Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-07 > 1184784542

From: "William Hurst" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] H mtDNA Heteroplasmy Reporting
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:49:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Kathy and all,

Very interesting. I assume the person's FTDNA personal page shows it as
16291C/T. Does the person belong to any projects? Which ones? What does the
result look like there? What happens if the results are transferred
automatically to MitoSearch? Are they on MitoSearch? Where?

I sent my e-mail before I read Ann's, so I didn't know that FTDNA was now in
the heteroplasmy business, except indirectly through the Genographic
Project. One reason I'm especially interested in this mtDNA position since
we have 27 of 456 with it in the K Project, all but two in the provisional
K1a10 subclade defined by 16048A. In the Genographic Project report, there
are 50 in K, 47 in K1a10. There is only one 16291N, which should be the same
as 16291C/T; and it's not in K1a10, but in K1a1b1a. That leads me to believe
that the 16291T in K1a10 has been "resolved" to the T variant.

Bill Hurst

>Bill asked
> >May I ask which testing company reported the heteroplasmy 16291C/T?
>The mtDNA was tested at Family Tree DNA. I wonder if the lab spent
>extra time looking for a back mutation since I was suspecting a mistake
>and thought it should be ruled out anyway.
>More likely, as Ann said
> >It seemed to me that I've been seeing
> >a few more reports with heteroplasmy
> >recently, and Thomas Krahn confirmed
> >that some new procedures have been
> >developed to call heteroplasmy with
> >greater confidence.
>In my experience, if you have the 235 + 293 + 400 you will
>also have the 291. It seems like the 235 + 291 defines this
>particular subset plus it is found in ancient archaeological
>remains which makes it even more important in forming some
>sort of backbone.
>There is another person who has the 235 + 291 + 400 and I
>am wondering if heteroplasmy should be looked for in this
>case as well to see if the 293 polymorphism is present. Can
>we ask for extra testing based solely on an increased index
>of suspicion? Probably not.
>Kathy J.
>************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: