GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-06 > 1181639197
From: "John McEwan" <>
Subject: [DNA] Do the 464x test: was Identifying R1b clusters
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:06:37 +1200
Now I am not going to buy into the "cluster" methodology argument. I
fall so far to one side it is not worth me commenting except to make
these points. Information theory would suggest all markers are useful to
some extent and the more markers the better. The second point is that
each marker has an optimal information content which is some function of
the reciprocal of the mutation rate of the marker. Fast markers are most
useful for recent events and those STRs that are very slow and
pseudo-SNPs tend to be more useful for the deep past.
However, in the current case about the Irish sea/Leinster/ Border
Reivers/~R1bSTR107-10 (yes this group is sculling around in my analysis
as well for a long time) Earl and several others have been party to off
line e-mails prior to today's exchange. Earl has stated it and I
reiterate the point.
In many individuals in the group the CDYa,b values are high, as you
would expect from a RecLOH where the high value overwrote the lower one.
They tend to be 15,15,17,17 at DYS464 another "symptom" of a RecLOH in
the same region and there is tantalising evidence that if tested with
DYS464x they are ccgg. Again further and more solid evidence of a RecLOH
as this is a rather distinctive combination in R1b1c. Now there are
several independent sources of ccgg in R1b1c BUT I suspect this one
forms the basis for a modest sized cluster. Anyway can I suggest those
nearby in genetic distance terms test for DYS464x and see what
eventuates. The test is cheap compared to some alternatives.
|[DNA] Do the 464x test: was Identifying R1b clusters by "John McEwan" <>|