Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-01 > 1011147073

From: "Nancy Custer " <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Jefferson and the AMH (not)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:11:14 -0800
In-Reply-To: <JCHBN.020115.203219.RC0@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

Wait til you see 392! It's bimodal! I have gone through the whole
database except for 385 and graphed it. I have it just about ready to
put up on a website but have too many other things going on in my life
right now. Maybe I'll get it up by tomorrow.


-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Chandler [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Jefferson and the AMH (not)

Ann wrote:
> A side note: maybe I'm reading between the lines too much in some of
> posts, but I don't think there's anything special about the 6 markers
used to
> characterize the AMH. Presumably, you could do a similar study with
any 6
> microsatellite markers with a similar mutation rate.

In particular, I just checked the Y-STR database for DYS389i and found
an astonishing result: roughly 99% of all the samples are 12, 13, or 14,
with the mode 13 alone containing over 60%. 389ii has some weird
statistics -- there is a very asymmetric mode at 29 with practically
nothing in 27 or 28 and then 3500, 2500, and 900 in 29, 30, and 31,
respectively. Even DYS385a/b has a dominant mode, despite being a
two-dimensional array -- roughly a third of all the samples come in
the 11,14 bin. Bottom line is: 288 matches for the 9-marker extended
modal haplotype (3.3% of the database). I didn't have the patience to
add up all the one-off near matches, but that's the statistic that
really matters. I'm guessing it will be somewhere around 10%.

John Chandler

To join and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
records, go to:

This thread: