Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119191306

Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS459a/b
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:28:26 +0000


DNA Heritage was very prompt in replying to my inquiry about 459a/b=10/9. It was, in fact, as you suggested a transcription error in this particular batch and the order has now been changed to 9/10. This means, I have a 25/25 match between two previously unconnected Goff families!! Neither of them our mine, but I take an interest in all family groupings in my study. Thomas, thank you very much for your guidance.


-------------- Original message --------------

> Dear Phil:
> I'm quite shure, that all of them should be reported as 9/10
> and 10/9 might be some kind of typo.
> As far as I know, nobody has ever typed DYS459 alleles separately. The
> flanking regions of the DYS459 repeat are +/- 10000 bp identical with
> only a very few exceptions:
> 1.) There is a mononucleotide repeat (a poly-A sequence) about 130 bases
> upstream from the GDB forward primer.
> 2.) There is a trinucleotide repeat (taa)n about 5930 bp upstream of the
> GDB forward primer.
> 3.) There is a G/T SNP in the HUGO DNA sequences about 9720 bp upstream
> of the GDB forward primer.
> 4.) There is a G/A SNP in the HUGO DNA sequences about 10700 bp
> downstream of the GDB forward primer.
> That's all. The rest of the flanking region is absolutely identical.
> (3) and (4) are very far away from the repeat. A PCR product of about
> 10000 bp is very difficult to generate and there's a good chance that a
> possible distinctive primer would also find a more or less unspecific
> binding site in the 10000 bp rest of the sequence range. So I wouldn't
> expect that this method would work.
> The trinucleotide repeat (2) is interesting by itself and I'm working on
> good primers for it. I call it CoDYS459. However, it is too far off from
> the DYS459 repeat sequence. It can't be used to separate the DYS459
> alleles either.
> At the moment I'm making up my mind, on how we could use the
> mononucleotide repeat (1) for separating the DYS459 alleles. The HUGO
> sequence shows a length variation of one nucleotide and it would be
> possible to construct primers closely upstream of (1) and still get a
> reasonable PCR product of about 320 bp length, including DYS459 and (1).
> By comparing the PCR products with- and without (1) we might learn
> something about the different DYS459 alleles. The technique would be
> quite similar to the DYS385I / II system. However, no practical
> experiments have been done so far.
> Because of all that, I'm quite shure, that FTDNA has typed the DYS459
> alleles conventionally.
> Thomas
> wrote:
> > List,
> >
> > I received three new results in the Goff Surname DNA Study from DNA Heritage,
> all of which are focused on Goff families in NC/TN. One result (descendant of
> James E. Goff b. 1805 NC) is a 23/25 match with a descendant of Stephen Goff
> (1742CT-1799NC). See for
> details of the Stephen Goff haplotype. DYS 459a and DSY459b are the mistmatched
> markers. The values are 9/10 for the Stephen Goff descendant, who was tested by
> FTDNA, and 10/9 for the James E. Goff descendant, who was tested by DNAH.
> >
> > I've searched the List archives and can't find whether there is a convention
> at FTDNA to report 459 as low/high, much like 464. If so, this increases the
> chance that this is really a 25/25 match. With a surname match and North
> Carolina in common, a 25/25 match would seem to indicate a close genealogical
> relationship between Stephen Goff and James E. Goff, who are not otherwise known
> to be related.
> >
> > Does anyone know if FTDNA reports all 459 values as low/high? Thanks,
> >
> > Phil Goff
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at
> the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more:
> id=5429
> >
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:

This thread: