GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119740845


From: Thomas Krahn <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about DYS 464
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:12:55 +0200
References: <AA-E808C62149CC781D112E1F12CC6F4312-ZZ@rome1.prodigy.net>
In-Reply-To: <AA-E808C62149CC781D112E1F12CC6F4312-ZZ@rome1.prodigy.net>


Dear Brad,

DYS449 and DYS464 are known to be "fast mutating" markers. DYS449 is
relatively new and there don't exist as exact numbers for the mutation
frequency as for example at th YHRD markers. I wouldn't exclude a two
step mutation at this marker on a single transmission event. As I said
in my earlier posting, the DYS464 could possibly have a somatic mutation
and the extra allele at 16 might have no effect on the germline at all.
An extended DYS464X analysis could tell us possibly more.

So, if you give me an idea on how many transmission events are between
person H and person J, then we could calculate a likelihood ratio that
suggests or disproves a common Y-line ancestry against a random person
of a defined population.

Thomas

Brad Pierce wrote:

> Thomas, You "strongly suggest" that they are related.
> That is quite interesting and why I'm posting.
> Familytreedna says that they do not match at 25
> markers and are likely not related--that is the
> reason I'm trying to decipher the genetic distance
> here, at least how Family tree dna calculates it. I
> know the difference at 449 is a distance of 2 by
> their stepwise model. I'm not sure if the distance
> at 464 is a 1 or 2 by their approach.
> Either way, the two family groups are off by a
> distance of 3 or 4, which by my understanding at 25
> markers means they are likely not related. Please
> correct me if I'm wrong here.
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>


This thread: