3062Re: [J-mtDNA] Phylo Tree Mtdna Build 15
- Dec 5, 2013If things were not complicated enough regarding the choice of reference sequence. There is a new article in the Journal of Human Genetics with co-authors including Martin Richards and Ian Logan . The title begins, "The case for the Continuing use of rCRS.............". The article argues against FTDNA's use of the RSRS.
On Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:48 PM, Josh Weinstein <jgw111@...> wrote:
Yes, there is a debate as to whether the group is Denisovian, Neandertal or a third line
On Thursday, December 5, 2013 3:50 PM, Whitney Keen <wkeen@...> wrote:
According to the NY Times and Wall Street Journal today (article in Nature) these peopel seem to be most closely related to Denisovans. While more needs to be done, the prospect that Denisovans, or pre-Denisovans, lived in Spain changes everything. Keep tuned.
Whitney KeenOn 12/4/2013 7:50 PM, Josh Weinstein wrote:Mitochondrial Eve----Scientists are getting closer to the dna pattern of Mitochondrial Eve. The reference sequence RSRS is based on the hypothetical pattern for 'Eve' who presumably lived around 170,000 years ago. RSRS belongs to clade L*---it predates L0 and L1-6. RSRS is assumed to have evolved (mutated) after humans separated from Neanderthals. Scientists have just discovered the Mtdna pattern of a group of hominins related to Neanderthals that is 400,000 years old---the mtdna pattern was not described.
Does anyone know of a list that indicates what each of the mutations represents?For instance, my results, J2a1a1a2 show that a mutation (430T) keeps me from matching withJ2a1a1a3. Am curious.
---In J-mtDNA@yahoogroups.com, <jgw111@...> wrote:
Jim, thanks. My mistake, I didn't realize that Behar's proposal had become semi-official.
On Friday, November 29, 2013 11:51 PM, J. J. (Jim) Logan <jjlnv@...> wrote:
David and All:
There are now two reference sequences: the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence (rCRS) that has been around for several years and the more recent Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence (RSRS). Marker values for positions 12705 and 16223 are different for the two references. FTDNA reports results against each standard and Phylotree has a separate version for each. Thus, be very careful when comparing FTDNA results with Phylotree that the references match.
==================== J. J. (Jim) Logan Group Administrator, J-mtDNA and Logan DNA Projects at FTDNA Moderator, J-mtDNA and GenGen-NV Discussion Groups on Yahoo ===================================================================
On 11/29/2013 10:50 PM, David & Diana Laufer wrote:
Josh,I assume that when anyone who knows their sub-clade their results would show all the markers from higher up the Phylo Tree to which you referred.As I have done the full sequence mtDNA test at FTDNA my mtDNA has been categorised as J1b2.I have all the markers for that sub-clade and for those all the way up to, and including, R2’JT as indicated on that tree.However, my results do not show the markers 12705C and 16223C indicated for the next higher level, namely R.Could you please explain ?David191885Members, note that you can find much information on your own. Go to Phylo Tree Mtdna Build 15. The mutations that define many specific subclades are listed there.
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
- << Previous post in topic