GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-05 > 1178666743


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Possible reporting error on SMGF - DYS463=19
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 18:25:43 -0500
References: <BFECJOAEEPCFBFFLLBGPAECFDBAA.scorpion@netconnect.com.au><000401c791b1$3db80ee0$6400a8c0@Ken1><11CEB6E6-D2B0-4B8D-898E-AA0796C000DF@vizachero.com><REME20070508190504@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <REME20070508190504@alum.mit.edu>


Of course you are probably right about this particular case.

The windmill I am jousting principally consists of the notion that a
marker like DYS463 can be used as a "mini-SNP" (i.e. is effectively
invariant within a haplotype cluster). I think we probably all agree
that the mutation rate is high enough for this marker that is is
bound to be variant within Irish Type III even if the O'Brien case
turns out to be clerical or lab error.

Vince


On May 8, 2007, at 6:05 PM, John Chandler wrote:

> Vince wrote:
>> Even if the rate is 1/600 (I have no basis to dispute it), finding a
>> mutation among a sample of 40 unrelated individuals (presume the MRCA
>> is 20 generations prior, for example) should not be surprising.
>
> Don't forget that the difference is 4 steps. A 4-step mutation is
> pretty surprising if it happened all at once, and even more surprising
> if it happened one step at a time in a constant direction. This is
> not a multi-copy marker, and so we can't invoke recLOH.
>
> John Chandler
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: