is the kit # and what project can we find these haplotypes in?
              >
              > Are they 385=11,11? All the Little/Lytle folks that are L513+ L193+ are 385=11,11.
              >
              > Mike W
              >
              > --- In 1113Combo@yahoogroups.com, "Jane Murtishaw Lindsey" <jmurt@> wrote:
              > >
              > > My Little Surname Project has the first 37 markers in for two new members -
              > > a father and son. They appear to be close fits (GD of 2 or 3) with the 1113
              > > group of Little's but both have a 10 for DYS391, where the others in this
              > > group have 11.
              > >
              > > What is really puzzling me is the son matches the group with 12 at DYS439,
              > > but the father has an 11. If it had been the opposite, I would have thought
              > > nothing about it. But the son's mutation makes him match the large 1113
              > > combo group closer than his father.
              > >
              > > Is it likely one of their ancestors mutated from the standard 12 to 11 and
              > > then the son back mutated to the 12?
              > >
              > > Would greatly appreciate any comments or advice.
              > >
              > > Jane
              > >
              >
            • janemurt
              Thanks Mike. I have already suggested he do the L193 but haven t yet convinced him. The initial order was for 67 markers, but the last panels are not due til
              Message 6 of 8 , May 7, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks Mike.

                I have already suggested he do the L193 but haven't yet convinced him. The initial order was for 67 markers, but the last panels are not due til 5/22. Maybe when the final results come in, I will be better able to explain to him the value of testing for L193 and for upgrading to 111 - if it looks warranted.

                He has his tree well documented back to the early 1700s in Malsgate, Stapleton Parish, England, which may help others in the Little project.

                Jane

                --- In 1113Combo@yahoogroups.com, "mikewww7" <mwwdna@...> wrote:
                >
                > Jane, I see they are in the Little 385=11,11 group so it is highly probable they are also 406s1=11 617=13 and L193+.
                >
                > I recommend testing for L193 a la carte (advanced orders $39) to confirm this.
                >
                > I think you have pretty good evidence that the son's 439=12 is just a back-mutation. In a way that's a shame for future comparisons as 439=11 was distinguishing marker for this particular lineage within the Little L193+ group.
                >
                > This lineage probably has some other distinguishing STR markers though. Testing for more markers would probably uncover them.

                > > --- In 1113Combo@yahoogroups.com, "Jane Murtishaw Lindsey" <jmurt@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > My Little Surname Project has the first 37 markers in for two new members -
                > > > a father and son. They appear to be close fits (GD of 2 or 3) with the 1113
                > > > group of Little's but both have a 10 for DYS391, where the others in this
                > > > group have 11.
                > > >
                > > > What is really puzzling me is the son matches the group with 12 at DYS439,
                > > > but the father has an 11. If it had been the opposite, I would have thought
                > > > nothing about it. But the son's mutation makes him match the large 1113
                > > > combo group closer than his father.
                > > >
                > > > Is it likely one of their ancestors mutated from the standard 12 to 11 and
                > > > then the son back mutated to the 12?
                > > >
                > > > Would greatly appreciate any comments or advice.
              • smanscot@ymail.com
                Jane: This is a good case study for those interested in marker mutation behaviour. I agree with Mike that the son s 439 marker back-mutated. This seems like
                Message 7 of 8 , May 7, 2013
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jane:

                  This is a good case study for those interested in marker mutation behaviour. I agree with Mike that the son's 439 marker back-mutated. This seems like normal behaviour for the marker. The mutation rates for the first 12 markers has been widely studied and are accepted by all. 439 has a mutation rate of 4.77 or once every 210 generations/births. Therefore in a big city with 1000 births per day we'll see 5 mutations at that marker/locus. I went to our SS and found 60 mutations, at 439, from the modal out of 422 L193 haplotypes, and that works out to about 13.7%.

                  Marker/Locus 391 mutates slower than 439, at 2.65, or once every 377 generations/births (1000/2.65=377). I counted 32 mutations out of the same 422 L193 haplotypes in our group, and that works out to about 7.6%. So, out of 1000 births there will be 2.65 mutations at 391, or 3 mutations per every 1131 births.

                  Out of 56, 11-14, Little haplotypes in your Project, you've only had two mutations (if you don't count the son, but do count 252465) at 391 which works out to 3.5%, so that seems to be underrepresented compared to 7.6% in our group. At 439 in your group of 56, you've had 7 mutations (if you count the son's back-mutation) which works out to 12.5%, so that seems comparable to our group at 13.7%.

                  So, the bottom line is this: The more haplotypes joining your group, the more likely you'll see increased mutations at the loci 439 and 391.

                  Thanks for sharing this scenario with us: It was very interesting.

                  Best,

                  Daryl
                  --- In 1113Combo@yahoogroups.com, "Jane Murtishaw Lindsey" <jmurt@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > My Little Surname Project has the first 37 markers in for two new members -
                  > a father and son. They appear to be close fits (GD of 2 or 3) with the 1113
                  > group of Little's but both have a 10 for DYS391, where the others in this
                  > group have 11.
                  >
                  > What is really puzzling me is the son matches the group with 12 at DYS439,
                  > but the father has an 11. If it had been the opposite, I would have thought
                  > nothing about it. But the son's mutation makes him match the large 1113
                  > combo group closer than his father.
                  >
                  > Is it likely one of their ancestors mutated from the standard 12 to 11 and
                  > then the son back mutated to the 12?
                  >
                  > Would greatly appreciate any comments or advice.
                  >
                  > Jane
                  >
                • smanscot@ymail.com
                  Whoops! I meant to say Out of 56, 11-11, Little haplotypes .... , and NOT Out of 56, 11-14, Little haplotypes... as per below. Daryl
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 7, 2013
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Whoops! I meant to say "Out of 56, 11-11, Little haplotypes ....", and NOT "Out of 56, 11-14, Little haplotypes..." as per below.

                    Daryl

                    --- In 1113Combo@yahoogroups.com, "smanscot@..." <class1driver@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Jane:
                    >

                    > Out of 56, 11-14, Little haplotypes in your Project, you've only had two mutations (if you don't count the son, but do count 252465) at 391 which works out to 3.5%, so that seems to be underrepresented compared to 7.6% in our group.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.