GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-11 > 1225560381
Subject: [DNA] Redacted DNA Sequences
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:26:21 EDT
I was just thinking about Blaine's commentary on redacted
genetic sequences and realizing how genetic genealogists
deduce "hidden" information all the time. It doesn't matter
how good a redactor you think you are when putting your
genetic information online, there will probably be someone
who can come along and un-redact it. Well, I guess deduce,
infer or resurrect would be the correct terms as there is no such
word as un-redact.
This is the legal definition of redaction:
Just think how often we deduce a subclade by predicting
SNPs all just based on a tiny STR sequence in the YDNA or
even from just a few HVR1 mtDNA markers . I can also think
of at least one coding region SNP in the mtDNA that, so far,
could predict the entire mitochondrial genome, just on the basis
of one nucleotide, with almost 100% certainty. But nobody
can order just one coding region SNP, so that is irrelevant
and this kind of prediction is also rare. On the other hand,
forensic scientists might be able to use this information...
The point is that there is guilt by association and that is
what makes it fun. Why do you think there are so many
SNP sniffing sleuths around here?
So I guess we should all just accept that the YDNA and the
mtDNA are non-redactable. Your relatives might reverse and
reveal your redaction, even relatives you didn't know you
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!