Iain, what is your current thoughts now since your working the matrix? Alan In a message dated 11/11/2013 09:43:05 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:11 +0000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and where? > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from M222 has been published at: > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater > > > I read the SNPs as: > > PF3297 > PF3988 > F3952 > F3024 > CTS8007 > M226 > F499 > L196 > Z70 > PF2026 > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > CTS3771 > CTS10488 > F1400 > CTS9501 > PF910 > PF7301 > F3637 > CTS6 > F1636 > CTS11548 > Well spotted Bernard. I checked my raw Geno file and these are all in it except CTS8007. The image isn't quite good enough to be sure that's what it says though (there is a CTS8002 listed for example).. Given the large number of M222 people who took the Geno test though, it seems unlikely these are significant since no-one we know of has had a 'hit' so far. Iain ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Alan, One of the blogs I read yesterday reported the claim that the record for multiple occurrences of a Geno 2.0 SNP is 7!! I don't think we need to say any more? http://dna-explained.com/ "New Y tree will be released shortly as a result of the Geno 2.0 testing. Some of the SNPs have mutated as much as 7 times, and what does that mean in terms of the tree and in terms of genealogical usefulness. This tree has taken much longer to produce than they expected due to these types of issues which had to be revised individually." Having said that, I was planning to put the SNPs like PF1169, F1265 etc on the diagram when I can assign them to one of the upper branches. I think our criteria can be a little more relaxed IMHO and we should only discard a SNP if it is unstable within M222. That would mean though including some of this new list of 21 as well and might mean we show SNPs that ISOGG discards. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_SNP_Requirements.html "While not a part of the definition for binary polymorphism, it is expected that the markers proposed for inclusion as defining markers for haplogroups will also have the characteristics: (a) the effective mutation rate will be less than approximately 5 x 10-7, and (b) that the polymorphism has not been observed more than twice in human history." It will be interesting to see whether ISOGG feels like relaxing this rule in the light of our increased knowledge. regards Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:34:22 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > Iain, what is your current thoughts now since your working the matrix? Alan > > > In a message dated 11/11/2013 09:43:05 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:11 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > > > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of > them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > > > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from > M222 has been published at: > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater > > > > > > I read the SNPs as: > > > > PF3297 > > PF3988 > > F3952 > > F3024 > > CTS8007 > > M226 > > F499 > > L196 > > Z70 > > PF2026 > > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > > CTS3771 > > CTS10488 > > F1400 > > CTS9501 > > PF910 > > PF7301 > > F3637 > > CTS6 > > F1636 > > CTS11548 > > > Well spotted Bernard. I checked my raw Geno file and these are all in it > except CTS8007. The image isn't quite good enough to be sure that's what it > says though (there is a CTS8002 listed for example).. Given the large > number of M222 people who took the Geno test though, it seems unlikely these are > significant since no-one we know of has had a 'hit' so far. > > Iain > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message