GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-11 > 1163481780


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Conference [recLOH]
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:23:00 -0500 (EST)
References: <539.c7d7c43.32821267@aol.com> <455744E3.8030506@earthlink.net> <REME20061113210621@alum.mit.edu> <45593B29.5080108@sbcglobal.net><45593CB3.8090604@mchsi.com> <45593D42.6010302@mchsi.com>
In-Reply-To: <45593D42.6010302@mchsi.com> (message from Rebekah on Mon, 13 Nov2006 21:51:30 -0600)


Rebekah wrote:
> Then again, depending on the lab, it could be DYS464 = 15-15-17-18 and
> 15-15-15-N. Hum.>:-)

Are you suggesting the loss of two copies, perchance? I thought of
the possibility of a deletion of one whole arm of P1, plus the
fold-over loop, plus a bit from the other arm as well. That could
lead to 9-_ for 459 and 15-15-_-_ for 464, and the reporting from
FTDNA in that case would be 9-9 and 15-15-15-15. Still, I don't
like to invoke a major deletion and call it a "one-step mutation."
What's more, Thomas' latest map shows the lone g-type allele of
DYS464 R1b folk as being on the P2 palindrome, implying that the
two 15 alleles often found in R1b should be on P1, meaning that a
P1 deletion can't be the explanation anyhow.

John Chandler

This thread: