GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1117919353


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Gene for Lactose Intolerance Identified
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 17:09:13 -0400 (EDT)
References: <143.464a5b89.2fd32aac@aol.com> <b8af1fe76f1898d9490a797a160a1f8a@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <b8af1fe76f1898d9490a797a160a1f8a@earthlink.net> (message fromJohn Carr on Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:52:21 -0700)


John wrote:
> This may be stating the obvious, but from your statement, you are
> saying that if DNAPRINT actually posted the the marker values they
> test, that their test could actually be of use to us for genealogy?

The markers they use are autosomal. That means every heterozygous
marker leaves in doubt as to which allele came from which parent. The
worldwide SMGF project is trying to untangle exactly that sort of
puzzle, but they are aiming at 100,000 or more samples. The customer
base at DNAprint is probably going to remain too small and too spotty
to get any useful genealogy out. Also, the question of lab error is a
serious problem if you switch from the intended use of ethnicity
prediction to relatedness testing -- DNAprint takes a relaxed attitude
toward "dropout" markers because a marker or two more or less won't
have a big impact on the prediction, and I know of one case where an
extended family utterly "failed" the rudimentary paternity test based
on DNAprint, and the response from the company was: "well, yeah, that
marker does give us trouble, and we're dropping it from version 2.5"

John Chandler


This thread: