GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291906047
Subject: Re: [DNA] NW European R1b from Iberia?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:47:27 +0000 (UTC)
>... I can notice that for U106, for example, in 67-marker format an average number of mutations per marker are:
0.221 for South-West Europe,
0.234 for North-West Europe,
0.234 for Scandinavia,
0.236 for Central Europe,
0.239 for North-East Europe
0.260 for South-East Europe
Since you wanted to see some data related to the movement of U106 North from Iberia, presumably with Bell Beakers, let me give you some data which - in my interpretation - also point at that.
Before that, since some folks here put much (too much, as I see it) emphasis on "slow markers", "fast markers", DYS464 and YCA alleles, and even remove them, let me show that this is very secondary in the grand scheme. The numbers above were calculated for ALL 67 markers. If I remove all the six markers (DYS464a,b,c,d + YCAIIa,b), the average number of mutations per the remaining 61 markers are:
0.175 for South-West Europe,
0.203 for North-West Europe,
0.208 for Scandinavia,
0.197 for Central Europe,
0.211 for North-East Europe
0.227 for South-East Europe
As one can see, the pattern stays the same. Since the mutation rate constant for the 61 markers went lower compared to that for 67 markers, the TMRCA in years stays practically the same. The Central European U106 became a little bit younger - on average, but still withing margin of error.
The likely reason why the South-Western U106 is the "youngest" one (however, still within margin of error) I have explained earlier. They came through a population bottleneck in Iberia between 4500 and 4000 ybp, and apparently E1b1 could be blamed for that. Robert Tarin has a beautiful map of the current distribution of R1b1b2 and E1b1b1b-M81, which explains that.
Now, let's go to the "beef". I took the null-mutated U106 (in DYS425) as a lead. It accounts for about 11% of all U106 in the world and in Europe. In all the regions listed above only the North-Western U106 has a distinct branch on the U106 haplotype tree. In all other regions null-mutated haplotypes are assorted and do not form any branch. They are visitors there. "Tourists". Remarkably, the South-Western U109 is the only one (!) which does not have null-mutated U106.
Therefore, direction of movement was NOT from North-West to South West, otherwise null-mutated U106 would have been there.
Several null-mutated U106 are presented in the South-Western branch, however, they also do not form any branch there. They are scattered across the haplotype tree.
In (tentative) conclusion it looks like null-mutated U106 arose when U106 already left Iberia, they apparently arose in North-West, and from there went to Scandinavia (only one null-mutated haplotype), to Central Europe (scattered in the haplotype tree), to North-East Europe (only two null-nulated haplotypes there, a minority), and to South-East (no definite pattern, the null mutated haplotypes sit in different parts of the tree).
This all (tentatively) supports the Iberian origin of U106.
>This translates to 3525 years for South-West Europe and 4225 years for South-East Europe, and everything else in between, pretty tight, however, by itself it does not mean much. VERY important are their base haplotypes, similarity (or differences) of their base haplotypes between each other and between, say, base haplotypes for P312, L21, etc., as well as location of haplotypes with the null mutation on haplotype trees and in said populations, because null-mutated haplotypes also provide a lead, particularly when they form a distinct branch of a haplotype tree in a certain region, since the null-mutated branch is the youngest one (0.194 in the above units).
>The whole pattern is rather complicated, but it provides a good solution. A good factor in this context is that R-21, a downstream subclade with respect to P312, and which supposed to be younger, in reality is older than P312, as determined from a multitude of available 67 marker haplotypes. It is because majority of P312, and U106, on that matter, went in Iberia through a bottleneck, which cut their apparent age, determined from available haplotypes. That is why those "variances", shown above, do not provide much information by themselves. Besides, they are all within margin of error, which for 0.221 is 0.221+/-0.019 for one sigma, and 0.221 +/-0.038 for two sigma. For 0.260 it is respectively 0.260+/-0.018 and 0.260+/-0.036. As one can see, all those numbers are within the same confidence interval.
>MUCH more informative here are their 67 marker base haplotypes along with base haplotypes of P312 and L21, as well as of U198, etc.