PDA

View Full Version : Categorization of my Specific I2A2A (M223)



JFWR
03-07-12, 07:19
I have noticed that many of the more knowledgable posters here have offered assistance to people requesting some help analyzing the Short Tandem Repeats portion of their Y-Chromosome DNA sequencing. If someone might assist me on this same point, I'd be most obliged.

I have been identified through the Nat. Geo. Genographic project as belonging to what is not known as I2A2A (m223). However, as I know there are plenty of subclades (proper term?) associated with this, I would love if anyone could help me decipher my short tandem repeat values.

They are as followed:

393 = 14
390 = 23
19 = 15
391 = 10
385a = 15
385b = 15
426 = 11
388 = 13
438 = 11
389-1 = 13
392 = 12
389-2 = 16

From what I've read, this might associate me with the continental variety. However, I am not sure which one would be the best fit, and if you might be able to provide me with some information I'd be highly appreciative.

Thank you kindly.

zanipolo
03-07-12, 09:52
I have noticed that many of the more knowledgable posters here have offered assistance to people requesting some help analyzing the Short Tandem Repeats portion of their Y-Chromosome DNA sequencing. If someone might assist me on this same point, I'd be most obliged.

I have been identified through the Nat. Geo. Genographic project as belonging to what is not known as I2A2A (m223). However, as I know there are plenty of subclades (proper term?) associated with this, I would love if anyone could help me decipher my short tandem repeat values.

They are as followed:

393 = 14
390 = 23
19 = 15
391 = 10
385a = 15
385b = 15
426 = 11
388 = 13
438 = 11
389-1 = 13
392 = 12
389-2 = 16

From what I've read, this might associate me with the continental variety. However, I am not sure which one would be the best fit, and if you might be able to provide me with some information I'd be highly appreciative.

Thank you kindly.

look through this link
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/m223-y-clan

under tab ydna and match some of your numbers with others, then you can decide on what you want to do.

BTW , your last number is askew .......its too low

JFWR
03-07-12, 10:37
look through this link
under tab ydna and match some of your numbers with others, then you can decide on what you want to do.

BTW , your last number is askew .......its too low

Thanks very much for this information. I noticed that when I went to this site that it offers free uploads of your results from the Nat. Geo. Genographic project, so I have decided to do that to make this a lot easier to find what sub-clade I am part of.

Also: I triple checked that number. It's the right one, straight from my results page.

Edit - It would seem that you are right according to Family Tree DNA. According to them, the value for 389-2 is 29. This is weird that they should contradict yet come from the same material. Is this an updated way of looking at this?

sparkey
03-07-12, 17:32
Cullen's Predictor (http://members.bex.net/jtcullen515/haplotest.htm) thinks you're Roots, not Cont. Unfortunately, 12 markers isn't a lot to go by, so it may be wrong. Looking through the FTDNA Project that zanipolo linked to, it looks like you're within range from both Roots and Isles (I saw an exact match in Isles-E and a GD of only 1 in Roots). Basically, it looks like you're on the side of the tree (http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20M223+.pdf) opposite the different Cont branches, but even that is low confidence with only 12 markers. So, you need more STR markers and/or SNP tests to be sure where you fit. You may want to consult the FTDNA Project to see what the wisest investment of your money would be.


Edit - It would seem that you are right according to Family Tree DNA. According to them, the value for 389-2 is 29. This is weird that they should contradict yet come from the same material. Is this an updated way of looking at this?

SMGF explains the difference (http://www.smgf.org/pages/dys389.jspx).

JFWR
04-07-12, 16:43
Thank you so much for getting back to me on this. That is quite fascinating. It's odd that I should be on the opposite side, when my preliminary stuff seemed to imply continental. Thanks VERY much for giving me the resource to see that seems completely wrong.

I am going to look for more information on Roots, as I have not read much on that. MIght you have any sources that you think are good for discovering what data has been produced on that?

Thanks also for the information on how it differs.