GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-01 > 0980299412


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Using the mtDNA Concordance???
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:23:32 EST


In a message dated 1/23/2001 1:19:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:


>
> Family Tree DNA wrote back to me and told me I have mitochondrial DNA
> substitutions at positions 16111, 16223, 16235 and 16362.
>
> Anyhow, I found one sample in the Mitochondrial Concordance that's for
> someone who has all my substitutions plus one I don't think I have. The
> bibliographic reference is for TWGDAM (the forensic DNA consortium)
> 104(JSL). It's not clear to me who at TWGDAM/SWGDAM answers questions
> about the samples.
>


I looked up your sequence at the Mitochondrial DNA Concordance
http://shelob.bioanth.cam.ac.uk/mtDNA/ -- the "extra" item was 16024[o],
right? That means that the sequencing in the sample didn't include position
16024, so in fact you have a complete match for the covered portion.



> oes anyone know what the reference "104(JSL)" mean? Is that a page number
> of a mitochondrial type? Also, does anyone know of anyone who would know
> how TWGDAM samples fit into the A, D, H, etc. haplogroup tree? I assume
> that I'm probably a weird A or D, but I figure I'd know more if I knew how
> the 104(JSL) dude was grouped.
>
>

TWGDAM is Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods, started I believe
by the FBI. I've never seen a publicly accessible database, but the 104(JSL)
notation is probably an internal ID for their database and not assigned to
any particular haplogroup. I don't know how big the database is, either, but
I have a vague recollection that it's in the low thousands. According to the
mtDNA concordance, your specific haplotype occurred only once in the
database, and in a Caucasian.

There is a fairly extensive table that assigns some haplotypes to haplogroups
A, D, etc. at http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~macaulay/founder2000/index.html.
Your sequence is not in the database, again indicating it's not a common one.

So I'd the general result (Causcasian) is next to useless, but the specific
result could be very informative if you wanted to test a hypothesis about
matrilineal relatives or encountered someone else with the same haplotype.





This thread: