Deep Ancestry

NEXT GENERATION DNA SEQUENCING

[SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM (SNP) TESTING]

[Deep Ancestry ~100s to 1000s of years in the past]

Return to opening DNA Page Return to STR DNA Testing Results Page

Updated August 2016

The following discussion summarizes what we know about the Mangum’s place in the “Y-chromosome” Human Family Tree, based on DNA SNP testing of eight descendants of John Mangum (our supposed immigrant ancestor).

A SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) is a variation (mutation) in the DNA sequence (single base pair) of an individual’s chromosome, including the Y-chromosome on which this study is based. Base-pairs are the building blocks that make up the structure of the chromosome. These mutations are much rarer than the mutations we call Short Tandem Repeats (STRs)[1], but there are many more places for the mutations to occur. While there may be hundreds or maybe thousands of known repeat structures in the Y chromosome, there are 58 million base-pair sites where SNPs can occur. Scientists use these mutations (SNPs) to define Haplogroups, that is, to define branches in the Human Phylogenetic Tree, which I will simply refer to as the Human Family Tree, and in this case we are limiting ourselves to the male only ‘Y-Chromosome’ Human Family Tree.[2]

THE HUMAN FAMILY TREE

Somewhere in the deep past, maybe around 150,000 years ago and probably long after anatomically modern humans developed [3], there was a single male individual who is considered the most recent father of all living human males. He was likely very little different from all the other males in his tribe, and the surrounding tribes, but he is unique in one way. All living human males obtained their Y-chromosome from him alone, via direct transmission from father to son, all the way down to the present day.[4] None of the other male individual’s Y-chromosome survived, meaning their direct male lineages all led to a dead end, whether by the entire lineage eventually dying out, or by every descendent of these males breaking the father to son connection (by having no surviving male children) somewhere along the lineage.[5]

Our Mangum lineage belongs to the major branch or haplogroup designated by the SNP ‘M-207’. It is listed in the Y-chromosome human family tree as haplogroup “R”.[6] It likely split off from haplogroup “P” (SNP M45) about 23,000-34,000 years ago in Siberia, Europe, Central Asia or South Asia.[7] As more SNPs were found, geneticists divided the ‘R’ haplogroup into more and more branches. SEE THE CHARTS BELOW!

A simplified Y-Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree. Note the major ancient branches or populations (A, BT, CT, etc.) and the more recent but still generally ancient sub-branches. Our Mangums are part of the ‘R1b’ branch at the bottom of this chart. Each branch point is defined by a mutation called a SNP.

LINE OF DESCENT TO THE MANGUMS
HAPLOGROUP	SNP	APPROX AGE (yrs)	NOTES
R	M207	20-30K	Arose somewhere in Central Asia,
R1	M173	18.5-30K
R1b	M343	25K	Most common haplogroup in the genetic genealogy database.
R1b1	L278	13-20K	[P25 designation recently removed from ISOGG tree.]
R1b1a1a	P297		Found throughout Eurasia
R1b1a1a2	M269	6.5-8.5K	Dominant branch of R1b in Europe
R1b1a1a2a	L23		Most common R1b branch
R1b1a1a2a1	L51
R1b1a1a2a1a	L151/L11
R1b1a1a2a1a2	P312		Most common haplogroup in Western Europe
R1b1a1a2a1a2c	L21	4K+	Large haplogroup, mainly Europe and British Isles
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1	DF13		Fairly recently discovered SNP between L21 & Z253
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1d2	Z253	4K+	High concentration in the British Isles
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1d2d1b	L1308	1800	Sometime before the Mangums, Malloys & Mannings common ancestor.

Extracted from information in the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG).Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree, 2014-2016. L1308 was recently given official recognition by ISOGG as a branch of the Y-Chromosome Human Family Tree.

Our Mangums belong to the ‘R1b1a1a2a1a2c1d2d1b’ haplogroup [8], designated by its terminal SNP ‘L1308’, a branch of the more widespread ‘Z253’ Haplogroup, which is in turn a branch of the even more widespread ‘L21’ Haplogroup.[9], [10] Previously, both ‘Family Tree DNA’ (FTDNA) and the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) published somewhat separate long forms of the haplogroup, but recently FTDNA began to show only the terminal SNP, that is, L1308 instead of the long ‘Letter-Number’ shown above.[11] Each letter and number represents a different SNP, which splits the lineage into more and younger branches or sub-haplogroups. Haplogroup L1308 represented, until recently, the youngest known branch in our particular part of the Human Family Tree. L1308 still seems to be the defining SNP for the Manning/Mangum/Malloy branch, but we have now found two more SNPs prior to the Mangum-Malloy split, and several more after the split, but prior to John Mangum.

Researchers have identified a cluster of individuals within the Z253 haplogroup who have certain values for several standard STR DNA markers. The cluster is called “Z253-1711-16”. The Mangum-Malloy L1308 haplogroup is one of a number of relatively closely related haplogroups within this cluster. The cluster is explained in more detail later on in this article.

THE BIG Y TEST

FTDNA announced their ‘Big Y’ test in late 2013 as a replacement for the Walk the Y-Chromosome (WTY) test, which used a slower and more expensive technology. The ‘Big Y’ tests 10 million base pairs in the Y-chromosome and it also provides results for almost 25,000 of the known Y-SNPs. More importantly, it is capable of finding new, previously unknown SNPs, like the Mangum’s L1308 SNP found by the WTY test described above. Note that the WTY test only looked at less than 500,000 base pairs compared to the Big Y’s 10 million.[12]

It should be emphasized again that all male line descendants of John Mangum have basically the same, identical Y chromosome, except for the relatively rare mutations that have occurred in various individuals in the generations after John Mangum. SNP mutations are so rare that each one has been considered to have happened only once in all human history. That is also why they persist in human DNA for millennia, allowing us to trace ancient human migrations by testing the DNA of living humans. However, there is one caveat. The human Y chromosome is composed of over 58 million base pairs. Because of its large size, and in spite of the rarity of SNP mutations, there are estimated to be one SNP mutation in the Y-chromosome every generation and a half. Since the Big Y tests about 10 million base pairs, we have found SNPs that are specific to the individual or his particular Mangum sub-lineage, but not to the entire Mangum line. Since these SNP mutations are so much rarer than the STRs, there is less likelihood for additional mutations to create or change a particular SNP, and which can lead to lineage error. This is one of the problems with the STR (CDYa=37>38) that is associated with the Samuel Mangum (VA to NC 1748) lineage. All STRs mutate at a very much higher rate than the SNPs, and the CDYa STR is one of the fastest mutating of the STRs. Therefore, not all “CDYa=38” STRs signify descent from Samuel Mangum. Other Mangums, unrelated to the Samuel Mangum line, may have had that same STR mutation, and others that were truly descendent from Samuel Mangum may have had additional mutations that gave CDYa another value instead of ‘38’.

We now have eight Mangums plus at least 4 other lineages which have the L1308 SNP. The charts below show the results of all our Big Y testing.

SNP OVERVIEW FROM R1b HAPLOGROUP TO THE 253-1716-11 CLUSTER

The L21 descendancy chart above is based on useful but probably outdated charts from various sources, including those published on the “R-L21 and Subclades Project” at Family Tree DNA. [DNA genealogical research is presently progressing so fast that any chart is quickly out of date.] The chart has been trimmed of most of the branching from each SNP branch point, since it was only meant to show the relationship of our Z253-1716-11 cluster (to which the Mangums belong) to the L21 and DF13 and Z253 major Haplogroups. The M222 Haplogroup, which includes the famous Irish “Nialls of the Nine Hostages” is under the DF49 branch.

L21, the parent of our Z253 Haplogroup, is a Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) on the Y chromosome. L21 is identical to S145, M529 and rs11799226 in other literature. It was discovered in October 2008 and is downstream of P312(S116) in the Y DNA phylogenetic tree. This group is most common in England and Ireland (25-50% of the whole male population). This population has its origins in the indigenous Celtic tribes of Britain and Ireland. Within the Scots-Irish population, this includes the native Cumbric Celtic tribes of what we now call the Scottish Lowlands, and the Gaelic population. This tells us the majority of the people in the New World that identify as 'Scots-Irish' are the descendants of the indigenous Celts of the British Isles and Ireland.

The Z253-1716-11 cluster mentioned here is a group of lineages below the Z253 Haplogroup that have a certain group of STR mutations in common. Remember, the STRs (Short Tandem Repeats) are the standard markers (12, 26, 37, 67, 111) we initially tested for at FTDNA. In other words, all of us in the cluster have several identical STR marker mutations from the Z253 modal. [STR marker 511=11 (mutated from 10), 557=17 (mutated from 16) and 449>=30 (mutated from 29). Also, marker 439 has often mutated from 12 to 13, and in the Mangum family there is a second mutation from 13 to 14. Although not official, we could consider the Mangum and a few others (Manning-Malloys-Creed-Prendergras at this writing) belonging to their own ‘Cluster’ designated Z253-1716-1308. For more information, see the Journal, Issue 64, page 60.]

NOTE: The charts below contain extractions and modifications of charts by Ray Murta, one of the administrators of the Z-254 Project at Family Tree DNA.

THE Z253 1716-11 CLUSTER

(Shows only the 24 known SNPs common to all cluster members)

The above 24 SNPs are common to all Z253-1716-11 cluster lineages so far tested, but none are found in lines not part of the cluster.[13] The first known lineage, the Morgan line, was the first to branch off from the rest of the cluster at about 1900-2100 years ago. ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy) means that ISOGG has given the SNP official status. Yseq is a DNA origins project that offers various DNA tests for individual markers and panels, including the new, inexpensive, Z253 Panel. FTDNA refers to ‘Family Tree DNA’. The first column above (and in the charts below) show the position (Location number) of the SNP on the Y-chromosome. The middle column shows the mutation, that is, G>A means that at that particular site the original Guanine letter has mutated to the letter Adenine. The last column shows the popular name for the SNP (mutation). The FGC +[number] names are from the ‘Full Genome Corporation’.

The cluster was originally recognized by the presence of a particular group of mutations in the STR standard marker tests of several individuals, but is now confirmed by the more conclusive SNP markers. All members of the cluster have the SNP S841 that has now become the defining SNP for the cluster.

There was quite a long time, maybe 2500 years, between the time S841 branched away from the main Z253 trunk and the time when the first member of that S841 branch (Morgans) had a SNP not common to all the members of the S841 branch. There may have been some situation in antiquity that accounted for this long period of stasis observed in these records, whether it be a migration, population isolation event, war, natural calamity, or what-have-you. Of course the most probable cause is that we are only testing a select group of S841 descendants, so the anomaly is most likely a sampling problem instead of a real event.

Z253-1716-11 CLUSTER LINEAGES

(Shows where the L1308 cluster fits within the main cluster)

The L1308 cluster, which contains the Mangum line plus others, branched from the rest of the Z253-1716-11 cluster about 1700-1900 years before the present.

THE L1308 CLUSTER TREE

(Shows the SNPs and tree position of the 8 “Mangums” who tested “Big Y”)

The L1308 cluster presently includes the “Mangum” lines, plus other lines that branched off some time before the time of John Mangum the immigrant. These include the Creed & Prendergast line that branched shortly after the L1308 SNP was created and the Manning and Malloy lines, which branched after two more SNPs, at about 1400-1600 years ago. There were 7 more SNPs before the generation of John Mangum the immigrant, who was born c1672. These 7 SNPs are common to all descendants of John Mangum. In the chart above, the major line of descent from John Mangum is shown. At the bottom, the individual participant’s block show the present surname of the participant (like my Parham surname), then the Family Tree DNA test kit number. The SNPs above each individual show their private SNPs, that is, SNPs found only in their line, after their descent from John Mangum. The broken lineage lines represent uncertainty about the lineage. For the Robertson, we do not know how they fit within the main Mangum lineage. Also, the Mangham participant’s connection to Joseph Mangum is presently obscure.

The L1308 Cluster within the Z253-1716-11 Cluster

First note that our group (or cluster) is defined by the SNP L1308, the first one found that was specific to the Mangums. It was the only 'Mangum unique' SNP found when one of our Mangum Surname Group (Kit 6879) took the Walk the Y Chromosome (WTY) test that looked at 500,000 sites on the Y chromosome. Later tests showed that several other Mangums (Parham, Robertson and Mangham) had the SNP, inferring that all descendants of John Mangum the immigrant had the mutation. Later we found a Malloy who had the mutation. The Malloys were close enough to the Mangums in STR mutations to have been on our radar, but far enough away in genetic distance (STRs) that ISOGG made SNP L1308 an official branch in the Y-Chromosome Human Family Tree. Later we found other lineages were positive for the L1308 SNP. We can now think of the L1308 group as a cluster in its own right, which lies within the Z253-1716-11 cluster, with an age of 1700 to 1900 years.

Note. The Creed and Prendergast lineages only share the one SNP (the main L1308 SNP) with the group. They obviously had a SNP after about a century or so after the formation of the L1308 cluster, creating the first branch within the cluster. This seems to indicate that L1308 was indeed the first SNP to occur, and that the two other SNPs (that all Mangums, Mannings and Malloys have) came later.

After the Prendergast and Creed lines parted ways with the other members of the L1308 cluster, the main L1308 cluster trunk had two more SNPs (about 250 years) before the Mangums, Mannings and Malloys went their separate ways.^,This event occurred about 1400-1600 years before the present, or about 500 AD. Before this event, the Mangums, Mannings and the Malloys were the same family, that is, they had the same ancestors up to the last common ancestor who lived about 500 AD. This last common ancestor had at least two sons, one who gave rise to the Mannings and Malloys, and the other gave rise to the Mangums. After this split, all the SNPs that happened in the ‘Mangum’ son and his descendants were exclusive to that lineage. The Malloys went on to produce 18 new SNPs between the time of the last common ancestor with the Mangums, and the participant who did the Big Y test, while at about the same time the Mannings produced 9. Because we have several Mangums (various surname spellings) who tested Big Y, the situation there is a little more complicated.

THE MANGUM GROUP

After the split with the Malloys and Mannings, the Mangums had seven more SNPs, which all descendants of John Mangum the immigrant have. This only means that we have not found any participants in Big Y (or Full Genome Sequence) who have one or more of these seven SNPs, but not the entire seven. It is similar to the 24 SNPs described above with the Z253-1716-11 cluster. Of all the possible lineages who have one or more of these 7 SNPs, only the lineage that had all 7 SNPs (the John Mangum branch) has tested Big Y. Was there some calamity that decimated all those intermediate lineages that had only 1-6 of those SNPs, or are we Mangums the only lineage of that larger population to have tested Big Y? It is of course most likely the latter. We may eventually see some of these related lineages as more people test their DNA.

We have tested eight individuals who are descended from John Mangum the immigrant, representing four of his supposed sons, that is, John Jr., James, William & Henry. [See a following chart for a lineage tree of the ‘Mangum’ Big Y participants.] We also have one participant who descends from a Samuel Robertson of early Virginia. He is a true genetic Mangum, but we have not been able to find where the lineage break occurred, that is, where a genetic Mangum had the Robertson surname. We believe without real evidence that these Robertsons were descendants of John Mangum the immigrant, but the actual Mangum progenitor is unknown.[14]

Note that all but one of the Big Y testers have private SNPs, that is, SNPs not shared with any other participant who descends from John Mangum.[15] The only one of our Mangums without private SNPs is one of the two descendants of James Mangum via Absolom. He most likely does have private SNPs, but Big Y obviously did not test those particular sites on the Y Chromosome. Big Y tests about 10 million sites out of a total 58 million possible sites. The Full Genome test apparently tests for many more of these sites, but we have not explored that more expensive avenue yet. The other descendant of Absolom Mangum who did Big Y has a single private SNP.

Three of our participants descend from William via his son Samuel. NOTE: Whether Samuel was son of John the immigrant or his grandson via his son William has been the subject of much debate. The matter has yet to be fully resolved. Each have their own private SNPs, meaning they are unduplicated in any other participant. This also means that all the private SNPs in these three are from after Samuel’s time but not from Samuel himself, and not from William. Any SNPs in William or Samuel’s genome would have shown up in all of their descendants including these three participants.

Since there are no duplicate SNPs common only to these three, it is obvious that all the private SNPs occurred after the three split into separate lineages that gave rise to the Big Y participants. We would have hoped to find identical SNPs in two of the three, but not in the third. Had that happened, we might could have determined whether this writer’s Pleasant Mangum was descended from Howell, or Joseph Mangum.

It is always informative to find SNPs common to one part of a lineage, but not to another part of the lineage. In this case, it could have resolved the difficult puzzle in this writer’s lineage. We have found no definite evidence for the father of Pleasant Mangum. By a process of elimination, and circumstantial evidence, we have settled on Howell Mangum. However, there is also some circumstantial evidence for Joseph Mangum (brother of Howell) as Pleasant’s father. Had we been lucky, and found a SNP common to either Pleasant-Howell, or Pleasant-Joseph, we would have had good evidence for the relationship. Unfortunately, we were not that lucky!

Based on the 111 STR markers, Pleasant and Howell’s descendants share one mutation at marker 710 that is not shared by Joseph’s descendant. This is evidence, although very weak, that Pleasant’s father is indeed Howell. STR markers mutate so fast that a single match cannot be considered conclusive. We now have available many more STR markers (extracted from Big Y by a company called YFull) that could potentially have resolved this lineage puzzle, but unfortunately, it did not. Also, some recent uncertainty in the lineage of the one supposedly descended from Joseph Mangum has made the entire exercise unreliable. See the section on YFull analysis below for a more detailed discussion about the relationship between these three descendants of Samuel Mangum.

Lineages of the ‘Mangum’ Participants in Big Y

(As of August 2016)

STR Markers of the ‘Mangum’ Participants in Big Y

[Only the mutations from the Mangum modal shown]

(As of August 2016)

SUMMARY

Using DNA, we have traced the Mangum lineage from the root of the Y-chromosome Human Family tree to the leaves of the highest branches of the tree, that is, to the living Mangum descendants of the long ago ancestor of all human males. We know none of the names of those prior to our John Mangum, but we do know the ‘when and where’ of the many branch points in the human tree that led to him. There were many discovered branch points between the Y-chromosome Adam of Africa and the “R” Haplogroup. The SNP defining this haplogroup (R-M207) is believed to have arisen during the Upper Paleolithic era: about 19,000 – 27,000 years ago). Haplogroup R1b (R-M343), our subclade which originated about 12-15,000 years ago, is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe, reaching over 80% of the population in Ireland, the Scottish Highlands, western Wales, the Atlantic fringe of France and the Basque country. A more recent subclade (L21) apparently originated in the indigenous Celtic tribes of Britain and Ireland. Recently, the subclade Haplogroup Z253 was found under L21 and was only 4500 to 4700 years old. It has been found in FTDNA DNA samples with ancestry from Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Wales.

Meanwhile, during evaluation of Short Tandem Repeats (STR) testing data, a cluster of surnames were identified having specific values for several STR markers that had mutated to specific numbers different from the Z253 Haplogroup modal. This cluster was eventually given the name Z253-1716-11. Later SNP testing showed that the cluster also had several specific SNP marker values, in addition to the Z253 SNP, as well as the changed STR markers. The presence of one of these SNP markers, S841, is now seen as the identifying SNP for the cluster rather than the changed STR markers. The cluster apparently developed soon after the Z253 haplogroup itself appeared.

With the presently available DNA data, we have not identified any branching SNPs in the Z253-1716-11 cluster during the first 2500 years after its creation (24 SNPs). The Morgan line produced a private SNP at about 1900-2100 years ago. At about 1700-1900 years ago (100-300 AD) we see two lineages with branching SNPs, one of which was the L1308 SNP that defines the Mangum, Creed, Prendergas, Manning & Malloy lineages. After the Manning & Malloy branched away from the Mangum lineage at about 1400-1600 years ago (400-600 AD), the Mangum lineage had 7 more SNPs before our immigrant ancestor John Mangum appeared on the scene about 1672. Those 7 SNPs represent about 1100-1300 years (from 400-600 AD to 1672) before we see the branching by the individual lines under John Mangum. Within that millennia (plus a few years) lies the lineages and families that were the immediate ancestors of our Mangum lineage, of which we presently know almost nothing. After John Mangum, his descendant lineages created their own SNPs over the generations up to the present time. The Big Y DNA tests at FTDNA show 8 of those descendant lineages with their own SNPs, and all found so far are private SNPs, that is, not shared with any other participant/lineage.

It should be noted that the above information is based on Big Y testing that tests only about 17% of the entire Y-chromosome. Testing additional sections of the chromosome would probably found many more SNPs, and could have made significant changes to the above analysis.

THE YFULL ANALYSIS

The Big Y testing discussed above was primarily about finding new SNPs in our Y-Chromosome. We later found out that the Big Y data file (.bam file) potentially contained information on over 500 STRs, although at much less accuracy than FTDNA’s 111 STR marker tests. Seven of the eight ‘Mangums’ who did Big Y submitted their Big Y BAM files to YFull for additional analysis of the SNP data and extraction of the new STRs. This second analysis of the ‘SNP’ data essentially confirmed what we already had found previously, so the following discussion concerns mainly the new STR markers.

Of the 500 or so STR markers extracted by YFull, they reported about 30 markers which had no results in any of our participants (marked n/a), a few markers with only one or two participant having any result, several markers were posted only for the last Mangums to participate and several markers in each participants report had uncertain values (marked ‘?’). This writer’s particular markers numbered only 420 when subtracting all the ‘no shows’. When comparing two individual’s markers, considering the combination of missing or uncertain values, the total markers actually compared averaged about 400.

These YFull extracted markers included all the markers in FTDNA’s 111 marker test, but as already stated, at much less accuracy than FTDNA’s tests. [Note that SNPs are mutations in the individual base pairs that make up the Y-chromosome while STRs are mutations in the number of groups of base pairs that are repeated end to end several times at any one place on the chromosome. STR mutations change the number of repeats of these groups.]

Unfortunately, in spite of giving us extra STR markers, the YFull STR extraction did not prove as useful as we had hoped. Of course, we only have seven participants for comparing data, and they all came from lineages whose common ancestor was either John Mangum the immigrant, or a descendant not far removed from him. We did find quite a few STR mutations (marker values not corresponding to the Mangum modal [16]) among the 400+ markers, but few of these mutations matched up among the eight participants. Unfortunately, matching of mutations is what allows us to analyze the relationships between participants.

All our Mangums are SNP L1308, which is now considered an official DNA cluster as per the SNP section above. The participants obtaining YFull analysis are as follows:

Lynn Parham FTDNA 6874 – Yfull YF3616 – Howell/Pleasant Mangum NC-GA
Mangham FTDNA 8621 – Yfull YF3637 – Joseph Mangum? NC-VA-KY-TN? Lineage connection to Joseph somewhat uncertain.
Mangum FTDNA 6879 – Yfull YF3960 –Howell/Samuel Mangum NC-GA
Robertson FTDNA 16153 – Yfull 3965 – Samuel Robertson VA
Mangum FTDNA 8869 – Yfull YF3989 – John Mangum (IV?) Rev. War Patriot
Mangrum FTDNA 173868 - Yfull YF4045 –Henry Mangum VA-TN (Mangrums)
Mangum FTDNA 150428 – Yfull YF4795 – Absolom Mangum VA-NC

We made the following observations re the YFull analysis:

a. The marker values found by YFull track the 111 FTDNA markers fairly well with just a few exceptions. The few differences are most likely a result of the poorer accuracy in extracting data from the Big Y data file.

b. The Mangham’s markers (Kit 8621) (Joseph Mangum line?) have the most mutations away from the Mangum modal than any of the other Mangum lines, and usually has the most marker differences with the other participants. The reason is presently unknown.

d. There are very few mutations in common (away from the Mangum modal) between the seven participants. This limits the info we can glean from the YFull data. However, the total number of marker mutations in each participant [distance] from the Mangum modal has been somewhat useful. The lack of common mutations is partly because we only have seven participants and their common ancestor is many generations in the past, close to the generations just after the immigrant ancestor John Mangum.

I (Lynn Parham, FTDNA 6874 – Yfull YF3616), had hoped that the new STRs would allow me to determine, once and for all, if my descent via Pleasant Mangum was from Howell Mangum, or Joseph Mangum, both apparent sons of Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration of 1748. Unfortunately, that did not happen, for two main reasons.

First, among the mutations away from the Mangum modal, there are almost none in common between these three participants with which to compare specific genetic markers. However, using the totality of all mutations away from the Mangum modal with each participant (genetic distance), the data seem to show I was closer to the Howell line rather than the Joseph line. However, this may be irrelevant. See next paragraph.

Second, recent traditional research calls into question the connection between the Mangham’s (Kit 8621) ancestors and Joseph Mangum’s descendants that migrated to Tennessee as Mangrums. Traditional genealogy seems to show that Mangham (Kit 8621) descends from a Kentucky lineage that may have originated in VA. At present, the link to the Joseph Mangum line (that migrated to Williamson Co., TN as Mangrums) is possible but uncertain. This might have a bearing on the participant’s genetic distance from the other participants. Since we cannot confirm that this is a Joseph Mangum line, I cannot use it to compare with my YFull markers.

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

SOME RELEVANT CHARTS FROM YFULL DATA ARE INCLUDED BELOW!!
[https://www.yfull.com]

The first chart below shows the 504 YFull markers extracted, with the corresponding 111 FTDNA markers in yellow. “n/a’ means none of the YFull participants had a reported value at this marker. Beside each marker is the Mangum modal [in yellow (FTDNA) or green (YFull)], calculated from a combination of YFull and FTDNA marker values.

YFULL & FTDNA STR MARKERS-MANGUM MODAL

(Mangum modal based on both YFull and FTDNA markers)

ONLY MARKERS WITH STR MUTATIONS (USING BOTH FTDNA & YFULL DATA)

(Includes only those markers in both FTDNA and YFull in which one or more participants has a marker value different from the Mangum modal)

*FTDNA & YFull Do not agree on these marker values!

Continued….

STR MUTATION COMBINATIONS

(Those markers where there are STR mutational matches between two or more participants)

*FTDNA & YFull Do not agree on these marker values!

MARKER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS

(YFull data only from YFull website)

*Mangum Modal based on combined FTDNA & YFull data.

NOTES1: Modal distance does not include markers CDYa & CDYb where FTDNA & YFull do not always agree. Questionable YFull markers (with '?') are counted.

NOTES2: Marker values that differ by two or more counted as one.

NOTES3: Re questionable markers - YF6874 had 2, YF6879 had 2, YF8869 had 2, YF173868 had 3 and YF150428 had 3.

Top of page

$Description: Description: Description: Description: icons\home.gif$

[1] The human genome, including the Y-chromosome we deal with in our research, is full of repeated DNA groupings or sequences. DNA regions with short repeating units (usually 2-6 base pairs in length) are called Short Tandem Repeats (STR). The number of these repeats in a particular site is the basis for the marker values in Family Tree DNA’s basic DNA tests (12, 25, 37, 67 & 111 Markers).

[2] With most SNPs, there is usually no outward evidence of a human tree branch. It is in a sense an artificial creation based on the fact that a human male in the past, sometime long ago past, had a mutation in a single site on his Y-chromosome. It is a quite common occurrence because we have 58 million sites that can mutate, although mutations in a single site are extremely rare. Although SNPs can happen in the genes, the SNPs of interest here occur in areas of the chromosome with no bodily function. These mutations give the owner of these mutations no benefit or harm, so are not selected for or against over the generations. Migrating populations carry those SNP with them, and scientists can use those SNPs to define branches in the human family tree and ‘observe’ the movement of that population by looking at the genomes of their present-day descendants.

[3] Anatomically modern humans developed at least by 160,000 years ago, and maybe as far back as 200,000 years ago. Humanlike behavior, including art, tools, etc., is only evident at 50,000 years ago or less.

[4] There are of course the mitochondrial Eve, more or less contemporary with the Y-chromosome Adam, who gave rise to all the mitochondrial DNA that now exists in the human race. She was in a sense the mother of all humanity, and scientists traced her by using the mitochondrial DNA [The DNA of the human cell’s power plants, the mitochondria], not the human DNA of the female lineage. About a billion years ago a single cell that was destined to give rise to much of all living creatures on earth incorporated a bacterium cell that produced energy the cell could use. It is the descendants of that bacterium cell’s DNA (Mitochondria) that is present in all multi-cell organisms on earth. If all humans could trace their genealogy from mother to mother back far enough, they would all end up at this mitochondrial Eve. There were other women/mothers alive at the time, but all their descending lines came to a dead end, either by dying out, or in one generation of each line having no female children. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is only transmitted from mother to her children. Fathers have mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from their mothers, but normally do not transmit it to their children.

[5] The direct male line ‘ANCESTORS’ of this Y-DNA ‘Adam’ can also be considered fathers of all modern male’s Y-Chromosome because this Y-DNA Adam got his Y-chromosome from these ancestors, but the Y-DNA Adam is the most recent ancestor of all humans Y-DNA.

[6]In molecular evolution, a haplogroup (such as our R-M207) is a group of similar haplotypes (set of DNA variations that tend to be inherited together) that share a common ancestor having the same single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation in all haplotypes. In plain language, a haplogoup is a group of lineages sharing a common ancestor and all these lineages have the same defining SNP mutation. We can say that the SNP mutation defines the haplogroup, and all members of the haplogroup have that mutation.

[7] Even though Haplogroup ‘R’ has its own SNP that defines it, it is still has the ‘P’ SNP M45 within its genome. All ‘R’ Haplogroups are still ‘P’ Haplogroups, but have an additional SNP that we can use to define ‘R’ as a branch of ‘P’.

[8] 2016 designation.

[9]Z253 SNP is a mutation at site number 7253034 on the Y-chromosome in which the base letter G (guanine) is changed to letter A (Adenine). These letters are two of the four nucleobases that make up the strands of the double helix DNA molecule.

[10]This writer is a member of the L21 and Subclades Project (FTDNA), the R1b-L21 (S145) Haplogroup and Subclades Y DNA project (Yahoo), and the Z253 Project (FTDNA).

[11] Each letter and number of the long form of the haplogroup represents a different SNP, and therefore a branch in the Hunan Family Tree. The numbers have gotten so large that they have become somewhat cumbersome to use, and the final (terminal) SNP is usually used now. ISOGG, having charge of the ‘Official’ tree continues to use both forms, which details the entire linear line of descent through each SNP branch point, along with the terminal SNP designation. These branch points, and the letter-number designations, change frequently as new branches within the branches are discovered, but the terminal SNP for a particular branch does not usually change. Of course, each new branch under a terminal SNP will have its own terminal SNP.

[12] Full Genomes Corp.” has a Whole Genome test, mainly for people who want to check susceptibility to disease. For Y chromosome genealogy they have their Elite test, 25 million base pairs, although not all sites will produce reliable results. FTDNA's Big Y tests for 10.3 million sites, but many of them are also in unreliable regions. The Elite 2.0 test from Full Genomes Corp also looks at 300 STR markers. FTDNA’s highest STR marker test looks at only 111 markers. but YFull Corp. can extract up to 400+ STR markers from FTDNA’s Big Y test data.

[13] The 24 SNPs are shown in order as they are positioned on the Y chromosome, rising from lowest to highest. There is not enough information to determine their order based on age.

[14]THE ROBERTSON PROBLEM: Determining just where the Robertson fits in the tree is a problem since we do not know when the lineage break with the Mangums occurred. Three other ‘Mangum’ participants have a common ancestor in Samuel Mangum, and all have the STR mutation CDYa=38 instead of the John Mangum Modal CDYa=37. Samuel Mangum is the latest common ancestor of almost all those in our FTDNA surname group who have CDYa=38. [It is a fast mutating marker so this is not 100% true.] The Robertson has CDYa=37, so he is probably not a descendant of Samuel Mangum, nor a descendant of Absolom Mangum, whose descendants have the mutation CDYb=38. The origin of the Robertson line appears to go back to Virginia, so the Mangum-Robertson lineage break probably dates to the first half of the 1700’s in John Mangum the immigrant b. c1672 or his children beginning about 1700, but almost certainly not the later Samuel and Absolom lines. A long shot would be a generation or two before John Mangum, but that requires some unlikely alternate scenarios about when John Mangum came to the Virginia colony, or a break before John’s arrival in Virginia.

[15] In the official human family tree "Private" SNPs on the Y chromosome correspond to relatively recent mutations that have not yet been observed in a significant number of other individuals in the same haplogroup. Some will eventually be incorporated into the Y-tree with further research, as our L1308 was.

[16] We determine the Mangum modal as the majority marker value out of a group of participant’s results, and consider that this is the value passed down to us from John Mangum, our immigrant ancestor. This works well when we have many participants with a large majority having the same marker value, and only one or a few having a different value. The latter are therefore considered mutations from the modal. In a few instances, determining the majority value is difficult when there are only a few values available, as in some of the YFull results, and especially when those few values are varied. In some cases in YFull, we only have a single value, giving us a tentative modal value, but at very low confidence.