GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1138419446


From: thomas goulde <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] autosomal testing
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:37:26 -0500
References: <068801c62379$3c17de50$0101a8c0@HighReaches.local> <REME20060127220536@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <REME20060127220536@alum.mit.edu>


If I understand you correctly, you are saying that DNAP analyzes
many/most of the sampled markers 'holistically' or in reference to one
another and that only a few markers are explicitly indicative of
ancestry all on their own.

?

Can you, without having access to DNAP proprietary data or formulae
imagine a way in which DNAP results could be more genealogically useful
without compromising intellectual property?

Tom


On Jan 27, 2006, at 10:15 PM, John Chandler wrote:

> Glen wrote:
>> Resolution is low, but I think that that has more to do with the
>> current limited size of the database than anything else.
>
> DNAprint is not like the FTDNA haplogroup estimator. It does *not*
> work with a database of individual test results. Instead, it uses a
> set of allele frequencies averaged over a reference sample from each
> target population. In that sense, it is somewhat like Whit Athey's
> haplogroup estimator. The issue is not the *size* of the samples,
> but rather their *representativeness*. Making the samples larger
> would not help unless the added test results were designed to make
> each sample more representative of its target population.
>
>> I'll leave it to one of the geneticists to address this in detail,
>> but while
>> small percentages are problematic due to standard gene mixing, there
>> would
>> at least be a chance of significant indicators showing up.
>
> The hallmark of these markers is that only a very few are significant
> indicators by themselves, and each one is only good for its share
> of the whole set of markers (i.e., a swing of about 1% on the 2.0
> version of the test of about 1/2 of 1% on the 2.5 version). All
> the rest of the markers are just moderately more frequent in one
> population than another.
>
> John Chandler
>
>
> ==============================
> Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
> Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx
>

This thread: