Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-07 > 1122047696

From: (David Faux)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Costs, Multiplexing and Related Issues
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:54:56 +0000


Until very recently you seemed to have little regard for SNP testing (based on our earlier exchange of posts). At least that was my impression. It is clear from your recent postings that you have a very detailed awareness of the technology used to measure both STRs and SNPs. I simply was not cognizant of your obvious expertise in the matter until your posts of the last week or so. I am quite intrigued to know if you are a chemist, geneticist or microbiologist or other scientist. There is a huge talent pool on this List that one would be hard pressed to find anywhere else. Would it be too intrusive to ask about your background here?

David F.

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

> Brion et al. used the SNaPShot system and designed their own PCR primers. ABI
> kits do not contain PCR primers, only extension primers. The main advantage to
> university and forensic scientists is that the test is run on the ABI analyzers
> commonly found in laboratories.
> Marligen supplies all the primers and they have been tested in-house. The
> disadvantage is that it requires a different platform ($60,000+). Unless a lab
> has high volume (throughput is 100 samples per 8-hour day), it is unlikely to
> buy the equipment.
> I will have to look into the cause of the failures in the two academic studies.
> However, it seems likely it would due to design, rather than inherent problems
> with multiplexes. It is likely that the multiplex was not well tested. I have
> found no indication that Butler's SNapShot multiplex failed nor that Marligen's
> has either. Thus, we can't make sweeping generalizations about the unreliability
> of multiplexes for haplogroup testing.
> Bob Stafford

This thread: