GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119810227
Subject: Re: [DNA] Now I'm REALLY confused!
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:23:47 +0000
There have to be some variations on the HVR2 designations as my husband has the same 11 mutations at HVR2 (as I and Margaret and Sheryl). I was designated "W" but he is shown as N*.
In a response in October last year, Bennett said: "My lab report on this sample (my husband's) shows that the sample was checked with 359-L, 10400-M, 10238-N1, 12705-R. So was negative for M, L, positive for N, and negative for R and N1, which makes it N*.
Gisele Horvat responded 11 October 2004 with additional information saying "this classification is inconsistent with the RFLP testing because haplogroup N1 and I sequences have variant 10238C (but not W as far as is currently known)."
She continued with information on a new haplogroup, N2, which was erected to capture the sister lineage of haplogroup W found in the Mansi (Derbeneva et al 2002a) et al (2001) which were generated through manual sequencing.
"Two completel sequences in Finnilia' s study (F59 & F94) also had HVRII sequences identical or near identical to your husband's and both were classified W but neither had 16286T. The 16093C is, in my opinion, a less reliable indicator."
My husband has 16223T, 16519C and then 16093C and 16286T. The HVR2 are the same 11 mutations as Margaret's and mine.
Hope this gives some background to Margaret's situation. Dolores
> Bonnie Schrack wrote:
> > Margaret,
> > I should add, even if it weren't for the 16223T issue, your HVR 2
> > mutations tell an extremely clear story to anyone who can read the
> > literature.
> >> The differences from the CRS are as follows:
> >> HVR1:
> >> 16223T
> >> 16519C
> >> HVR2:
> >> 73G
> >> 143A
> >> 189G
> >> 192C
> >> 194T
> >> 195C
> >> 196C
> >> 204C
> >> 207A
> >> 263G
> >> 315.1C
> > There is no doubt at all that these in HVR2 are haplogroup W mutations,
> > and nothing else.
> I agree. From the Palanichami paper, those mutations are W, only
> W, typical W, and nothing but W. However, they are a place in W
> where Palanichami has nobody. That is, Palanichami has people who
> are farther out on a small branch that the original poster is, but
> nobody at the exact same spot.
> Doug McDonald
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: