GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-02 > 1139621077


From: charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Earliest common ancestors for 37/37 and 43/43 matches
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:24:37 -0500
References: <REME20060210150927@alum.mit.edu> <NGECJOFCABPEOGMJNBMFAEACHMAA.terry@bartons.org> <7.0.1.0.0.20060210141017.101332c0@wells.org> <43ED2073.60607@kerchner.com> <REME20060210184921@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <REME20060210184921@alum.mit.edu>


John:

The data can always be sliced and diced many different ways later at any
time. But first we need to collect the data.

I would appreciate a little more active support and encouragement in
encouraging people to submit surname project data to the log in the
first place. First things first.

http://www.ystrlog.org/

Synergy at work.

Charles Kerchner, P.E.
YSTR Mutation Rate Project Admin


Charles wrote:
Orin:
The whole basis of my YSTR Haplotype Mutation Rate Project is based on
what you just stated. Are you not aware of it? What I need is more
participation from surname projects who know the MRCA from traditional
research and have several descendants YDNA tested. Collecting more data
from numerous surname projects in my log will benefit all. I invite you
to submit your projects data or a related cluster from your project to
the log.
http://www.ystrlog.org/
Charles Kerchner
YSTR Haplotype Mutation Rate Study/Project

John Chandler wrote:
> Charles wrote:
>>from numerous surname projects in my log will benefit all. I invite you
>>to submit your projects data or a related cluster from your project to
>>the log.
>>http://www.ystrlog.org/
>
>
> One important point worth making here especially: the log is organized
> for parallel submission of results for subsets of the whole collection
> of available markers. Projects that have, for example, 43-marker
> results should make the effort to tally up the mutations and mutation
> opportunities for the 12- and 25-marker panels in addition to the full
> 43-marker tallies. Why? Because the whole point of the log is to
> compare results that are directly comparable. The last time I
> checked, there were too few 43-marker results logged to make it
> worthwhile to do any analysis on them, but 12- and 25-marker subset
> results would have been usable. The same thing applies, to a lesser
> extent, to 37-marker results -- even if everybody in your project has
> upgraded to 37, you should still do the subsets, so that your results
> can be compared and combined at all levels with other projects.
>
> John Chandler
>
>
>>Charles Kerchner
>>YSTR Haplotype Mutation Rate Study/Project
>>
>>
>>OrinWells wrote:
>>
>>>When you are talking about generations, I am assuming you mean the
>>>maximum number of generations to either of the two descendents being
>>>compared and not the sum of the generations down the two branches.
>>>Finding 10 generations is not too difficult with all the English and
>>>American families with reasonable genealogies to confirm the
>>>connections. 15 generations is more difficult and requires a lot of
>>>luck to achieve as this really implies paper trails nearly back to
>>>1500. I would think finding 20 documented generations would be very
>>>rare. It almost begs for a special project to focus on such families
>>>and to recruit descendents to be tested just to try to determine this
>>>MRCA issue.
>>>
>>>But, what I have observed, and I have raised this possibility before, is
>>>that some families seem more prone to mutations than others. Or some
>>>less prone depending on how you look at the water level in the glass. I
>>>still think there is something that impacts the mutation rates beyond
>>>just average biological tendencies for loci to mutate. This too begs
>>>for a research project to examine several families who seem to
>>>experience more mutations than average and several families who seem to
>>>experience fewer mutations than average. Could it be that there is some
>>>sort of compound present in the cells of one group versus the other? Or
>>>the more/less you have of this the higher the likelihood of a mutation?
>>>Could it also be that DNA on other chromosomes in such individuals
>>>mutates faster/slower than "average"?
>>>
>>>At 01:04 PM 2/10/2006, Terry Barton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But, if the U of A rate is indeed twice too high at all 37 markers, there
>>>>should be a number of 37/37 pairs with 10-15-20 generations to a common
>>>>ancestor.
>>>
>>>Orin R. Wells
>>>Wells Family Research Association
>>>P. O. Box 5427
>>>Kent, Washington 98064-5427
>>><>
>>>http://www.wells.org
>>>Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb


This thread: