GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-07 > 1153554797


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Do very slow markers mean anything special?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:53:17 +1200
In-Reply-To: <44C17CCD.2040701@comcast.net>


I have been one of the advocates for more slow mutating STR markers, and I
welcomed the slower markers in the FTDNA 38-67 panel, and EA's panel of
STRs. I also was a bit excited to learn that two of the markers offered by
both EA and FTDNA, seemed very slow, and I seemed to have distinctive scores
on both these markers. I noted my excitement, and said I would be
encouraging speculated distant kin to test these markers. I said I hoped
these very slow STR markers might be like "baby SNPs".

DYS487, I have a value of 12, and on about 120 R1b results I have seen for
that marker so far, I have seen no other 12. This looks to be a slow
marker, and 12 looks to be rare. About 95% of R1bs are 13.

DYS641, I have 11, which out of about 120 results for R1b I have seen so
far, only 3 are 11. This also looks to be a very slow marker.

Early in my surname project, a person of my surname was "only" 9 mutation
steps from me on 25 markers. The family was from an adjoining English
county 400 years ago. FTDNATiP predicts 2.4% chance of relationship in 24
generations. Some markers which did not match me, match a family which I
speculated there was a slight chance could relate to me 1000 years ago. I
remained optimistic, (as you do) trying to see a match whether it was a
match or not. I had no closer matches in my surname. However, when two
other members of the family were DNA tested, one was 21 mutations from me on
37 markers, with TiP saying 0.00% chance of relationship in 24 generations,
and the other was 21 mutations from me on 37 markers, with TiP saying 0.02%
chance of relationship to me in 24 generations. These two were probably
related to each other considerably more than 400 years ago, but have quite
close haplotypes, 2 mutations on 57 markers so far.

Today I received results for DYS487 for both these two. They were both 12.
That means I am now aware of over 120 results for this marker for R1b, and
only 3 are 12, and those are me, and two persons of my surname, both of
which have 21 mutations to me on 37 markers.

Now the purists will be shouting very loudly "21 mutations... forget it".
If I discount DYS 607, 464a,b,c,d, 458, 439, & CDYa,b, all fast mutating
markers, it takes out about 17 of the mutation steps, and I am left with
about 4 on the remaining 28 markers.

Even with my abundant optimism, it is hard to explain away 21 mutations, in
the context of the "genealogical time frame, since surname have been in
use". Hypothetically, at most, the surname may have been used for 1100
years, but 900 years is more plausible.

Is there any significance in only 3 persons having DYS487=12 in R1b, out of
120 haplotypes, and having all 3 of those with the same surname? None have
paper trail connections, but two with 2 mutations on 57 markers look very
likely to be related, and there has been speculated points which may link
the families to the same area in the very distant past. None of the 3 can
be related after 1600.

I don't have results for DYS641 yet for the other family, another very slow
marker. It will be interesting to see if this other family matches me on
DYS641.

I have also encouraged another family to test DYS487, which according to my
abundant optimism, "might" be related in the past 1000 years, and "might" be
a variant of my surname, and tracing to very near my ancestral area. TiP
gives me about 10% chance of relationship to this family in the past 900
years.

I have been claiming that one very slow marker speaks much louder than many
fast markers. But is it true? Perhaps if I share East Anglian roots with
the other family, the common ancestry may be as far back as the Angles or
Ancient Britons. But I would like to think the surname match may also be a
factor.

John.



This thread: