GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-02 > 1138831763
Subject: Re: [DNA] Why I asked about fast moving markers
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:09:23 -0000
Andrew & List
I think DYF399 is useful because although it is fast, this is apparently at
least partly because there are three copies all of which can mutate
independently, so parallel mutations are less likely than with an equally
fast single copy marker. But we need data from people whose relationships
are already known so as to evaluate this properly.
On the other hand, a mutation on a fast marker is not as useful as a totally
unexpected value on a slow marker, if you are lucky enough to have one.
5174.70 is the only one on the DNA-FP ymatch list with 17-18 at DYF401. If
5173.70 has a similar result I think this would make the relationship a
solid one. Do you know if he has ordered this marker?
The best way of getting "lots and lots of very slow markers" (Doug's phrase
earlier in this thread) is of course direct sequencing. EA are doing this on
fairly small sections and will very occasionally find a "family" SNP which
falls into this category. It is when larger range sequencing comes along
that things will get very interesting....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:07 PM
Subject: [DNA] Why I asked about fast moving markers
> Dear Doug
> I understand this, and like David Wilson I am a collector and therefore
> having a problem myself. Here is a scenario....
> I believe I have one Livingstone who descends from the principal cadet
> branch of the Lismore leaders of the clan, the Achnacree branch. However
> comparison to a very close participant (a McLean who knows his ancestors
> were McLays), he appeared to have undergone either a "RecLOH" or deletion.
> Results from him and his near match are coming in now and they seem to
> confirm a deletion.
> Now the deletion, in a sense, removes a whole bunch of markers from
> consideration. It is funny Thomas mentioned DYF399 because indeed this is
> now about the only difference between him and his McLay/McLean match. It
> certainly seems to be a fast mover, as it is a 2 step mismatch.
> So at 37 markers, when we delete the irrelevent markers, we have only 1
> one-step mismatch. DYF399 adds a 2 step mismatch which I am confident
> because it is the allele with the partial ".1" repeat.
> Can't it be, when you have a very close match, that fast markers would be
> better to check? I obviously understand that it would be ideal to ask both
> participants to sign up for a mixture of fast and slow markers. But I am
> as an administrator only an advisor, and someone with responsibility not
> just promote tests for no gain.
> By the way "Scots/Colla/Dalriata" cluster watchers please note the above:
> both participants are classic cases. Mark MacDonald please note that the
> Achnacree cadets, if we may use out McLean as a proxy, suddenly look close
> to the Lismore leadership. Differences on DYS449, H4 (unusual in the
> Achnacree pair), and my personal obsession, YCAIIb, which is TWO steps
> Scots modal in the Lismore group which I feel "marks" them.
> I have led the way folks, in including DNA FP markers in my main R1b table
> already. Our path breakers are specially chosen as possible
> cases. See: http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Discussion%20Maclea.htm
> Best Regards
> From: Doug McDonald <>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] fastest moving non-FT DNA markers?
> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:38:51 -0600
> References: <>
> In-Reply-To: <>
> > In a message dated 02/01/06 6:26:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > writes:
> >> There is. For distinguishing family lines, you would
> >> prefer lots and lots of very slow markers. That's why the
> >> new markers from DNA-F and EA are only semi-exciting, because
> >> they are not known to be slow, and some are known to be fast.
> > Because fast markers would be more likely to exhibit parallel mutations,
> > leading to the possibility of false positives for a "tag" mutation
> defining a
> > branch of descendants?
> That's half of it. The other half is a back mutation leading
> to a false negative.
|Re: [DNA] Why I asked about fast moving markers by <>|