Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

 

 

March 2004 Letter regarding:†††††††† Valentine Coil Haplogroup Explanation

 

I recently wrote to Bennett Greenspan, President of FTDNA and asked him to explain why the seven participants of the Valentine Coil line showed two different haplogroupís (R1b and O2) when the results were put in the FTDNA database.*I used kit #11035 as our baseline, since all other kits were compared with this one from the beginning.

 

The Valentine Coil group showed NO match at 12 markers and NO match until the second mutation stage when compared with haplogroup matches.This struck me as odd.Especially, when our Irish/Scotch Kyle/Kile participants matched with a haplogroup within the 12 marker stage.

 

Below is a chart Bennett Greenspan sent showing the exact markers of the Valentine Coil participants and how they compared with haplogroup R1b.Also, I have included his explanation and my questions.

 

My specific questions:

 

Pam:††††††† Does Kit #11035 have an odd set of markers for determining his haplogroup? 

 

Bennett:††† Just slightly out of norm. 

Pam:††††††† What haplogroup does Kit #11035 belong to? 
 

 

Bennett:††† Clearly R1b

 

 

Kit

SNP

Name

3
9
3

3
9
0

1
9

3
9
1

3
8
5
a

3
8
5
b

4
2
6

3
8
8

4
3
9

3
8
9
|
1

3
9
2

3
8
9
|
2

4
5
8

4
5
9
a

4
5
9
b

4
5
5

4
5
4

4
4
7

4
3
7

4
4
8

4
4
9

4
6
4
a

4
6
4
b

4
6
4
c

4
6
4
d

4
6
4
e

4
6
4
f

4
6
4
g

 

 

Coil

13

24

15

10

11

16

12

12

12

13

12

29

17

9

10

11

11

23

15

19

31

14

15

16

16

0

0

0

 

 

FTDNA Client

13

24

14

10

11

16

12

12

12

13

13

30

17

9

10

11

11

25

15

19

30

15

16

16

17

0

0

0

 

R1b

 

12

24

15

10

11

16

12

12

12

13

13

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O3

 

13

24

15

10

12

16

11

12

12

13

12

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R1b

 

13

24

14

10

11

15

12

12

12

13

13

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R1b

 

13

24

15

10

11

14

12

12

12

13

13

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The data above is pulled directly from our database.  You will note that I have added Kit #11035 for comparison, along with an FTDNA client, plus the nearest 4 SNP tested folks to your 11035 (and his gang of 6 others!)  You will see that they are quite close, but the defining marker here is DYS 426.  As a 12 it almost always present in R and Q Haplogroups, and as an 11 in O, and several other groups.  (12's at 426 are definitely 'R' guys!)

 

To the computer which only compares 'points' of difference you received an ambiguous result, but with a little knowledge of what groups typically look like, it's very apparent that this group is R1b.

 

Generally our system has matches of exact or 1 step off...the further out you go the weaker the prediction. We are working to fill in those holes. 

 

Best Regards,

Bennett Greenspan
President
Family Tree DNA
www.FamilyTreeDNA.com

27 April 2004 Correspondence  Regarding Kits 16931 and 15787

Dear Bennett Greenspan, President of FTDNA

We are currently waiting for DNA results to be completed for the 25Y DNA test for the men listed below.  Their 12 marker results have been posted.  We are seeing a match at 11/12 with these two men.

 1

16931

Kyle

-

13

24

14

10

11

14

12

12

13

13

13

29

2

15787

Kile

 

13

24

14

10

11

14

12

12

14

13

13

29

 Do you recommend upgrading to the 37 marker test if the results remain consistent at 24/25?

Since we do not have the remaining markers yet for the 25 marker test, this may be a premature opinion.  However, we need to know what direction we need to go in for these men.  One man has his progenitor established in SC in the 1780 era, the other man's progenitor is established in KY, late 1790's.  Since there is a gap in the genealogical records and no indications from either line to suggest a relation, we do not know if these men are related or not. 

If they upgrade to the 37 marker test and their results remain consistent, with only one mutation, what is the estimated generation for the MRCA at 36/37?  We need to know how to advise these men.  Would the 37 marker test narrow down the generations they are most likely related in?

Thank you for your help!

fyerbyrd@comcast.net

27 April 2004 RESPONSE from Bennett Greenspan:

Howdy

 

One of the problems with having 'common' DNA is that you tend to match quite a lot of people...because Europe was settled recently and by a very homogeneous group of people.  That make analysis difficult with just 12 markers (not so for my Eastern European or even Scandinavian customers) and therefore the 25 marker info will certainly tell us  if these two men likely share a common male ancestor.  If they continue to diverge (like 21/25) then I highly doubt that they do, if they continue to track together (24/25) then the odds are greatly increased because the markers that they differ is among 2 markers that are the most volatile in the first 12 markers.

 

What I'll do is to compare #16931 to our entry database when the extra markers come in.  If the closest person to 16391 is # 15787 then they likely DO share a common male ancestor.  If they are 21/25 then no way.

 

If you then think that a 37 marker test is necessary you can do that.  If they did match 36/37 the range of WHEN they shared a common ancestor would be for 2-39 generations, and the 50% line is at somewhere between 6-12 generations.

Bennett

President
Family Tree DNA
www.FamilyTreeDNA.com
 

 

ABOUT THIS SITE

ADOPTIONS

BIBLE RECORDS

BIOGRAPHIES

 

CEMETERY RECORDS

CENSUS RECORDS

 

COIL CONNECTIONS

Email Group

CONTACTS

Research listing

DNA RESULTS

3-12-09

DNA PROJECT

Charts & MORE

DEED RECORDS

MARRIAGE RECORDS

MILITARY RECORDS

OBITUARIES

MAPS TOMBSTONES& PORTRAITS

 

DEATH RECORDS

SHIPS RECORDS

WILLS