GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127262897


From: "David F Reynolds" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Results from DNA-fingerprint
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:34:57 -0700
References: <380-220059220214337977@M2W087.mail2web.com>
In-Reply-To: <380-220059220214337977@M2W087.mail2web.com>


On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:43:37 -0700, <> wrote:
...
> Does DNA-FP report DYS461 using the nomenclature followed by SMGF? Because
> of the Portuguese haplotypes we were discussing earlier, I have been
> sensitized to a possible off-by-one problem on this locus. I just want to
> make sure that the DYS461=12 on your Ysearch page reflects what other
> Ysearch submitters mean when they put up a value for this locus.

My experience was that SMGF did not match DNA-FP. For me, former reports DYS461=11, latter reports DYS461=12. I've listed DYS461=12 on my web page, since it matches the standard currently used by everyone except SMGF.

I double-checked with Thomas and his statement below matches my experience, namely the repeat count in the smgf.org database is one repeat shorter than the value DNA-FP reports.

BTW, this page: http://smgf.org/marker_standards.html
is wrong with respect to FTDNA/DYS461. It lists "No Data" (i.e., no SMGF conversion) when in fact if you list FTDNA as the testing company, SMGF will subtract 1.

Regards,
david


------- Forwarded message -------
From: "Thomas Krahn" <>
To: "David F Reynolds" <>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Results from DNA-fingerprint
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:23:16 -0700

David,

The nomenclature of DYS461 has an awful history. SMGF tried to make
their database compatible to the ISFG standard that was valid in 2004.
In the spring of 2005 the ISFG has changed their view on DYS461, because
somebody discovered that in chimps the final CAGA sequence was variable.
That's why it is now considered as one repeat longer in humans.

So: the repeat count in the smgf.org database is one repeat shorter than
the value that we repeat since Aug. 1st 2005. In spite of that, RG and
DNAH are reporting the same value as we do.

Look at this URL for the SMGF/RG/DNAH internals:
http://smgf.org/marker_standards.html

I hope this helps,

Thomas


This thread: