GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-02 > 1170703517
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS390m ?
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:25:17 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bonnie Schrack" <>
>> What the heck is "ascertainment bias"?
> Distortion in a dataset caused by the samples or markers used. Or "In
> scientific research, ascertainment bias occurs when false results are
> produced by non-random sampling" (Wikipedia).
For this list I think "... by (or because of) non-random (or biased)
sampling..." would communicate lots better than "ascertainment bias"
> Well, that's because none of the people in that dataset were European,
> they were all Asians, therefore there's no contradiction in saying that
> all segments but 390n are invariant in white people.
If mutations on certain segments are showing up routinely in Asians, I'm
sure it is just a matter of sufficient sample size before they will show up
The so-called "invariance" language used above seems to therefore be with
respect fo a limited sampling? Even if there are less-frequent mutations
in a secondary segments of a STR, it would seem they could serve as
excellent sub-population designators --- sort of like markers with very low
|Re: [DNA] DYS390m ? by "Ken Nordtvedt" <>|