SUMMARY OF YSNP (April, 2016)

Classification of Branch: Genealogical - son of FGC5659.

Known sons: FGC5639 is the son of FGC5647.

Estimated Breadth of branch (speculative estimate of positive submissions) = 15 predicted submissions at 67 markers.

Scope of Testing within Signature: Four tested.

Dominant Surnames: Casey (11), Kersey (1), Carey (1), Hanvey (1) and Meredith (1).

Date that branch was discovered: April, 2016.

Source of Branch discovery: FGC Elite 1.0 test (FTDNA ID 77349) & YSEQ test (FTDNA ID B3986).

Number of Negative Broad Tests: 49 NGS tests and 1 boundary test (Carey - 298743)

Number of Negative Tests within Signature: None in signature.

Pending Tests (within signature): 1 FGC Elite 2.1 (John Casey, b, 1782), one pending private YSNP for Carey boundary tester (298743) and Meredith (YSEQ is having to create a second primer).

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FGC5647 HAPLOTREE

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

1) The SAPP tool included only one Carey submission (189591) in the FGC5647 cluster and omitted the rest of the nearby Carey cluster submissions. Another Carey submission (298743) tested negative for FGC5647 indicating the Carey cluster submissions probably does not belong to the FGC5647 cluster. However, Carey (189591) does match the FGC5647 signature better than its own Carey cluster signature. There is a remote chance that the entire Casey cluster could be a NPE event off one part of the Carey cluster (very speculative).

2) The genealogical cluster of John Casey, b. 1782 has different values for 460 which is the most important YSTR marker under FGC5647. If this line is 460=11, then this line would be the oldest Casey branch just below the Kersey branch that creates FGC5647. This also means that the other submission under John Casey, b. 1782, would have to be an independent parallel mutation that happened at almost the same time as the other major branch 460=12. The SAPP tool generated this scenario. Another scenario would be one of the John Casey, b. 1782 descendants had a backwards mutation back to 460 = 11 and then the John Casey, b. 1782, be would just one of many branches under the 46 = 12 branch.

3) Even with 95 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 improve the accuracy or make any changes.

4) Several YSNP results have been reported since the SAPP tool generated the haplotree. However, the additional testing should have not any affect on the haplotree since testing results support the original haplotree structure.

5) Since the FGC5647 cluster is the largest and most genetically isolated branch under L226, the SAPP did an excellent job of creating a descendant chart. The only questionable call is the inclusion of one Carey submission above the Kersey submission. However, there is a remote chance that this part of the Carey cluster could be ancestor of the entire Casey surname cluster which would a major discovery.

OTHER FUTURE YSNP TESTING

There are several pending tests that could affect the haplotree:

1) The most significant pending test is a FGC Elite 2.1 test for the John Casey, b. 1782, line. This will have numerous possible additions and corrections:

1a) This test will include all seven private YSNPs that are tested by Big Y tests and currently is the oldest branch of the Casey cluster. Therefore, the scope of FGC5647 could change with these test results and another possible branch could be discovered by additional testing of the seven private YSNPs of 77349.

1b) There are 13 private YSNPs of the FGC Y Elite 1.0 test (77349) that have not been tested by 49 other Big Y tests. The new FGC Y Elite 2.1 results could produce a negative test result which could create another branch under FGC5647.

1c) Since this NGS test is from a different part of the FGC5647 haplotree, one or two new private YSNPs which are part of his haplotree could be revealed and would need to be tested by others in the cluster.

1d) Since the new Y Elite 2.1 test is even higher resolution than the original Y Elite 1.0 test, one or two additional private YSNP could be revealed.

1e) Since both of these tests are higher resolution than all Big Y tests, another major branch of L226 could be revealed anywhere between FGC5660 and FGC5647 with extensive testing required to determine exactly where on the L226 haplotree this major branch belongs (since Big Y results are not available to place these YSNPs anywhere on the L226 haplotree).

1f) Since both are NGS tests under FGC5647 are higher resolution that reveal more YSNPs not tested to date, there is a reasonable probability that new branch could be discovered just above FG5647 which would greatly help determine how the Casey cluster evolved from the rest of L226 and may produce several more submissions that are the next closest matches to the Casey cluster.

2) There is two pending test of a closely related Carey (298743) submission and the Meredith submission (primers had to be re-designed YSEQ).

3) There are 13 pending Wish a YSNP requests from YSEQ to test the private YSNPs that are not tested by Big Y tests. Once these YSNPs can be order individually, Rich Manus has agreed to let me test his YDNA for my 13 private YSNPs. Rick belongs to the oldest branch under L226 since he is L226+ and FGC5660-. If Rick tests positive, these will probably be just more L226 equivalents (we expect 50 % will be L226 equivalents or declared unstable by YSEQ). The remaining half that test negative will be either: 1) four or five more private YSNPs for the FGC5647 cluster to test; 2) could be one or two new major branches under L226 somewhere between FGC5660 and FGC5647.

4) I am attempting to get the Kersey submission to test the last remaining three private YSNPs. Since the Meredith submission has now tested for all six private YSNPs, the Kersey test would verify which are FGC5647 equivalents from FGC5639 equivalents. If more equivalents of FGC5647 are discovered, we would test above and below the Kersey submssion to determine scope of these YSNPs and possible create another new branch.

FGC5647 Haplotree

The link to haplotree chart is the best way to look at the evolution of the FGC5647 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 FGC5647

Testing Candidate Recommendations

We really do not know if the YSNP mutations happen at the same time as the YSTR mutations. Many times these mutations track each but it is also common for them to be independent mutations. Also, the ordering of these private is not the easiest concept to understand as well - specially the hierachial nature of testing YSNPs. This summary will attempt to priortize testing and explain why each set of tests is necessary and why some FGC5647 people are not being requested to test anything at this point in time.

Here are the priorities for testing:

1) The highest priority is to thoroughly test the first seven known private YSNPs of the 77349 NGS test. We have made great progress with this testing and have already discovered two genealogal YSNP mutations. The discovery of FGC5647 presents the need for extensive testing of this particular YSNP to see when this mutation actually happened.

1a) We know that the Kersey submission appears to be earliest current positive test results for FGC5647. However, this branch could be older, so testing (even very low odds testing) is extremely important to determine the upper limit of FGC5647 as well as tell us how our Casey cluster is related to the rest of L226 (finding non-Caseys that test positive would be very revealing to Casey research).

I have sent a request to the Carey submission 189591 to test for FGC5647. Hopefully, since this request is only $17.50, this person will hopefully fund this test. However, since another close matching Carey submission has already tested negative for FGC5647, this is obviously pretty speculative. However, this Carey submission actually matches our Casey cluster better than his own Carey cluster. Once I am able to add more testers into the SAPP tool, other testing upper limit testing candidates could be discovered by the SAPP tool. Also, as more data is entered, the tool will create more accurate output.

2) We really do not know the real lower limit of FGC5647. Since the John Casey, 1782, has a pending Y Elite 2.1 test, I would feel bad about asking him to test for FGC5647 but this would accelerate our understanding since his line is currently between the Kersey branch and the 460 = 12 branch.

3) We know that one 460 = 12 submission (Meredith) has already tested positive and everyone assumes that all his 460 = 12 siblings would test positive as well. But the 460 = 12 mutation and the FGC5647 mutation could be independent mutations. I recommend that all members of the 460 = 12 branch test for FGC5647. They need to only test for FGC5647 because we are only attempting to determine the lower limit of FGC5647.

Those needing to test FGC5647 would be 119586, 56130, 45069 and 172505. 172505 is probably the best testing candidate since his oldest proven ancestor was born in 1738, the oldest in this part of the FGC5647 haplotree.

4) Once the Y Elite 2.1 comes available, we will have even more private YSNPs to test. This may require testing both above and below the Kersey submission.

5) Now is the time to get some of our Casey submissions upgraded to 67 markers since more data means more accuracy. Also, upgrading to 111 markers for each genealogical line does provide more data as well (I have not tried mixing 111 and 67 markers with the SAPP tool which is future action item to see if this helps or just makes charts more confusing).