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

Geno 2.0 and Z255+ people

Expand Messages
  • marosjor
    I just became aware today, although I should have known before, that L159.2 is not included in Geno 2.0. So, all Z255 people have is Z255 (and SNPs upstream
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I just became aware today, although I should have known before, that L159.2 is not included in Geno 2.0. So, all Z255 people have is Z255 (and SNPs upstream from it) from Geno 2.0. I presume that L159.2 was left out of Geno 2.0 due to its apparent instability.

      Is it still worthwhile asking people to test on L159.2 after they have a Z255+ result from Geno 2.0? I must admit I am curious to know the result on L159.2 for all Z255 people.

      Regards,
      Margaret Jordan
      Ireland yDNA Project
      O'Shea yDNA Project
    • mikewww7
      Margaret, I m not the expert on L159.2 and DYS464X but if it was me I d want to know my results on these two tests if I was Z255+. Z255 appears to be the
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Margaret, I'm not the expert on L159.2 and DYS464X but if it was me I'd want to know my results on these two tests if I was Z255+. Z255 appears to be the reliable one, so I'd definitely test for that, but then I'd go for both L159.2 and DYS464X (which I have already even though I'm not Z255+ my lineage is from Leinster).

        L159.2 does appear to divide Z255+.

        Regards,
        Mike W

        --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "marosjor" <m.jordan246@...> wrote:
        >
        > I just became aware today, although I should have known before, that L159.2 is not included in Geno 2.0. So, all Z255 people have is Z255 (and SNPs upstream from it) from Geno 2.0. I presume that L159.2 was left out of Geno 2.0 due to its apparent instability.
        >
        > Is it still worthwhile asking people to test on L159.2 after they have a Z255+ result from Geno 2.0? I must admit I am curious to know the result on L159.2 for all Z255 people.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Margaret Jordan
        > Ireland yDNA Project
        > O'Shea yDNA Project
        >
      • kirstensaxe
        There seems to be persistent confusion about L159.2 and its degree of stability. Z255 probably is a more reliable SNP, but it looks to me like Z255 is older
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 8, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          There seems to be persistent confusion about L159.2 and its degree of stability. Z255 probably is a more reliable SNP, but it looks to me like Z255 is older than L159.2, and that the location of L159 has been quite stable within R-Z255. This makes a result for L159.2 very useful for Z255+ people, especially any who don't know of any others from their family with a result for L159.2. Often we would be able to predict the result for L159.2 based on the haplotype, but there hasn't been enough L159.2 testing to tell us exactly how reliable our predictions are. Right now, they look good, but we might find some new clusters that surprise us, or even individuals with results that surprise us.

          DYS464X results are good to have, too, and especially so for those who are L159.2-.

          Kirsten


          From: "mikewww7" <mwwdna@...>
          To: "Beatty Byrnes DNA" <Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:51:16 PM
          Subject: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Re: Geno 2.0 and Z255+ people

           

          Margaret, I'm not the expert on L159.2 and DYS464X but if it was me I'd want to know my results on these two tests if I was Z255+. Z255 appears to be the reliable one, so I'd definitely test for that, but then I'd go for both L159.2 and DYS464X (which I have already even though I'm not Z255+ my lineage is from Leinster).

          L159.2 does appear to divide Z255+.

          Regards,
          Mike W

          --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, "marosjor" <m.jordan246@...> wrote:
          >
          > I just became aware today, although I should have known before, that L159.2 is not included in Geno 2.0. So, all Z255 people have is Z255 (and SNPs upstream from it) from Geno 2.0. I presume that L159.2 was left out of Geno 2.0 due to its apparent instability.
          >
          > Is it still worthwhile asking people to test on L159.2 after they have a Z255+ result from Geno 2.0? I must admit I am curious to know the result on L159.2 for all Z255 people.
          >
          > Regards,
          > Margaret Jordan
          > Ireland yDNA Project
          > O'Shea yDNA Project
          >

        • burnspaulj
          Of my 54 Byrne Leinsters, only two have Geno 2.0 tested, and it was no help. Of the 54, eight tested positive for L159.2, and no negatives. Of the eight
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 9, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Of my 54 Byrne "Leinsters," only two have Geno 2.0 tested, and it was no help. Of the 54, eight tested positive for L159.2, and no negatives. Of the eight L159.2, six are ccgg, and one was cccg (68384--possibly a back mutation). In total we have 16 ccgg among the 54.
            Mike has included 16 of this group's haplotypes on his L21 spreadsheet of whom 13 are 255-1830-B2 (including the cccg), one is 255-1830-B3, and two are 255-1830-M. I am not sure what the terminal differences mean but assume the 255-1830 designation means they all are close.
          • Kim Fields
            Hi, I m Fields 169910, I m 255-1830--- I don t know if I would typify it as close. I ve collected my closest 17 or so on a spread sheet and one that is FTDNA
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 9, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, I'm Fields 169910, I'm 255-1830---
              I don't know if I would typify it as close. I've collected my closest 17 or so on a spread sheet and one that is FTDNA 37-4 is Ysearch 12. He is a different surname, but that's typical for me. All the 17 are 255-1830. The one Fields I have a paper trail to is FTDNA 67-5 is YSearch 5, We connect at 9 generations. That one is not a member of the group. So I think the designation might be broader than you think. But it might be part that I'm the only Fields here. That is a good question though, how broad is a designation like 255-1830?
              K


              From: "pabloburns@..." <pabloburns@...>
              To: Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, April 9, 2013 8:03:57 AM
              Subject: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Geno 2.0 and Z255+ people

               

              Of my 54 Byrne "Leinsters," only two have Geno 2.0 tested, and it was no help. Of the 54, eight tested positive for L159.2, and no negatives. Of the eight L159.2, six are ccgg, and one was cccg (68384--possibly a back mutation). In total we have 16 ccgg among the 54.
              Mike has included 16 of this group's haplotypes on his L21 spreadsheet of whom 13 are 255-1830-B2 (including the cccg), one is 255-1830-B3, and two are 255-1830-M. I am not sure what the terminal differences mean but assume the 255-1830 designation means they all are close.

            • burnspaulj
              Kim, Someone who has a broader knowledge of the Leinster group probably can give you a better answer, but I will try. While everyone in this tribal group is
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 10, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Kim,
                Someone who has a broader knowledge of the Leinster group probably can give you a better answer, but I will try. While everyone in this tribal group is Z255, not every one is 448=18 and 449=30. Of my 54 Byrne, ten are not (eight 1829, one 1831, one 1832). I believe Mike is using "255-1830" as shorthand for the main body of this group. But while I am not sure what the GD limits of the group are, I think almost everyone is fairly close, i.e., there is a smaller spread than within some of the other subbranches of DF13.
                Can anyone else comment, if I am wrong?
                Paul
              • Mike Wdna
                We don t really know when Z255 occurred. We can just put fences around its maximum and minimum ages. We know that Z255 can not be older than its ancestor DF13.
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 10, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  We don't really know when Z255 occurred. We can just put fences around its maximum and minimum ages.

                  We know that Z255 can not be older than its ancestor DF13. DF13 looks to be as old as 2000-2500 BC. However, we might be able to speculate a little more deeply using interclade TMRCA estimates.

                  I did this analysis about a year ago and Mark Jost can probably do a better one at this time.
                  This graphic shows the midpoint (best estimate and the ranges) of the interclade ages between different elements of L21.
                  https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Subclades_Timeline.jpg

                  If you look for the lines that have Z255 on it, you'll see that the intercade best estimate age for the MRCA of Z255 & DF23, Z255 & DF21, etc. range from 2000 BC to 1000 BC. This would mean that the Z255 lineage would have branched away from the other subclades of DF13 by 1000 BC, give or take a confidence range. That does NOT mean Z255 occurred back then, just that it couldn't have occurred before then.

                  A mininum would be that Z255 has to be older than L159.2. Has Mark Jost done a TMRCA for the L159.2 people recently?

                  Regards,
                  Mike W



                  On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM, <pabloburns@...> wrote:
                   

                  Kim,
                  Someone who has a broader knowledge of the Leinster group probably can give you a better answer, but I will try. While everyone in this tribal group is Z255, not every one is 448=18 and 449=30. Of my 54 Byrne, ten are not (eight 1829, one 1831, one 1832). I believe Mike is using "255-1830" as shorthand for the main body of this group. But while I am not sure what the GD limits of the group are, I think almost everyone is fairly close, i.e., there is a smaller spread than within some of the other subbranches of DF13.
                  Can anyone else comment, if I am wrong?
                  Paul


                • Kim Fields
                  Thanks Paul, I thought the contrast between you and me was enlightening, to me anyway. My Fields variety project does cast a wider net than you. Is there
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 10, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks Paul, I thought the contrast between you and me was enlightening, to me anyway. My Fields variety project does cast a wider net than you. Is there  significance to 448 and 449 outside of your group or are they entirely derived by inclusion in your group and not the adjacent.

                    Kim Fields




                     <pabloburns@...>
                    To: Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wed, April 10, 2013 9:21:39 AM
                    Subject: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Re: Geno 2.0 and Z255+ people

                     

                    Kim,

                    not every one is 448=18 and 449=30.

                  • Jerry Nicholson
                    Paul said: /While everyone in this tribal group is Z255, not every one is 448=18 and 449=30. Of my 54 Byrne, ten are not (eight 1829, one 1831, one 1832).//
                    Message 9 of 10 , Apr 11, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Paul said:
                      While everyone in this tribal group is Z255, not every one is 448=18 and 449=30. Of my 54 Byrne, ten are not (eight 1829, one 1831, one 1832).
                      I believe Mike is using "255-1830 as shorthand for the main body of this group. But while I am not sure what the GD limits of the group are, I
                      think almost everyone is fairly close, i.e., there is a smaller spread than within some of the other subbranches of DF13.

                      Interesting. If Z255-1830 is the main body, where does my Z255-1930 put me ? (also 464=15-15-17-17, 159.2- )

                    • mikewww7
                      Yes, my 255-1830 was just short-hand for a variety/cluster name because I m trying to remain ethnic/geographic neutral. The 1830 is not a hard or strict STR
                      Message 10 of 10 , Apr 11, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, my 255-1830 was just short-hand for a variety/cluster name because I'm trying to remain ethnic/geographic neutral. The "1830" is not a hard or strict STR signature requirement and essentially overlaps with what is called the the Irish Sea/Leinster/Lagin modal haplotype.

                        One of the problems with this STR signature it is lacking in very slow or very unusual off-modal (from L21) markers. From my perspective, SNP testing is a must for this group to see who is really in versus out.

                        Regards,
                        Mike W

                        --- In Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Nicholson <jerry@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Paul said:
                        > /While everyone in this tribal group is Z255, not every one is 448=18
                        > and 449=30. Of my 54 Byrne, ten are not (eight 1829, one 1831, one 1832).//
                        > //I believe Mike is using "255-1830 as shorthand for the main body of
                        > this group. But while I am not sure what the GD limits of the group are,
                        > I //
                        > //think almost everyone is fairly close, i.e., there is a smaller spread
                        > than within some of the other subbranches of DF13.//
                        >
                        > /Interesting. If Z255-1830 is the main body, where does my Z255-1930 put
                        > me ? (also 464=15-15-17-17, 159.2- )
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.