GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266545348
From: argiedude <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Some more Tut DNA STR values from the video
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:09:08 -0200
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,, , <SNT115-W45463D0E57A424FC088542CC480@phx.gbl>, ,<SNT115-W400377CF1A910C32AFA705CC480@phx.gbl>,<SNT115-W209B414EEFCD31E04B9B32CC470@phx.gbl>,<4B7D8D72.email@example.com>
Did the authors of the study say that the 2nd y-dna tested had 393=9? Because that would mean at least one of the images they showed in the video isn't stock footage, it's one of the 2 actual results, which would suggest the other image is probably also the real deal and not stock footage. I'm starting to become more amazed by Hawass' behavior then by the results, quite honestly.
I looked at some 300 Egyptian samples from yhrd and Luis' 2004 study of East Africa, which included 150 Egyptian samples, and it seems that ht15 is about 1% to 2% of Egyptian y-dna, ht35 likewise, and R1b1* (technically R1b1* plus R1b1a) is around 2% to 3%, for an overall rate of R1b of about 5% to 7%.
If this result is true, it could still arguably be an ht35 that mutated in 393 from 12 to 13, though ht15 is still the prime candidate. It would be extremely unlikely that the sample would be R1b1*, because of 19=14 and 385=11/14.
What's the 393=9 sample from? That would really be pushing it, that 2 Egyptian samples came out R1b.
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:56:50 -0600
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Some more Tut DNA STR values from the video
> Astrid and I have also spent an hour on interpreting the
> electropherograms from the video yesterday.
> Unfortunately it's not as easy as counting the gray bars (bins) from the
> Genemapper software because the lab technicians have added additional
> bins by themselves for some alleles that don't show up in the ladder.
> Also there are actually (at least) two different scenes which show peaks
> from entirely different persons.
> At 1 minute and 18 seconds they show apparently a full set of (blue,
> green, black, red) traces which is most likely a control sample from
> haplogroup R. My best guess for the haplotype would be
> DYS456 15
> DYS389I 13? (additional bin)
> DYS390 23? (additional bins)
> DYS389II 30? (additional bins)
> DYS458 16
> DYS19 14
> DYS385 11-14
> DYS439 10
> DYS438 12
> DYS437 13 or 14 (additional bins)
> Y-GATA-H4 11 (NIST nomenclature)
> DYS393 13
> DYS391 11
> No warranty for any of the values!
> This could possibly be the 007 control DNA that comes with the ABI
> Yfiler kit. At least it looks similar.
> The more interesting scene starts at 1:22 where a couple of black traces
> are compared with each other. This could possibly be the real traces
> from the mummies.
> Due to a bug in the Genemapper software the bins are not displayed
> correctly. Note that some of the peaks are far off from the bins. So the
> only way to investigate this is to use the actual fragment sizes on the
> bp scale. We have measured and calculated the peak positions with a
> ruler on the monitor screen and then assigned the alleles based on
> experimental data from runs on our own instruments. Of course the
> instrument results vary and there is again no warranty that my guesswork
> is correct. My call of the NED labeled markers may be something like:
> DYS393 9
> DYS439 11
> DYS391 12
> DYS635 23
> DYS392 13 or 14 (resolution not good enough for a trinucleotide repeat)
> In an earlier scene at 1:12 in the blue trace we can definitely read
> allele 16 for the marker DYS458 and as discussed in the article itself
> we know about Y-GATA-H4 being 11 in NIST nomenclature.
> Yet another scene at 1:30 shows DYS389I in the blue trace which is most
> likely allele 13
> I'll leave it to the experts to predict a haplogroup for this profile.
> Without the rare DYS393 allele 9 it matches multiple haplogroups. With
> the DYS393 = 9 allele I have no matches in the FTDNA database.
> Again this could still be a wrong sample and I could still have made
> errors with my analysis. In any case I hope this helps.
> Steven Bird wrote:
> > Several people at the E-M35 Project have spent a few hours poring over the video that was uploaded to the web from the Discovery Channel and we have an estimate of some of the other STR markers and their values. It would be very helpful if anyone on list who is used to working with YFiler could confirm our identifications:
> > 389i=13
> > 390=24 (the number is barely visible, but the peak agrees with the number) I have high confidence in this number.
> > 389b= 16 or 17
> > 393=13 (given in the paper)
> > 439=11
> > 392=11?
> > H4=10 (using FtDNA nomenclature - given in paper)
> > 458=16 (this one seems definite)
> > DYS19=13 or 14 (more likely 13)
> > Most of the peaks are actually quite clear and I imagine that anyone who looks at a lot of Yfiler outputs would be able to identify the actual peaks easily. The only questions appear because I don't always know exactly where the Yfiler bars start and stop for each locus.
> > Thomas Krahn, are you out there?? :-)
> > Here is the link to the video:
> > http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/king-tut-unwrapped-king-tuts-paternal-line.html
> 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
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
|Re: [DNA] Some more Tut DNA STR values from the video by argiedude <>|