GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-01 > 1106623353
From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Question regarding MtDNA Subtyping
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:22:33 EST
In a message dated 01/24/05 5:25:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:
> Is the assumption that they simply were never fully
> sub-typed, or that it was too costly to sub-type them
> all, or that for some reason, they were unable to
> fully sub-type the results? Some of the sub-typed
> results are taken directly from published studies
> (like the Finnish results), so Periera didn't sequence
> them all. Given that they were already sequenced, why
> not fully sub-type them? For instance, Periera
> sub-typed all 214 results provided by Hermstadt's
> study.
But the point is that many of them are NOT fully sequenced. If they do have
the complete sequence, they can assign the subtypes directly just by looking at
the bases that Loogvali and prior studies used to define the subtypes. No
further testing is required.
Pereira's original work for the article you're reading looked at 4 short
segments of the coding region, which contain points of interest for some but not
all of the subtypes defined in Loogvali's paper. These 4 segments added up to
1580 bases, so it would have taken about 10 times as much work to sequence the
whole mtDNA molecule of 16,569 bases (the HVR being already done). Since they
were dealing with 649 samples, that would add up fast! It sure seems like a
lot of conclusions rest on small sample sizes, but we are gradually accumulating
more and more data.
Ann Turner - GENEALOGY-DNA List Administrator
Search or Browse the archives, Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/DNA/GENEALOGY-DNA.html
This thread: