GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-11 > 1131772618


From: "Glen Todd" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Haplotype Q
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:16:58 -0700
In-Reply-To: <002801c5e747$053dd600$71509045@Ken1>




> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Faux" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplotype Q
>
>
> We have already proved that this is a serious problem with
> someone they said was M170 based on a P19+ test and when
> actually tested for M170 their participant was negative on
> this marker.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Nordtvedt [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 10:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplotype Q
>
> David, Yes, it is a serious problem if someone is called
> M170+ based on an actual P19+ test . But what caught my
> eye was that you then found them negative for M170. So
> did you go back and check the claimed P19+ result of
> another lab? Some of us in haplogroup I have been
> looking for just such a haplotype which can very well
> exist --- negative for one and positive for another of
> what some segment of the community called redundant or
> equivalent SNPs. Such a haplotype would of course be
> very interesting, as it could give a glimpse of a
> an I haplotype motif from early in that haplogroup's
> existence.

David;

Yes; I'd also be extremely interested in this if it can be substantiated,
since I also have some suspicions about the 'redundant' SNPs. Is the STR
signature for this individual on one of the public databases?

Glen

This thread: