K1a+195C: no deeper subclade resolution?

[Giver]

So, I'm one of the many participants in Bill Hurst's K project page at FTDNA. I'm designated K1a+195C, having taken the FTDNA "mtDNAPlus" test (ie, HVR1 and HVR2, but not the full coding sequence). Here's a question I can't find an answer to in any of his literature:

Are some of us K1a+195C participants designated as such because we can't be assigned to a deeper subclade, even with a full coding sequence test? Obviously there are mutations in the coding region that are used as markers for deeper subclade assignment, and I haven't taken that test. So no mystery there, that I'm not assigned any deeper.

But here's the thing: Some of my closest matches as given on FTDNA have taken their full sequence test, and are still assigned only as K1a+195C. So I'm wondering if some of us are just "stuck" there until some other mutations are identified and the phylo tree expanded.

Bill Hurst has described the K1a+195C folks as being either "pre-K1a10" or "pre-K1a9". Supposedly in the former case, these folks have the 16048A mutation that defines K1a10, but also 195C and occasionally the 523/524 CACA insertions. Likewise, with the former group ("pre-K1a9"), they have the K1a9-defining 16524G.

I do have the 523/524 insertions, but have neither 16048A nor 16524G, so I'm sorta left out in the cold here: neither pre-K1a10 nor pre-K1a9. And this shouldn't be a question of simply needing a deeper (full-sequence) test, because those 16K mutations are on the HVR regions.

I've taken a Geno 2.0 test, which should assign me to a terminal mtDNA subclade; still waiting on the results. But in the meantime I thought I'd pose the question.


Thanks!

[Maciamo]

HVR1+2 tests are pretty much useless to determine deep mtDNA subclades. You could order a full mtDNA sequence from FTDNA, but it's cheaper and usually just as good to purchase a 23andMe test (99$). I know a lot of people who got exactly the same deep clade results with 23andMe and with FTDNA's full mtDNA sequence. K1a subclades are well covered by 23andMe.

[Sile]

HVR1+2 tests are pretty much useless to determine deep mtDNA subclades. You could order a full mtDNA sequence from FTDNA, but it's cheaper and usually just as good to purchase a 23andMe test (99$). I know a lot of people who got exactly the same deep clade results with 23andMe and with FTDNA's full mtDNA sequence. K1a subclades are well covered by 23andMe.

I beg to differ, 23andme has not upgraded their subclades since 2009 times

[Sile]

So, I'm one of the many participants in Bill Hurst's K project page at FTDNA. I'm designated K1a+195C, having taken the FTDNA "mtDNAPlus" test (ie, HVR1 and HVR2, but not the full coding sequence). Here's a question I can't find an answer to in any of his literature:

Are some of us K1a+195C participants designated as such because we can't be assigned to a deeper subclade, even with a full coding sequence test? Obviously there are mutations in the coding region that are used as markers for deeper subclade assignment, and I haven't taken that test. So no mystery there, that I'm not assigned any deeper.

But here's the thing: Some of my closest matches as given on FTDNA have taken their full sequence test, and are still assigned only as K1a+195C. So I'm wondering if some of us are just "stuck" there until some other mutations are identified and the phylo tree expanded.

Bill Hurst has described the K1a+195C folks as being either "pre-K1a10" or "pre-K1a9". Supposedly in the former case, these folks have the 16048A mutation that defines K1a10, but also 195C and occasionally the 523/524 CACA insertions. Likewise, with the former group ("pre-K1a9"), they have the K1a9-defining 16524G.

I do have the 523/524 insertions, but have neither 16048A nor 16524G, so I'm sorta left out in the cold here: neither pre-K1a10 nor pre-K1a9. And this shouldn't be a question of simply needing a deeper (full-sequence) test, because those 16K mutations are on the HVR regions.

I've taken a Geno 2.0 test, which should assign me to a terminal mtDNA subclade; still waiting on the results. But in the meantime I thought I'd pose the question.


Thanks!

clearly Bill Hurst must have advised you on what to test. He is not a lazy project person for K

[brianco]

Hi Giver

Are you designated K1a+195C or just K?

I ask as T195C is a coding region and even though my cousin has a 195C it is in their HVR2.

My cousin's has 60 HVR2 matches. 28 of those have taken the FMS and have:

K1a4a1a-T195C (x13)
K1a-T195C (x8)
K1a4a1a1 (x4)
K1a4a1a3 (x2)
K1a15 (x1)
We have ordered the FMS upgrade and await the result due in 14th Oct

BTW their mtDNA roots are from Wigan, Lancs, England

So, I'm one of the many participants in Bill Hurst's K project page at FTDNA. I'm designated K1a+195C, having taken the FTDNA "mtDNAPlus" test (ie, HVR1 and HVR2, but not the full coding sequence). Here's a question I can't find an answer to in any of his literature:

Are some of us K1a+195C participants designated as such because we can't be assigned to a deeper subclade, even with a full coding sequence test? Obviously there are mutations in the coding region that are used as markers for deeper subclade assignment, and I haven't taken that test. So no mystery there, that I'm not assigned any deeper.

But here's the thing: Some of my closest matches as given on FTDNA have taken their full sequence test, and are still assigned only as K1a+195C. So I'm wondering if some of us are just "stuck" there until some other mutations are identified and the phylo tree expanded.

Bill Hurst has described the K1a+195C folks as being either "pre-K1a10" or "pre-K1a9". Supposedly in the former case, these folks have the 16048A mutation that defines K1a10, but also 195C and occasionally the 523/524 CACA insertions. Likewise, with the former group ("pre-K1a9"), they have the K1a9-defining 16524G.

I do have the 523/524 insertions, but have neither 16048A nor 16524G, so I'm sorta left out in the cold here: neither pre-K1a10 nor pre-K1a9. And this shouldn't be a question of simply needing a deeper (full-sequence) test, because those 16K mutations are on the HVR regions.

I've taken a Geno 2.0 test, which should assign me to a terminal mtDNA subclade; still waiting on the results. But in the meantime I thought I'd pose the question.


Thanks!

[brianco]

Sorry Giver, I was misled on the T195C issue and it is indeed a HVR marker.

My cousin's FMS results came in and is now K1a - T195C.

From what I have heard it 'may' be dropped in future updates. Also our results showed 'new' markers that could define or be included in a later subclade

Hi Giver

Are you designated K1a+195C or just K?

I ask as T195C is a coding region and even though my cousin has a 195C it is in their HVR2.

My cousin's has 60 HVR2 matches. 28 of those have taken the FMS and have:

K1a4a1a-T195C (x13)
K1a-T195C (x8)
K1a4a1a1 (x4)
K1a4a1a3 (x2)
K1a15 (x1)
We have ordered the FMS upgrade and await the result due in 14th Oct

BTW their mtDNA roots are from Wigan, Lancs, England

[Giver]

Hi Giver

Are you designated K1a+195C or just K?

K1a+195C. Pretty sure my mtDNA ancestors are from the British Isles, too.

[Maciamo]

I beg to differ, 23andme has not upgraded their subclades since 2009 times

Doesn't matter, if it's on the chip you can find out yourself by looking at the mutations.