Y chromosome test

[RobertCasey]

Like most people who have their DNA tested, I was intrigued to find out my Y DNA haplogroup, which is the very common R1b-L21 (my mtDNA is J1c2, also very interesting). However, as time goes on and I get my autosomal test results, I wonder why we make such a fuss about our haplogroup. Modern research suggests that the Y DNA R1b haplogroup is associated with the Bronze Age invaders of western Europe who came from the Eurasian steppes, but according to FTDNA, only 14% of my DNA comes from "Metal Age Invaders", so although they gifted my my Y DNA haplogroup, fully 86% of my DNA comes from hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers, making my R1b inheritance look pretty insignificant.

Harry

Harry, if you are R-L21 and have tested to 67 markers, you can use my L21 SNP predictor to find a much younger haplogroup (4,500 years down to 1,200 to 2,500 years). With the new haplogroup on hand, you may be then be able to order a SNP pack in this time frame. If you are lucky, you could test positive for a YSNP branch in the 500 to 1,000 year time frame:

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R-L21_SNP_Predictor_Intro.html

Another good YSNP predictor tool is NevGen:

http://www.nevgen.org/

If are lucky and belong to a large prolific haplogroup, many people are starting to be able to chart the connections between testers using YSTR signatures and YSNP testing:

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L226/Haplotrees/L226_Home.pdf#PAge=23

[hdw]

Thanks for that. I used your L21 SNP Predictor and it said I had a 95% chance of being DF41_S, DF41_N or L226. However, on further checking, my DYS values are quite different from those required to be any of those SNPs.

If I understand correctly, all those SNPs are R1b1a1b ... but I have tested R1b1a2a1a1b4, and now that I look at my results, I see I tested L226-. I'm L21+ and P312+, and that's it.

A few years ago I noticed I was getting matches on FTDNA with people called Matheson, which is not a name in my family-tree, so I sent my Y DNA results to the person running the Matheson DNA project and she told me that my results were pretty close to those in the Matheson DNA sub-group she had entitled R1b-Pict. That figures, as my paternal line has been based for hundreds of years past in east Fife, the historical "Pictland" or Caledonia.

Harry

[hurworth]

I would also recommend an autosomal DNA test over a Y-DNA test in this instance.

Y-DNA alone can not prove you have the same paternal grandfather.  It can only prove that you  share a reasonably recent patrilineal ancestor, or that you don't.

Autosomal DNA tests are much more popular so you're more likely to find close matches of both sexes  with that test.  A full first cousin would show as a very good match.

[RobertCasey]

Thanks for that. I used your L21 SNP Predictor and it said I had a 95% chance of being DF41_S, DF41_N or L226. However, on further checking, my DYS values are quite different from those required to be any of those SNPs.

If I understand correctly, all those SNPs are R1b1a1b ... but I have tested R1b1a2a1a1b4, and now that I look at my results, I see I tested L226-. I'm L21+ and P312+, and that's it.

Harry

You should also try NevGen as well. Also, FTDNA has a L21 SNP pack which would test around 150 YSNPs below L21 to get you to the next level down.

[davidft]

You should also try NevGen as well. Also, FTDNA has a L21 SNP pack which would test around 150 YSNPs below L21 to get you to the next level down.

This is getting a bit away from the OPs initial post so apologies for that.

Just a though but for anyone wanting to refine their haplogroup might a LivingDNA test be worth considering. I know they claim to have the most powerful chip on the market and when I had my test it did give more detail on my Y haplogroup taking it much further down the branch of my group than the Y67 test I had done previously did.

Just a though and interested in any observations on this suggestion.

[RobertCasey]

I would also recommend an autosomal DNA test over a Y-DNA test in this instance.

Y-DNA alone can not prove you have the same paternal grandfather.  It can only prove that you  share a reasonably recent patrilineal ancestor, or that you don't.

Autosomal DNA tests are much more popular so you're more likely to find close matches of both sexes  with that test.  A full first cousin would show as a very good match.

Both atDNA testing and YDNA have their pros and cons. If you do not have a very robust pedigree chart or have a recent adoption in your pedigree chart, atDNA is the right choice. But if you are trying to break through break walls in the 1700s for one or two lines that are very important to you, YDNA is a better choice.

If you are stuck on your grandfather, great grandparents or 2G grandparents, then atDNA is much better. If you are stuck on one of your 4G grandfather, YDNA is the best long term choice. The vast majority of the time, it will not reveal YDNA mutations that match your ancestors but there are now 10 to 15 % of the testers (under R-L226 at least), where mutations have been assigned to ancestors. But for larger surname clusters, it does show branching and indicates which lines are more related and which are less related and allows you to fine tune your research efforts for your brick walls.

atDNA are much more popular due to the low entry costs but 80 % of the testers have almost no interest in genealogy and only have a dozen ancestors charted if they are interested. YDNA has the most long term promise as we are building a descendant chart of mankind and we are now regularly finding many branches in the genealogical time frame and are revealing many interesting NPE lines. Under L226, we now have 20 well defined surname clusters where the average around five to ten branches based on YSTR and YSNP mutations. These 20 surname clusters now represent 20 % of all 700 testers under R-L226. YDNA is also very easily disproving many weaker family history lines as well which is very valuable for not wasting research time on lines that can not be related.

[hdw]

Quite honestly, it's just idle curiosity on my part, trying to refine my L-21 status, for my family-tree has no brick walls on either side and I was brought up in the village where my father's family seem to have lived for ever, certainly since the earliest parish records in the 1500s. My mother came from the next village and had a more varied pedigree but there are no brick walls there either. I can trace my mtDNA J1c2 line back to Belfast in the late 1700s, and I can point out houses in my home village where some of my paternal ancestors were living in the 1700s.

I'm a bit sceptical about DNA testing firms which claim to have isolated "Pictish" DNA, but it should certainly be around in Fife where there has been great stability of population over centuries. Just a few hundred yards from the house I was brought up in there is a field with a carved stone bearing an incised cross with a petal design, thought to date from the Ninianic mission in the Dark Ages to convert the pagan Picts.

Harry

[RobertCasey]

Just a though but for anyone wanting to refine their haplogroup might a LivingDNA test be worth considering. I know they claim to have the most powerful chip on the market and when I had my test it did give more detail on my Y haplogroup taking it much further down the branch of my group than the Y67 test I had done previously did.

Just a thought and interested in any observations on this suggestion.

There are only two comprehensive chip tests left for YSNP testing - NatGeo and LivingDNA. The number of YSNPs included is pretty robust but the selection is very dated and primarily includes YSNPs from thousands of years ago - even though there are many more recent major branches available to include that were ignored. The NatGeo test is not a genealogical test - it is aimed at creating the older part of the tree of mankind. Unfortunately, LivingDNA keeps all the very old and non relevant YSNPs but did add another ten percent (but not that well researched).

It is really sad that no company that has chip array test has been updated properly in ten years - and that is forever in the genetic genealogy environment. YSEQ and Full Genomes (as well as LivingDNA) are really missing out coming out with a useful chip array test. The three levels of SNP pack tests from either FTDNA or YSEQ could be easily be replaced by several chip array tests that would be much more economical for getting to your more recent YSNP branches. R-L226 is only 1,500 years old and we now have 83 branches under L226. Between the three major primarily Irish haplogroups (with CTS4466 and M222 added), there are around 500 branches under these three haplogroups.

But the SNP pack approach is reaching its upper limit as L226 now has 1,200 known YSNPs (future branches to be discovered) but the SNP pack is limited to testing only 150 YSNPs. M222 has probably 5,000 YSNPs unique to M222, so 150 YSNPs does not even cover the known branches these days.

[davidft]

@Robert Casey

Thank you for your reply. Very helpful and informative to me.