GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127998143


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:49:03 EDT


Bill,

Here is some info on errors in testing at one of the labs cited by Bob.
I don't think the labs would want to publicize greatly the idea that there is
some amount of error. Thomas even pointed out that there is. If the error is
small and has no effect on a person's real total profile results and
interpretation of results that is not as bad, but if one person is out there with a
bogus finding thinking he is in one haplogroup coming from some early place of
origin and he is really in another that aint good in my opinion. I assume that it
is hard to "read" and interpret some results, but I hope ALL the labs do
retesting on those until a pretty confident result is found or at least the best
one possible with what they have to work with. If labs get under pressure and
are hurried etc and rush through it seems to me that there is more likelyhood
to let someones test result pass through that should be more closely looked at.
I think in the real world that the labs goal is to produce very accurate
results. I hope they are open to the idea of retesting if some valid amount of
concern is cited (and I know that they are in my case).


copy of previous post...
I agree that we should expect them to be as accurate as possible. Relative
Genetics is the only one that addresses the question on their website. See:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/relativegenetics/choosing_company.htm See
paragraph 4.

Running samples twice on separate tracks seems to be the best way to
eliminate errors.

Bob Stafford


Ed


This thread: