GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266953179


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:26:19 -0500
References: <FEA8748CE75246AE9C735629D20F103C@HP> <BFECJOAEEPCFBFFLLBGPEEPKGPAA.dna@irishtype3dna.org><5B7B9DC3797F4327AEDF556189B9AAA4@HP><002b01cab477$17ef7f40$47ce7dc0$@org>
In-Reply-To: <002b01cab477$17ef7f40$47ce7dc0$@org> (lgmayka@ieee.org)


Lawrence wrote:
> The most correct statement is that Ysearch had a standard (of "low"), but
> abandoned it and now has no standard at all.

Quite so. One point that no one seems to have expressed here is that
the "confusion" over DYS452 is not -- repeat NOT -- a problem for the
use of Ysearch as a search engine for DNA matches. The difference
between the residual Ysearch standard and the "high" standard is so
large that anyone who wishes to look for matches involving DYS452
need only make two searches, one with the low value and one with the
high. Those who are near-matches in either search are correct near-
matches.

However, the abandonment of the standard has terrible consequences for
DYS463. When the standard was still enunciated, it was possible to
use DYS452 as a "flag" to indicate that an entry in Ysearch had most
likely been converted to the Ysearch standard for DYS463 as well. It
would have been possible to convert both markers simultaneously and
automatically with a reasonable chance of correctness for everyone
concerned. Now, any entry added to Ysearch in the past year or so,
since the conversion page was emasculated, carries no obvious clue as
to whether the conversions were applied or not, especially since the
promulgation of the new NIST standard restored the "status quo ante"
for GATA-H4. Interestingly enough, though, the Ysearch conversion
page is currently still saying that 11 should be subtracted from
GATA-H4 from DNAH and Ancestry, even though that is no longer true.
That mistake is not producing values in Ysearch that are too small by
10, of course, since there isn't room in the allowed range for such a
deduction. Most likely, it is resulting in at least some entries with
no conversion at all applied to GATA-H4 (i.e., values that are too
large by 1). Behold another virtually irretrievable disaster in the
making.

sigh...

John Chandler


This thread: