Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-11 > 1163457193

From: "Ian & Mary Logan" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about mitochondrial birth defects
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:34:57 -0000
References: <002401c703a6$fcfc0de0$2878ebcf@12040><002e01c706a8$f5a370b0$640fa8c0@Villandra2>


Just some comments ...

For a baby to have a severe illness is 'rare'.

For a baby to have a severe illness from mitochondrial disease
from a defect in a nuclear chromosomal condition is 'very rare'.

And, for a baby to have a illness from a mitochondrial DNA
mutation is 'very, very, rare' indeed.

What is mentioned in TIME magazine is not actually wrong;
but it is important to realise that a genetic basis for an illness
in a baby is very uncommon.


Dora wrote:

Question. See this week's reason to be terrified of life in the current
issue of Time magazine.,9171,1555122,00.html
Article is primarily about dramatic deadly diseases caused by genetically
defective mitochondria.
Now, I'm checking. Is it possible for mitochondria to mutate that
dramatically from one generation to the next, such that a baby can die of a
wasting mitochondrial disease and the mother has no health issues?
I mean, does all mitochondrial DNA mutate very slowly over tens of thousands
of years, or just the markers used for DNA analysis? If the former, then
the scenario presented in Time magazine is not possible, or at least is so
unlikely there's no reason to play it up in Time magazine's reason of the
week to be terrified of life. Dora Smith

This thread: