GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1072979092


From: "Debby Peare" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New DNAPrint format and NA results
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:44:52 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
References: <27166-3FF45201-6183@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net>


Debby:

No. By "test results," I don't mean someone's MLE percentages. I was
referring to the results shown on the triangle plot and graphic chart.
These are "made available" to ALL.

No. 0 to 8% is NOT the same as -8 to +8%. The former gives one the
impression that there is an equal possibility of having a real value
anywhere in the 0 to 8 range. That's NOT "a given," as you say. The
truth is that if there are, say, 8 possibilities above 0%, there are
also 8 possibilities AT 0%, because of all the values plotted below 0.
In other words, there are many possible values at 0%, while there is
only one possible value for each percentage above 0%.
*****************
I understand this.... but the way you said it was that there were chances
below 0%....instead of 8 chances at being 0%.
That was what confused me.


Oh! Now DNAPrint is saying that lab errors as high as 10% can occur?
Until your revelation of this information, their ceiling was at 5%. So,
the test is even worse than we thought!
******************
They said that it's rare that it does, but it can happen, yes.
And it's not ERRORS, but background noise.
I asked for the difference. I was told that it's not an error if
something comes up where it shouldn't, it's just noise that the
test picks up and it's a possible occurence, the lower the number.
If you get 10% or more, then MOST times, it's NOT noise, but something to
look at and study further. So no, it's not worse, because the lab tech said
very seldom has the higher number (10%) showed up as noise.


It's difficult to attribute my mother's 10% NA result to "background
noise" (whatever that is), because her first confidence interval never
drops below 0%. That SHOULD make her NA ancestry a "high probable."
But, I'm telling you, she has NO American Indian ancestry that could
possibly show up on an accurate test. There aren't any hidden NA
ancestors. If there were, it would have shown up somewhere in the
photographic record for the past five generations.

The 3.0 test might be "more specific," but it isn't going to be any more
"accurate."

Ray Whritenour
**************************
Well, in that case, I'd recheck her results.... but sometimes,
you can't even tell by pictures..... and also, sometime before your Mom,
there could have been an untold story and the pictures wouldn't tell you if
an ancester a couple generations back wasn't the "one" who is the blood
relative. Maybe your Mom should have a sibling done too id she has any?
Because of her 10% being on the higher end of the possible noise results I'd
tend to want to check it out. But that's IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).

Warm Regards from Maine,
Debby Peare



This thread: