DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-01 > 1200562935


From:
Subject: [DNA-R1B1C7] The Trinity Ui Neill study
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:42:15 EST


Here's little background on the Trinity Ui Neill study.

The study consisted of 59 samples taken from men bearing surnames said to
descend from Nial in Ireland. The samples are anonymous (no surnames listed).
There is no data on where in Ireland the surnames came from.

24 of 59 are not R1b1c7. Of these 1 sample was R1a; 1 sample was I
haplogroup.

35 are R1b1c7,

The markers (17) used are:

393, 390, 19, 391, 388, 439,389-1, 392, 389b, 437,
460,438,461,462,436,434,435

The order the order of the markers as listed in the McGee utility.

In running these samples through the McGee utility I made two changes to
make them compatible with FTDNA markers.

1. Added 2 to DYS 461 per a note on the Trinity site.
2. Combined 389-1 and 389b to get 389-11. In each case the values were
13,16 combined for 29. I actually used the DYS 389-11 value instead of 389b as
in the Trinity study since the McGee utility did not support that.

Genetic distance at 17 markers was reported as follows by the McGee utility:

GD 0 = 12
GD 1 = 14
GD 2 = 8
GD 4 = 1

I then had the McGee utility construct a .ych file for Network.exe. The
modal is identical to that reported in the Trinity article.

This is the first Network diagram I've ever seen without a single median
vector.

Using Trinity's figures of 1 mutation per 2131 generations I was unable to
duplicate their time calculations exactly. If I used only 0, 1 and 2 GDs from
the modal (omitting one major outlyer and a second sample somewhat removed
from the others) the results came in at:

Age in years = 1755 (252 AD)
SD = 617

This is close to but not exactly what Trinity reported.

Age in years = 1730 (277 AD).
SD = 670

In making a determination on who was or was not Ui Neill or R1b1c7 only two
markers could be used from the FTDNA set: DYS 390 = 25 and DYS 392 = 14.
It's possible the outlying sample in the R1b1c7 group is not Ui Neill at all.

If the entire 35 sample group is analyzed the results were as follows:

Age in years = 2072 (65 BC)
SD = 670

Using only 1 step GDs from the modal the results were:

Using only 1 step mutations from the modal

Age in years = 1105
SD = 511


The only fast moving marker used by Trinity that corresponds to FTDNA
markers is DYS 439. I have no idea about the other non standard Trinity markers.

Trinity appears to have arrived at their 2131 years figure from the
following:

0.00069 per locus per 25 years (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004). ...

The only process I can find that arrives at their 2131 figure is:

.00069 X 17 = .01173 for 17 markers for 25 years (1 generation)
convert to one mutation per x years
1/.00173 = 85.25
85.25 x 25 = 2131.25 years (figure used by Trinity)

I'm not sure but I think these figures are assuming a 25 year average per
generation which is probably too low.

At this point I'm really confusing myself. But I would be interested in any
opinions on the validity of the TMRCA method used by Trinity in Network.exe
and how one could arrive at a correct figure to use for 25 and 37 marker
calculations.


John





































**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

This thread: