GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-10 > 1035469585


From: "James Reynolds Hull" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS Numbers and Mutations
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 07:27:12 -0700
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021024143700.00a715c0@mail.btinternet.com>


Chris,

Very interesting. I would definitely be interested in how your 25 markers
play out. These two matches have given me a great deal of "anxiety."
Appreciate your taking notice and contacting me.

Best regards,
Jim Hull

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Stewart-Moffitt" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS Numbers and Mutations


> Hello JIm
>
> Having read the attached email I noticed that the results of my 12 marker
> test from OA matches with your first coloumn. OA were unable to resolve
DYS
> 425 however. I am currently awaiting the results of an upgrade with FTDNA.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> At 03:50 24/10/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >A 12-marker test done for two participants was an 11/12 match with 1
> >one-step mismatch at 391, which suggests they could be related. To
> >validate a fairly good paper trail, the 25-marker test was done. The
> >results were not what I expected, but I guess it proves they are not
> >related and likewise suggests the frailty of a 11/12 combination [being
> >related].
> >
> >Additionally, I was told that the fastest moving markers are #464, 449,
> >439, which I do not completely understand the reference of "fastest
moving
> >markers." Are there other DYS numbers in a 12-marker test that fall into
> >this category or only 439? Are there "slow moving markers [all of the
> >rest?]? And what is the purpose for the classification of slow and fast?
> >
> >
> >
> >It was further explained that these participants hit 2 of those 3 fastest
> >moving markers and the 2 mutations in 464 are currently being counted as
> >1. This struck me as part of the 389i and 389ii scenario, and must be a
> >fairly consistent counting procedure as applied to DYS numbers.
> >
> >
> >
> >I would appreciate any clarification and comments that the list might
care
> >to make.
> >
> >
> >393 13 13
> >390 24 24
> >019 14 14
> >391 12 11 ***
> >385a 11 11
> >385b 14 14
> >426 12 12
> >388 12 12
> >439 12 12
> >389i 13 13
> >392 13 13
> >389ii 29 29
> >458 16 17 ****
> >459a 09 09
> >459b 10 10
> >455 11 11
> >454 11 11
> >447 25 26 ****
> >437 15 15
> >448 19 19
> >449 30 29 ****
> >464a 16 16
> >464b 16 17 ****
> >464c 18 17 ****
> >464d 18 18
> >
> >Jim Hull
> >Hull Surname DNA Study
> >
> >
> >==============================
> >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
> >go to:
> >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
>
>
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
>
>


This thread: