GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1267105616


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Hello Mr. Krahn
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:46:56 -0500
References: <4B866DA9.7020808@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B866DA9.7020808@comcast.net>


Bonnie,

In my experience, there is no obvious answer. You'd be more likely to
find some mutations on the fast markers, but you might not be able to
rely on them any more than the fast SNP.

When we were first exploring the upstream clades of R1b1b2 (e.g. ht35
vs ht15) we did have some luck using the advanced STRs, including the
palindromic ones. Basically we picked a few people (more than two,
less than five) in the target group and a few outside the target group
for EVERY marker we could afford or find. Then compare for
differences. It's a pretty basic approach, obviously, but a spitball
approach is your only real recourse.

VV


On Feb 25, 2010, at 7:31 AM, Bonnie Schrack wrote:

> Could you, and others on the list (perhaps from R1b) who have
> experience
> with them, recommend which additional STRs might be the most useful
> for
> splitting large groups who have similar haplotypes? Should they look
> particularly at some palindromic markers, or would some of the
> fast-mutating markers in the other panels be the first ones to try?


This thread: