GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266968974


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:49:34 -0600
References: <FEA8748CE75246AE9C735629D20F103C@HP><BFECJOAEEPCFBFFLLBGPEEPKGPAA.dna@irishtype3dna.org><5B7B9DC3797F4327AEDF556189B9AAA4@HP><002b01cab477$17ef7f40$47ce7dc0$@org><REME20100223141307@alum.mit.edu><308312211F7D454486D47A36DE3144E7@john>
In-Reply-To: <308312211F7D454486D47A36DE3144E7@john>


DY441 (+1). DYS442 (+5) and Y-GATA-A10 (+2) should have the same number of
erroneous high values as DYS463. I appears that many people are not aware of
the need for conversions.

Bob Stafford.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Alister John Marsh <>wrote:

> John,
>
>
> I checked and found a match which at 25 markers looked very close,
> apart from DYS464. However when I did a check at more markers, Y-Search
> listed the match as 40 mutations different to me. The 40 mutations was
> made
> up of 19 steps at DYS452, 2 steps at DYS463, both calibration issues, plus
> another marker where the person had not adjusted for Y-Search standards (I
> think 5 steps on one marker, and possibly one step on another marker?),
> plus
> a recLOH event which went through many of the multi copy markers. A couple
> of the very fast mutating markers had multi step differences which impacted
> quite a bit on the count, but may have been single multi step mutations.
>
> At the end of the recount, in spite of the initial 40 mutation step
> difference by Y-Search, this person was not too many "real" mutations
> difference to me, close enough to "possibly" be related in the past 1,000
> years.
>
>
> John.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: