GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1156263582


From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Oxford Public Database?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:19:42 -0700
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20060822094637.0582f968@erols.com> <000601c6c5f4$38e59560$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <000601c6c5f4$38e59560$6400a8c0@Ken1>


You mean: why can't there be a recombinational _Gain_ Of Heterozygosity
(recGOH)?
But the process of recLOH is always a loss isn't it?
For a recGOH, wouldn't that require a mutation at the same spot/area?
Al

PS: I don't know the answers. I'm, like you, asking questions in the
(more or less) dark.

> Ken Nordtvedt wrote:

> This may have been discussed by others. But if the "t" mutation close
> to one of the four copies of the marker DYF371 can be eliminated by
> recLOH event, and producing a null 425 measurement as a result, why
> can not the "t" sometimes get converted into two copies of itself by a
> recLOH event? Would that not then result in multiple peaks if the two
> repeat segments now associated with "t" were of different lengths?
>
> Ken
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George W. Page" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Oxford Public Database?
>

This thread: