SUMMARY OF YSNP (April, 2016)

Classification of Branch: Near Genealogical - son of FGC5660.

Known sons: None

Estimated Breadth of branch (speculative estimate of positive submissions) = 10 predicted submissions at 67 markers.

Scope of Testing within Signature: 3 tested.

Dominant Surnames: Casey (5), Hogan (1), Lynch (1), Boyd (1), McLain (1) and Reeves (1).

Date that branch was discovered: February, 2016.

Source of Branch discovery: FTDNA Big Y (FTDNA ID 56031) & YSEQ test (FTDNA ID 131349).

Number of Negative Broad Tests: 49 NGS tests.

Number of Negative Tests within Signature: None in signature.

Pending Tests (within signature): None known.

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT DC69 HAPLOTREE

I manually separated around 90 L226 submissions and then used the SAPP tool to generate a chart which appears highly accurate when compared to manual analyis. There are a few minor issues:

1) The SAPP tool placed 245778 under FGC12290 even though no mutations were shared with any other FGC12290 submissions. Additionally, 245778 matches the DC69 signature of 413 (23>21) and 534 (15>14). But even worse, it missed another major branch under DC69 for 449 (29>28), 464c(15>14), 413a (21>19) and 576 (18>17). This is probably the worse error observed to date with the SAPP tool.

2) The SAPP tool missed a common mutation of 464d (17>16) even though they belong to a common branch defined by 576 (18>17). This is a pretty minor issue.

3) The SAPP tool created two separate branches for 190465 and 34073 even though both share the 444 (12>13) mutation. This is a pretty minor issue.

4) Even with around 90 submissions that were used for the SAPP analysis, around 350 L226 submissions were omitted due to current limitations of the SAPP tool. Since the SAPP appears to generated a better good haplotree, it is unknown if adding many more submissions would increase the scope of DC69.

OTHER FUTURE YSNP TESTING

No pending tests are known.

DC69 Haplotree

The link to haplotree chart is the best way to look at the evolution of the DC69 haplotree. It visually much is easier to follow than spreadsheets and is very close to a genealogist descendant tree charts that genealogists already are well trained in analyzing:

Haplotree of DC69

Testing Candidate Recommendations

This summary will attempt to priortize testing and explain why each set of tests is beneficial to the the verification of the DC69 branch.

Here are the priorities for testing:

1) The highest priority is to thoroughly test the six known private YSNPs of the 56031 NGS test. However, two pretty diverse DC69 positive submissions have test negative for other five private YSNPs of 56031. There are three submissions that only have a genetic distance of three at 67 markers and also share the surname of Casey (also all three DC69 positive submissions are also Casey surnames). It is recommended that three additional Casey submissions, with only genetic distance of three, test for all six private YSNPs of 56031. This testing could reveal another L226 branch. These private YSNPs are DC64 through DC69 which can only be ordered from YSEQ for $105:

N42373 Casey
34073 Casey
53484 Casey

2) Since the other testing candidates are more remotely related, It is recommend that all remaining submissions test only DC69. These submissions are:

171176 Reeves
360068 Lynch
190465 Casey
33595 Boyd
147302 McLain

If these candidates test DC69 positive, it is recommended that one of these submissions would be a good candidate for testing a high resolution NGS test from Full Genomes Corporation. The extra resolution is necessary as this test has 30 % more coverage which increases the chances of discovering another genealogical branch by 30 %. Since this cluster is 50 % Casey submissions, the origin is very close to surname origin time frame that is around 1,000 years ago for Irish clan names. NPE rates of 50 % are possible over 1,000 years (40 generations), so DC69 could have a common ancestor that first used Casey as a surname. However, DC69 could be just a few generations before surname creation as well.

3) It is also highly recommended that 245778 be tested for DC69 as well. Even though the SAPP tool failed to put this submission under DC69, it clearly belongs under DC69 with all the other seven Casey submissions. This submission should test DC69:

245778 Casey