GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-04 > 1207424410
From: Cakebread <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Which haplogroup was in western Europe first?(rh)
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:40:10 +0100
Glad to hear I'm not the only one!
Just to explain exactly what were talking about here, the Rh gene is written with a small r. So rh.
rh is recessive in the Rh gene series. So when someone has 2 x rh genes (small r) then this can be detected so then they become Rh- negative. If you only have 1 gene (or even none) then your Rh+. So both your parents must have at least one rh gene to give to you.
So, on occasions, a female can be Rh-negative (2 x rh genes inherited from both her parents) and her unborn baby is Rh+positive (the Rh+ obviously comes from the father). If this scenario happens then some of the unborn baby's erythrocytes can get destroyed due to blood mixing ,with often other dangerous side affects. The baby often does not survive to be born or if it does survive to birth will die soon after. The Mother's immune system has basically "attacked" the unborn baby.
Of course today with modern medicine they can do a quick blood transfusion on the newborn however, before the modern age, there was no help at all so gradually Rh- negative Females would have had less surviving children. The rh gene therefore would not be passed on as much so then the rh gene would have died out over time.
I am not sure if there is a reason why only your daughters have the Rh-negative gene (btw not a stupid question). It is perhaps just pure chance. You have the Rh-negative gene. Therefore, for your daughters to be Rh-negative, your husband must have an Rh-negative gene also.
Since your son is Rh+ he could have only obtained this from your husband since you have 2 rh genes (to make the Rh-)
As you are A- both your parents must have had an Rh-negative gene each even though they could have shown up as Rh+. If your mother was an Rh- then just leaves your father.
> From: > To: > Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:54:47 -0600> Subject: [DNA] Which haplogroup was in western Europe first?(rh)> > I too find this discussion very interesting. I am A- which I have passed on> to my two daughters.> My grandmother finally had a son (1938) after many miscarriages and we> assume that this was the result of the factor. I would love to be able to> trace it through the lines. Is there any reason why it would have passed to> my daughters and not my son's? (Or is that a stupid question?)> Patricia> > > -------------------------------> 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
The next generation of Windows Live is here
|Re: [DNA] Which haplogroup was in western Europe first?(rh) by Cakebread <>|