GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265889439


From: John M Rhodes <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] News item: first ancient human genome sequenced
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:57:19 -0500
References: <e4dd.3fa9ee07.38a46414@aol.com><COL123-DS63C151F2444DD7C7CC18AC84E0@phx.gbl><3271030599658703088@unknownmsgid>
In-Reply-To: <3271030599658703088@unknownmsgid>


The article seems to explain otherwise, Bryan.

John Rhodes

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Bryan Cook <> wrote:

> They must have had some hair follicles. I did not think that you could get
> DNA from just hair (chitin) and that hair was often contaminated by what
> people put on it including animal fats. Am I wrong? Bryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of RICHARD KENYON
> Sent: February-10-10 8:15 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] News item: first ancient human genome sequenced
>
> The 11 Feb 2010 issue of Nature contains a very interesting (and important)
> article by Rasmussen et al, "Ancient human genome sequence of an extinct
> Palaeo-Eskimo", pp. 757-762. The DNA from a tuft of hair found in
> permafrost
> in Greenland, dated about 4000 bp, is extensively analyzed. They have
> apparently been able to do a more complete sequencing job of the genome
> than
> has been possible for the Neanderthals. They mention, for example, finding
> 4024 SNPs on the Y, of which they call 243 to be of "high confindence" and
> a
> total of 353,151 for the what they call the Saqqaq genome. The haplogroup
> is
> stated as Q1a*. They were also able to draw various conclusions about the
> phenotype of the Saqqaq man. Interestingly, they don't seem to have had a
> problem extracting DNA from hair samples. The supplementary information
> (only obtainable on-line) is quite extensive, being 87 pages long.
>
> Richard R. Kenyon ("Dick")
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mailto:>
> To: <mailto:>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:33 AM
> Subject: [DNA] News item: first ancient human genome sequenced
>
>
> Yup, the whole thing (or pretty much):
>
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57140/<;
> http://www.the-scientist.co
> m/blog/display/57140/>
>
> It's the cover article in the February 11 issue of Nature,
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/<http://www.nature.com/nature/>;
>
> Only the supplementary material appears to be freely available online
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/extref/nature08835-s1.pdf
> <ht
> tp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/extref/nature08835-s1.pdf>
>
> Ann Turner
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> <mailto:
>
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the
> body
> of the message
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>


This thread: