GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265433043


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:10:43 -0500
References: <mailman.353.1265356842.21159.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" < >

> From: "Anatole Klyosov" < >
> If mutation counting is very mysterious to you, how can we go
>> further?


> What you call mutation counting is mysterious to me. Suppose you have a
> collection of ten haplotypes of 4 STRs...But I personally would not
> consider that a count
> of the number of mutations. Some of those differences are probably the
> consequences of a singular past mutation.
>
> So is your "mutation count" in this example seven (7) or ten (10)?
>
> (4) 10 10 10 10
> (1) 10 10 9 10
> (2) 10 11 10 10
> (1) 10 9 11 9
> (2) 10 9 10 9

My response:

Why didn't you give me just two 2 marker haplotypes and request to count
mutations?

I am familiar with that "approach" to suggest an absurd example to further
dismiss the rational approach. Mind you, I gave you before an example of 284
of 25-marker haplotypes, which clearly show a base (the most frequent)
haplotype. Why wouldn't you stick to THAT case? Why such a burning desire to
dismiss a rational approach even on a ground of an absurd/fuzzy example?

Of course I can count mutations in your example based on a "permutational"
approach, also described in my paper which I cited in the preceding message.
However, a margin of error in that case will be high. Just read the paper
and you will get an answer. However, I was talking about a much simpler case
and, respectively, a much smaller margin of error.

Anatole Klyosov




This thread: