GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118518828


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] mtDNA classification and help
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:40:28 EDT



In a message dated 6/11/2005 6:47:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
writes:

And secondly, there is a more esoteric point concerning 16183.1 C &
16183.2 C.

These changes are in the 'variable' area from 16180 onwards
'AAAACCCCCTCCCCAT'

where the mutation T16189C indicates the loss of the isolated 'T' in the
centre to make
'AAAACCCCCCCCCCAT'

And, my point is: why have they called the insertions 16183.1C and 16183.2C
when they should be 16193.1C and 16193.2C
if they follow the convention of adding to the righthand end of a 'run' of
the same base.

So is this giving people problems looking for matches in their own databases
????
....................
And, having written all this, it makes me return to the purpose of the
'Mutation model' program that I wrote recently. Have you seen it ?

It is an attempt to show how a mutation can become established in a
population,
even though a mutation starts with just;
a 'single event' in a 'single mitochondrion' in a 'single person' !

If you do try the program, have in mind how the mutation 16124C might have
developed
over, say, the last 500 years.

This program is on:
www.brookingsociety.org.uk/discussion/MUTATION_MODEL.htm

Comments anyone ?



Dear Ian,

This one mtDNA result has more than doubled my mtDNA knowledge! I realize
now that the reason my gut said "H5" was the 16304C and 456T combination -
although I wasn't conscious of that being the reason why until I was reminded in
one of the posts for this result.

The 16223 absence indicating "not African" didn't register until this set of
postings -- probably because this was my first non-FTDNA result that was
unclear to me.

I'm not sure, however, that I am following your comments about the 16183.1C
and 16183.2C insertions and why or whether they should be called 16193.1C and
16193.2C. Perhaps this is because I'm not versed in what the conventions
are. Thomas Krahn would have to address the nomenclature issue. I do however,
agree that if different practices are being followed, it could lead to
missing matches. Which makes the exact match of the African-American sample in
the FBI database doubly interesting -- as it would appear that not all the labs
are following the convention you pointed out.

I always look at the CRS at the bottom of the FTDNA "mtDNA results" page.
This gives me the same string of AAAACCCCCCCCCCAT that you get when I make the
insertions at 16183 and the deletion at 16189.

I hadn't looked at your mutation model, but when I tried, I got
404 Not Found
There was no page found at this location. You may wish to report this to the
owner of the site.
I'm half afraid it will be over my head still when I actually reach it.
Anne


This thread: