GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1138490931


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] autosomal testing
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:28:51 -0500 (EST)
References: <43DA63A5.8050307@neyersoftware.com> <1ca5e8fa0960b0f75aef899e93fb066a@midcoast.com> <REME20060127215313@alum.mit.edu> <5bd321e9a4586f3c5897d004b6182860@midcoast.com>
In-Reply-To: <5bd321e9a4586f3c5897d004b6182860@midcoast.com> (message fromthomas goulde on Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:17:32 -0500)


Tom wrote:
> I assume that you mean that the research backing the interpretation of
> the markers is proprietary. I received a long list of markers with my
> results from DNAP.

They don't interpret the markers. They just estimate the percentages
of overall admixture. Then again, I happen to know that they have
experimented with reports that do include marker-by-marker interpretation,
but what I've heard does not indicate a truly meaningful product.

In any case, the long list you received is a list of *their* numbers
for the markers they use. As Ann explained already, the true identities
of most of the markers are secret.

> DNAP statistical formulae are also, doubtless, proprietary.

The statistics end of things is dead simple. I posted a tutorial
here a year or two ago that worked through a simple example of the
estimation technique. See the archives.

John Chandler

This thread: