Coming Soon: Y-DNA Haplogroups for Family Finder

[ArmandoR1b]

R-CTS4188 is the subclade tested by FF and by 23andme v5 that I am personally interested in. There are no SNPs below it tested by either of them. In the FTDNA public tree Country Report at https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-d...=R-CTS4188 there are only 135 Branch Participants. That is the number of people stuck on that branch without a derived downstream SNP. I expect that number to go up a significant percentage once all of the FTDNA has completed the FF Y-DNA reports for everyone. The number of downstream participants is 635. The highest percentage is in England at 33.76% but that is due to a testing imbalance. Not enough people from Spain, Portugal and Latin America get Y-DNA testing. We will see if the FF results change that percentage significantly.

R-CTS4188 is about 4500 years per YFull at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS4188/ and from about 2500 BCE per Discover https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...4188/story

edit: If FF is able to identify subclades of R-CTS4188 I will be pleasantly surprised but the spreadsheet by jdbreazeale doesn't show any reported yet.

[ArmandoR1b]

I have cousins that descend directly through the paternal line of my ancestors, not through my own direct paternal line, and I have a big interest in knowing their general haplogroup. They never got Big Y or SNP testing so their Y-DNA haplogroup was predicted from their STR results. The FF Y-DNA report will finally give me their haplogroup that would not be available to me otherwise. We are all in a regional project so I will be able to see the results if they are not an FF match.

[Mitchell-Atkins]

FTDNA has definitely begun Y predictions from FF data, but they have paused it for the holidays and are set to begin again "in earnest" after the new year.  I can't find the original post (on Facebook?), but someone provided a link to a worksheet listing the Y SNPs that are found with the FF test, and I post it here for your reference.  I can't say for certain if it is exhaustive, but I can say that, when they start doing transfers, the list will definitely be different because of the different sequencing chips used by other vendors.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...edit#gid=0

If you are a GAP admin, you can easily check to see if your members have predictions.  Just click Reports > Member Reports > Received Lab Results and check the Lab Procedure column for "Prediction" (with no other adjacent procedures for the person).  My small project has only one "Prediction" so far, and it is surprisingly good:  he is a Y-37 tester with a former high-level haplogroup of I-P37, and now he's 17 "blocks" below at I-FGC7189.

Thank you for posting the link to the spread sheet, but man that is so disappointing.

They appear to have no rhyme or reason when choosing SNPs to maximize coverage.  Instead they drill way down on a certain line while ignoring others that are much further up the tree.

For example they included
Z142>Z51
Z142>Z51>L562
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57>Z148
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57>Z148>Z149
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57>Z148>Z149>Z52
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57>Z148>Z149>Z52>CTS11232
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57>Z148>Z149>Z52>CTS278
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57>S1491
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57>S1491>S1480
Z142>Z51>L562>Z57>S1491>S1497
Z142>Z12222>FT38430>CTS9490>CTS7970
Z142>Z12222>FT38430>CTS9490>CTS7970>CTS8125
Z142>Z12222>FT38430>CTS9490>CTS7970>CTS8125>FGC46210>CTS11381
Z142>Z12222>FT38430>BY1701>BY1542>S42
Z142>Z12222>BY3616>L552

Why would you drill down 6 to 7 levels below Z142, but fail to include SNP Z142, SNP Z12222, or the largest and 2nd largest subclades of Z12222: FT38430 and FGC1278?

[Mitchell-Atkins]

FTDNA has over 2 million in it's database and 285,000 of them are on their y dna haplotree.

For simple math lets say there 2 million are available for this update, of which 1 million are men.

So 3% tested in December 2023, means roughly 30,000 men or ~1145 additional U152 men (above the normal testing growth) should have been identified by now.

U152 #
Feb 13, 2019:  5532 U152 samples in the FTDNA database
Jan 4 2020:  5712 3.6% increase annualized growth
Dec 31 2020:  6385, 11.8% increase over previous year
Jan 2 2022:  7803, 22.2% increase over previous year
Jan 1 2023:  8474, 8.6% increase over previous year.

From Jan 2020 to Jan 23 annual growth averaged 14.2% over the previous year
8474 x 1.142 = 9677 is roughly what we would normally expect

Right now as of Dec 25 2023, there are 10873 men in the FTDNA database, or 1196 more than would be expected based on prior years.  That's a 28.3% increase over the previous year.

If FTDNA has tested 3% of the database then the U152 project numbers are in line with what should be expected based on these numbers (1145 vs 1196 increase).

But what's discouraging to me is that there has been no corresponding dramatic increase in numbers below U152>L2 on my line.

So I'm not sure this update is going to be of much personal benefit.

But I'm glad that it appears to be helping others like Riveman.

Since you are a person that should be able to read my spreadsheet and since FF and 23andme v5 both used the GSA chip I hope you take a look at it at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...ue&sd=true and compare it to what other subclades are found with FF. They should be similar with some exceptions.

Your spreadsheet includes SNPs 
Z142>S7402/Z12222
Z142>S257/Z150
Z142>Z12222, Z150>Y10987/FGC12378
Z142>Z12222, Z150> Y10984/FGC12401
Z142>Z12222, Z150> FGC12405/Y4272
Z142>Z12222, Z150> Y10984/FGC12401,  Z142>Z12222> Y3141/FGC12383

 but apparently none of these, nor Z142 or Z12222 for that matter were included in the spreadsheet that jdbreazeale posted.

I've noted that Z142>Z51 has significantly increased over the last month, while Z142>Z12222 has grown very slow in comparision, so it appears jdbreazeale's spreadsheet is correct, when it concerns my part of the tree.

[ArmandoR1b]

FTDNA has over 2 million in it's database and 285,000 of them are on their y dna haplotree.

For simple math lets say there 2 million are available for this update, of which 1 million are men.

So 3% tested in December 2023, means roughly 30,000 men or ~1145 additional U152 men (above the normal testing growth) should have been identified by now.

U152 #
Feb 13, 2019:  5532 U152 samples in the FTDNA database
Jan 4 2020:  5712 3.6% increase annualized growth
Dec 31 2020:  6385, 11.8% increase over previous year
Jan 2 2022:  7803, 22.2% increase over previous year
Jan 1 2023:  8474, 8.6% increase over previous year.

From Jan 2020 to Jan 23 annual growth averaged 14.2% over the previous year
8474 x 1.142 = 9677 is roughly what we would normally expect

Right now as of Dec 25 2023, there are 10873 men in the FTDNA database, or 1196 more than would be expected based on prior years.  That's a 28.3% increase over the previous year.

If FTDNA has tested 3% of the database then the U152 project numbers are in line with what should be expected based on these numbers (1145 vs 1196 increase).

But what's discouraging to me is that there has been no corresponding dramatic increase in numbers below U152>L2 on my line.

So I'm not sure this update is going to be of much personal benefit.

But I'm glad that it appears to be helping others like Riveman.

Since you are a person that should be able to read my spreadsheet and since FF and 23andme v5 both used the GSA chip I hope you take a look at it at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...ue&sd=true and compare it to what other subclades are found with FF. They should be similar with some exceptions.

Your spreadsheet includes SNPs 
Z142>S7402/Z12222
Z142>S257/Z150
Z142>Z12222, Z150>Y10987/FGC12378
Z142>Z12222, Z150> Y10984/FGC12401
Z142>Z12222, Z150> FGC12405/Y4272
Z142>Z12222, Z150> Y10984/FGC12401,  Z142>Z12222> Y3141/FGC12383

 but apparently none of these, nor Z142 or Z12222 for that matter were included in the spreadsheet that jdbreazeale posted.

I've noted that Z142>Z51 has significantly increased over the last month, while Z142>Z12222 has grown very slow in comparision, so it appears jdbreazeale's spreadsheet is correct, when it concerns my part of the tree.

My spreadsheet was for 23andme v5, as I had stated previously. That means that mine is correct, but only definitively correct for 23andme v5. Read on for more details on the difference.

Since Z12222 is phylogenetically equivalent to Z150 and since Z150 or S257 are what 23andme would have reported then Z12222 has no importance. Z12222 is especially unimportant if FTDNA is not going to report all of the derived and ancestral calls from FF for each individual sample. We both know what a phylogenetic equivalents are and what phylogenetic synonyms are and so on.

Since Z51 has grown a lot and Z12222 has not it is also possible that Z12222 has not grown due to most people that are derived for Z12222 are also derived for a downstream SNP. I could be wrong there but I prefer to know that it is ruled out as possibility. Details are important when looking at all of this without having all of the source information directly from FTDNA.

Example of the spreadsheet that jdbreazeale posted not having all of the SNPs very likely to be tested by FTDNA FF. Notice that P312 is not in the spreadsheet that jdbreazeale posted and also notice that DF13 is not in the spreadsheet that jdbreazeale posted. That doesn't mean that P312 and DF13 are not in the FF test. It means something else and only time will tell why they are not in the spreadsheet that jdbreazeale posted.

[ArmandoR1b]

I found a FF match that has only had FF but not Y-DNA testing and is derived for R-ZZ12_1. There are currently 1,093 branch participants for R-ZZ12_1. That number should grow by quite a bit from FF Y-DNA. R-ZZ12_1 is not in the 23andme v5 autosomal data and was never reported by 23andme. This is a big one for DF27.

I also noticed that the spreadsheet that jdbreazeale posted has Z195. That was not in the 23andme raw autosomal data. However, there should not be a lot of people terminal for that SNP since the subclades Z274 and Z198 are also both in that spreadsheet that jdbreazeale posted. Z272 is a phylogenetic equivalent of Z274 and Z272 was tested by 23andme v5. Z198 was also tested by 23andme v5. So there should not be much of a difference between FF and 23andme v5 in this respect.

All of this also means that we will find out how many people would actually be derived for M153 if they had gotten a Big Y or SNP packs. This is all going to be very interesting for DF27 subclades.

edit: I did a search of R-ZZ12_1 in FF matches and I found 7 people. None have had Big Y. 4 never had any kind of Y-DNA testing.

edit2: I wonder what percentage of Y-DNA STR tested people without Big Y have also not had FF. There are 7,006 Branch Participants for R-M269 at https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-d...ame=R-M269 Hopefully most of them have had FF and hopefully that number of 7,006 Branch Participants for R-M269 will go down significantly.

[Mitchell-Atkins]

If it turns out that FTDNA will not test below Z49 on my line, then based on history, I calculate that between 5-6% of my new Z49 matches would also be on my FGC12378 line.

[ArmandoR1b]

The R1b All Subclades project has 9,744 identified as R-M269. Not sure how much of an overlap there is with 7,006 Branch Participants for R-M269 in the FTDNA public tree but it should be more evident once the FF Y-DNA results are completed.

[Mythbuster General]

I am curious in any of your educated opinions: I have merged my 23andMe V3 and Ancestry autosomal files and this merged file got this Y-DNA prediction by YSEQ Cladefinder: R1a-CTS3402. Do you guys see any chance that FTDNA FamilyFinder can predict me a deeper result based on this merged filed? Or I should rather not get my hopes up?

[Vinitharya]

CTS3402 is very general; my haplogroup is from 23andMe and is much more specific, which is just in my case due to luck, as it is found primarily in people of German descent and German-Americans are the largest white ethnic group in the United States. While CTS3402 is Balto-Slavic, there are more Baltic clades and then there is what I believe to be the core Slavic line, Y2902. Many people refer to L1029, to which my YP445 is a descendant, to be pan-Slavic, but there are Slavic groups where it is rare, and there are L1029 lines which have few Slavic members; the only truly pan-Slavic L1029 clade is YP263; YP417 is restricted to East Slavs and east South Slavs and the others to western Slavic groups and the surrounding peoples; L1029, with its star cluster dispersal is more of an elite dominance chieftain dispersal line than the core of anything.

[Mythbuster General]

CTS3402 is very general; my haplogroup is from 23andMe and is much more specific, which is just in my case due to luck, as it is found primarily in people of German descent and German-Americans are the largest white ethnic group in the United States.  While CTS3402 is Balto-Slavic, there are more Baltic clades and then there is what I believe to be the core Slavic line, Y2902.  Many people refer to L1029, to which my YP445 is a descendant, to be pan-Slavic, but there are Slavic groups where it is rare, and there are L1029 lines which have few Slavic members; the only truly pan-Slavic L1029 clade is YP263; YP417 is restricted to East Slavs and east South Slavs and the others to western Slavic groups and the surrounding peoples; L1029, with its star cluster dispersal is more of an elite dominance chieftain dispersal line than the core of anything.

Thanks for the analysis, I do believe it looks more likely that my paternal line is Slavic rather than Baltic, with whom Hungarians had almost no contact historically. But it FF manages to give me an even more detailed haplogroup just from my autosomal file I will be most impressed by FTDNA services. I assume my data will be processed among the last, so now I just need to wait patiently.

[Riverman]

I am curious in any of your educated opinions: I have merged my 23andMe V3 and Ancestry autosomal files and this merged file got this Y-DNA prediction by YSEQ Cladefinder: R1a-CTS3402. Do you guys see any chance that FTDNA FamilyFinder can predict me a deeper result based on this merged filed? Or I should rather not get my hopes up?

Depends on your individual test kits coverage and the covered SNP's FTDNA is using. Most people get more downstream results, but some get stuck at a similar time frame.

[Mabrams]

I have a 23andMe V3. There are only about 1800 SNPs and half of those are no-calls. So effectively less than 1000 SNPs

AncestryDNA V2 also has about 1800 SNPs. Not sure what the No-call rate is. AncestryDNA V1 has less than 900 SNPs.

Since Family Finder is about 9000 - 10000 Y SNPs, it’s very likely you will a deeper haplotype, possibly a lot deeper. But there are no guarantees.

[AimSmall]

How do you know FF has that many Y SNPs? I have many FF kits and none of them had the Y SNPs. Now my BigY certainly did.

Where did you get this number?

[Riverman]

I have a 23andMe V3.  There are only about 1800 SNPs and half of those are no-calls.  So effectively less than 1000 SNPs

AncestryDNA V2 also has about 1800 SNPs.  Not sure what the No-call rate is.  AncestryDNA V1 has less than 900 SNPs. 

Since Family Finder is about 9000 - 10000 Y SNPs, it’s very likely you will a deeper haplotype, possibly a lot deeper.  But there are no guarantees.

I saw people with bad individual coverage and people for which there are no downstream SNP's tested after about 2.000 BC. It really depends on your branch also and sheer luck.