GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-04 > 1112963922


From: "William Hurst" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Dead in the water?
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:38:42 -0400
In-Reply-To: <000a01c53c03$2e795840$15ee1e3e@ilbg18230>


Ian wrote:

>
>Kiernan gave:
>HVR 1: 16037G, 16224C, 16245T, 16295T, 16311C;
>HVR2: 73G, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C, 497T, 524.1C, 524.2A, 524.3C, 524.4A
>................
>
>Hello Kiernan
>
>I am sure everyone will accept these results are Haplogroup K1,
>the 16224, 16311 & 497 are very typical.
>(The other HVR2 mutations are unhelpful 'hotspot' results.)

I, for one, certainly do NOT accept that Kiernan's results are K1. First,
there is no official definition of K1 or any other subclade of K. But there
are studies which use 16320T as the defining motif for K1. Another one
suggests 146C and 152C. John Walden has that suggested 498- is the key.
Kiernan has none of those, so her mtDNA is the least K1-looking haplotype
one can imagine. Ian's website has a nice chart dividing K in to K1 and K2,
but he uses a limited set of complete-sequence samples, mainly from Finland
and Europe(?) as I remember. None of his sequences even have 16320T, which
is common for K's in mitosearch, for example.

I will agree with Ian's comments about Kiernan having some very unusual
mutations for K and that she should put on her K pin and sit back and wait.
I'm in the same situation of having a unique K haplotype.

Bill Hurst


This thread: