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

A question regarding genetic matches

Expand Messages
  • modrisco
    There are three of us who are M223+ and match at 64/67 STR markers; each with a different surname... Blevins, Kelley and O Driscoll. I believe this indicates a
    Message 1 of 6 , May 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      There are three of us who are M223+ and match at 64/67 STR markers; each with a different surname... Blevins, Kelley and O'Driscoll. I believe this indicates a 90% likelihood of a common ancestor within 12 generations or about 360 years ago. I had upgraded to 111 STRs a few months ago and now so has the Kelley. However, we are both surprised that at 111 we do not match. FTNDA uses a maximum of 10 steps genetic distance to consider two people a match. So how can it be we are 64/67 but >10/111? Can someone help explain this to me? Does panel 5 contain more volatile STR markers?
    • Dora Smith
      I seriously do not think there’s been enough experience with the 111 marker test to know what in the world its results mean, which is one reason why I
      Message 2 of 6 , May 27, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I seriously do not think there’s been enough experience with the 111 marker test to know what in the world its results mean, which is one reason why I won’t get it or recommend it.  
         
        I’ve never seen people match this closely at 67 markers and not be related, even given, for instance, my brother’s highly accidental proximity to the Anglo Saxon Generic modal haplotype.   McKinstry accidental matches start at a genetic distance of 6 and may not be pure accidents at that distance.  Smith accidental matches start somewhere between five and seven, and at that distance one has to know more to tell true matches from false ones.  The true matches follow a specific pattern.  Some of them contain a rare marker value.  All contain the rare absence of a specific haplogroup I1 SNP.  
         
        Family Tree DNA’s genetic distance allowances are unrealistic; if you’re related from long enough ago or your lineage has a lot of changes, you’re likely to for instance have a greater genetic distance than 6 at 67 markers.   It would be better if they let people set the maximum genetic distance for themselves.   I suggest the three of you upload your results to Y Search, which somehow lets you search at a greater degree of genetic distance.   Let us know if that doesn’t work.
         
        Another method is to print out all three haplotypes and count the differences for yourself, counting the sum of the total differences for each marker that differs.   Also notice what markers are different and tell us that, and also tell us if multiple markers change to the same value, especially if those are markers with multiple values.   That can be a special kind of mutation that is really 1 step but looks like more steps.  
         
        Do you have any family history on these three families?   Keep in mind that that amount of genetic distance would be pointing to the 16th or 17th century at a normal rate of change.   In some parts of southwestern Scotland they still barely had surnames.  
         
        Dora
         
         
        From: modrisco
        Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:21 AM
        Subject: [I-M223] A question regarding genetic matches
         
         

        There are three of us who are M223+ and match at 64/67 STR markers; each with a different surname... Blevins, Kelley and O'Driscoll. I believe this indicates a 90% likelihood of a common ancestor within 12 generations or about 360 years ago. I had upgraded to 111 STRs a few months ago and now so has the Kelley. However, we are both surprised that at 111 we do not match. FTNDA uses a maximum of 10 steps genetic distance to consider two people a match. So how can it be we are 64/67 but >10/111? Can someone help explain this to me? Does panel 5 contain more volatile STR markers?

      • Wayne Roberts
        Michael, I had a look at your matches and then the Kelley Surname Project. Your 111 markers when compared with Kelley that has 111 markers seems to only have
        Message 3 of 6 , May 28, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael,
           
          I had a look at your matches and then the Kelley Surname Project. Your 111 markers when compared with Kelley that has 111 markers seems to only have an overall 6 step difference. I am not sure why FTDNA did not show a match for the 68-111 marker panels as there were just two markers that differed from yours, one by 2 steps and another by 1 step. Looks pretty good to me for a common ancestor somewhere in last 10 generations or so. I have matching Roberts "cousins" with as many steps. The key will be if they have the same SNPs as you.
           
          Invite your Kelley, Siscoe and Blevins matches to join the I-M223 Project.
           
          Wayne
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: modrisco
          Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:21 AM
          Subject: [I-M223] A question regarding genetic matches

           

          There are three of us who are M223+ and match at 64/67 STR markers; each with a different surname... Blevins, Kelley and O'Driscoll. I believe this indicates a 90% likelihood of a common ancestor within 12 generations or about 360 years ago. I had upgraded to 111 STRs a few months ago and now so has the Kelley. However, we are both surprised that at 111 we do not match. FTNDA uses a maximum of 10 steps genetic distance to consider two people a match. So how can it be we are 64/67 but >10/111? Can someone help explain this to me? Does panel 5 contain more volatile STR markers?

        • Doug Klein
          The help desk is correcting Group 15 Perry s who have 111 matches but do not show up in the match lists. Manually counting ours, we have several at -3 at 111.
          Message 4 of 6 , May 28, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            The help desk is correcting Group 15 Perry's who have 111 matches but do not show up in the match lists.  Manually counting ours, we have several at -3 at 111.  So, it's a FTDNA issue at least with ours. 

             

            I'd put in a help ticket request. 

             

            My help ticket has been in since May 19th - and they finally said "yes, confirmed" that the matches are not showing up.

             

            I exported each of my 111 testers to an excel spreadsheet for my own analysis. 

             

            Doug Klein

            for Harold Perry kit 201343

          • dale perry
            Thanks Doug, for looking out for us in the big picture we all have tried to do our part to be a part of the mysteries that unfold each week. Thanks Dale Perry
            Message 5 of 6 , May 28, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks Doug, for looking out for us in the big picture we all have tried to do our part to be a part of the mysteries that unfold each week. Thanks Dale Perry

              --- On Tue, 5/28/13, Doug Klein <k4lt@...> wrote:

              From: Doug Klein <k4lt@...>
              Subject: [I-M223] Re: A question regarding genetic matches
              To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2013, 5:41 AM

               

              The help desk is correcting Group 15 Perry's who have 111 matches but do not show up in the match lists.  Manually counting ours, we have several at -3 at 111.  So, it's a FTDNA issue at least with ours. 

               

              I'd put in a help ticket request. 

               

              My help ticket has been in since May 19th - and they finally said "yes, confirmed" that the matches are not showing up.

               

              I exported each of my 111 testers to an excel spreadsheet for my own analysis. 

               

              Doug Klein

              for Harold Perry kit 201343

            • modrisco
              Thanks to everyone who replied. This is indeed an issue and has been reported to FTDNA. After manually counting the differences I am 106/111 with the Kelley
              Message 6 of 6 , May 28, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks to everyone who replied. This is indeed an issue and has been reported to FTDNA. After manually counting the differences I am 106/111 with the Kelley individual.

                Cheers,
                Michael

                --- In I-M223@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Klein" <k4lt@...> wrote:
                >
                > The help desk is correcting Group 15 Perry's who have 111 matches but do not
                > show up in the match lists. Manually counting ours, we have several at -3
                > at 111. So, it's a FTDNA issue at least with ours.
                >
                >
                >
                > I'd put in a help ticket request.
                >
                >
                >
                > My help ticket has been in since May 19th - and they finally said "yes,
                > confirmed" that the matches are not showing up.
                >
                >
                >
                > I exported each of my 111 testers to an excel spreadsheet for my own
                > analysis.
                >
                >
                >
                > Doug Klein
                >
                > for Harold Perry kit 201343
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.