GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-11 > 1227798815
From: "Michael Walsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] L21+ vs L21-
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:13:35 -0600
> I understand that the only things in life that are certain are "death
> and taxes", but is it not true that if 1) you had multiple SNP's
> tested (like most have who do the deep clade testing packages) that
> line up correctly in the hierarchy, and 2) you have a haplotype that
> "fits" in the general range of your haplogroup; then it is practically
> impossible to have the problem you describe?
John Chandler Responded:
I wasn't describing a problem. Just a fact of life. Basically, every
transition-type SNP has occurred many times independently, and when it
gets to the point of testing thousands of people for thousands of SNPs
on a chip, there will certainly be instances of such parallelism that
come to light. This is the opening wedge of a new age in DNA testing,
in which "the most downstream SNP" will no longer be the mark of a
clade, but rather a "private" SNP, and each person's whole list of SNPs
will be essential for any analysis.
My additional response:
I agree, testing the "whole (relevant) line" of SNPs is essential.
This should be a boon for "bundle" testing rather than single invidual
|Re: [DNA] L21+ vs L21- by "Michael Walsh" <>|