DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2009-04 > 1240231566


From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Byrne TMRCA Estimates
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:46:06 +0100
References: <e0d2d2870904200428l25729d01r7d4ffa62398defc@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0d2d2870904200428l25729d01r7d4ffa62398defc@mail.gmail.com>


Hi David

>
By "off-modal match" I mean markers where two different haplotypes match
each other and do not match the comparison modal haplotype. In the table
showing cited above, Mclaughlin, Doherty and Dunbar have an off-modal match
at DYS458 = 18; Ewing and McGonagle have an off-modal match at DYS19 = 15;
and, nobody matches Ewing's off-modal DYS442 = 11.
>

Yes, I use it in that context as well. So an off-modal match between two
M222+ haplotypes is a match that doesn't match the M222+ modal

The work I've been doing is as follows :

1. Identify a grouping within M222+. It can be a surname grouping, but it
could also be a group such as the O'Cathain group on the Ulster Heritage
site.
2. For each participant in M222+, determine the number of off-modal matches
with the group used in step 1.
3. If n is the number of modal mismatches for a particular M222+
participant, divide the answer in 2. above by n.
4. It may be useful at a later stage to divide by the estimated mutation
rate of the marker in question, but I haven't tried that yet.

I know Paul Conroy started a project for Conroy/Dunne a few months back.
I'll check to see how that's going - there may be enough haplotypes to make
up a fair-sized grouping. My reason for this line of thinking is that Paul's
haplotypes differ from the M222+ modal by more than any other.


Sandy





-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of David Ewing
Sent: 20 April 2009 12:29
To:
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Byrne TMRCA Estimates

I apologize for my confusion about your gender, Sandy.

Let me refer to the seven R:M222 surname modals John has posted at
http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/M222modals.htm

By "off-modal match" I mean markers where two different haplotypes match
each other and do not match the comparison modal haplotype. In the table
showing cited above, Mclaughlin, Doherty and Dunbar have an off-modal match
at DYS458 = 18; Ewing and McGonagle have an off-modal match at DYS19 = 15;
and, nobody matches Ewing's off-modal DYS442 = 11.

I will need to look at the table a little more--I think I will try dropping
the more rapidly mutating markers from consideration and then see if I can
construct a sensible phylogeny by inspection, but I am going to guess that
if there were an informative pattern, others would already have spotted it.

DYS391 = 10 has been a big puzzle to me within the Ewing project. About 1/3
of our R:M222 Ewings have DYS391 = 10, but most of them otherwise have
matches with the DYS391 = 11 Ewings at the five other markers where the
Ewing modal does not match the R:M222 modal. Like John, I have thought that
the ancestral value for the whole Ewing group must have been DYS391 = 11
like the R:M222 and AMH modals, but the Ewing DYS391 = 10 group has greater
variance from the Ewing modal than the Ewing DYS391 = 11 group, which
suggests to me that DYS391 = 10 is the ancestral value. I just cannot
massage my tired old brain around how to explain the appearance of so many
DYS391 = 10 values elsewhere in R:M222.

David
R1b1c7 Research and Links:

http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: