PDA

View Full Version : Postive for both R1a and R1b?



epp
15-02-14, 12:37
I have been double-tested as positive for both R1a (M420) and R1b (M343).
Has anyone ever come across this before?
I can only think of 4 explanations:
1. Both tests were flawed
2. One of R1a and R1b is a subclade of the other (predominantly back-mutated)
3. Either the M343 or the M420 mutation has occurred on more than one occasion
4. I have mis-read the results.
Any thoughts?

Maciamo
15-02-14, 13:31
With which company did you test and what type of test did you order ?

epp
15-02-14, 15:55
With which company did you test and what type of test did you order ?
Unfortunately, I was only given my raw data on condition that the details of the testing remained confidential.
I can tell you that I am positive for ancestor clades, such as F and K, and that I have a standard positive for M343 and a rare genotype for M420 (tested through RS numbers). I have not been tested for any subclades of R1a or R1b.
Any further advice or explanation would be appreciated.

Maciamo
15-02-14, 22:52
If you don't test for all common defining SNP's of R1a and R1b, how are we supposed to know ? I am surprised that there are still companies that do not test all the phylogenetically relevant SNP's. My advice would be for you to test with a reliable company like 23andMe or FTDNA.

epp
16-02-14, 02:37
If you don't test for all common defining SNP's of R1a and R1b, how are we supposed to know ? I am surprised that there are still companies that do not test all the phylogenetically relevant SNP's. My advice would be for you to test with a reliable company like 23andMe or FTDNA.
OK.
What would comprise a definitive R1a+, then, for instance? As far as I am aware, there are four confirmed SNPs for R1a - M420, M449, M511 and M513. If one, two or even three of these were to test positive and the other negative, would this mean that the subject would not be technically R1a+, would he be kind of proto-R1a (whose ancestor was on his way to becoming R1a+) or might the incomplete range of SNPs be random mutations (unconnected to R1a proper)?
Should we see subclade categorisation as merely a best estimate in some subjects with atypical SNP profiles?

epp
17-02-14, 02:19
If you don't test for all common defining SNP's of R1a and R1b, how are we supposed to know ? I am surprised that there are still companies that do not test all the phylogenetically relevant SNP's. My advice would be for you to test with a reliable company like 23andMe or FTDNA.
I've just noticed that Eupedia's phylogenetic trees of haplogroups R1a and R1b identify them simply as M420 and M343 respectively. Assuming my test readings were not false, this means that by Eupedia's definitions I am both R1a+ and R1b+, irrespective of any test results in respect of other relevant SNPs. This would indicate overlap between these haplogroups. M420 and M343 do not appear to be wholly mutually exclusive, suggesting that multiple or reverse mutations have occurred in at least one of these SNPs. If so, this could potentially have a major impact on the accuracy of any estimates made of the haplogroups' TMRCAs or geographical points of origin.
What I am interested to know is how widespread this kind of overlap is - whether anyone else has come across similar results in any other subjects. For instance, we already suspect that the first V88 individual was P25+, despite most V88s now being P25-. It might also be the case, for instance, that the relatively recent TMRCA of M269* people living today indicates that they descend from an individual whose M269 arose after the M269 present in L23's major subclades.

andrewqazx
13-01-15, 14:46
maybe your a decendant of r1 before the r1a r1b split