GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-04 > 1238793862
From: James Heald <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Comparison of Chinese, Yoruba,Watson and Venter genome y-snps
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:24:22 +0100
I hear what you're saying.
But on the other hand, the Chinese SNP list does appear to stand up
exceptionally well to comparison with phylogenetically "known" SNPs; and
the Yoruba list pretty well too.
So when there is a disparity as marked as 1084 versus 451, I don't think
that can *all* be experimental noise.
As to the Watson and Venter data, maybe you are right, but I would like
to understand better why these datasets as they are, and so perhaps
which parts can be considered more reliable or less reliable.
But that's clearly going to need the expertise of people on this list
who understand much more of the biochemistry than I do.
Vincent Vizachero wrote:
> Thanks for pulling this all together. I want to dig into it, but re:
> the comment below I think the first presumption should always be that
> the quality of the sequences is suspect. I know that seems like a cop-
> out, but full genome sequencing is inherently error-prone. Many early
> mtDNA dating efforts were wrong because the sequence data was wrong,
> even while the method itself is fundamentally sound.
> Your doing exactly the right kind of analysis, but we must all be
> aware at just how crappy the data could be.
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:45 PM, James Heald wrote:
>> And if they could, does that mean the dating method used in Karafet et
>> al (2008) now looks very questionable?
> 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
|Re: [DNA] Comparison of Chinese, Yoruba,Watson and Venter genome y-snps by James Heald <>|