GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1109795518


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] 385i, 385ii ?
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:31:58 +1300
References: <20050302033857.015011ECCC2@mail14.mdx.safepages.com> <4225ABAC.7030403@biotix.de>


I was just thinking to myself how I might show correctly ordered DYS385 a &
b on existing results tables, when, 99% of existing results have not been
tested for order. Perhaps if a participant was tested of order of DYS385,
his results could still follow the convention of lowest value first, but the
value which was found first by test, could be underlined. This would not be
an "official" way of describing results, but might be a practical way of
incorporating results tested for order on existing results tables, as an
interim measure.

John.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Krahn" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] 385i, 385ii ?


> Michael:
> I actually refered to the a/b nomenclature that was defined by Kittler
> et al. I did this because I want my results to be compatible with the
> literature.
>
> In the forensic community unsorted DYS385 values are refered like this:
> DYS385 13,16
> (look at YHRD, there is no "a" or "b")
>
> The I / II nomenclature is reserved for interupted STR systems that can
> be amplified with a single primer pair. The "I" repeat is included in
> the "II" repeat. So the forensic community wouldn't be lucky if we would
> confuse that.
>
> On the other hand I agree with you that there should be a clear method
> to distinguish separated from mixed allele calls. Would it be an idea to
> call the loci DYS385alfa and DYS385beta?
>
> BTW: Has anybody got a duplication at DYS385 (4 peaks) ?
> How would the nomenclature figure that out?
>
>
> Thomas Krahn

This thread: