GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268496601
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] FW: Genome work ushersinnew geneticera- howcan we mine new data?
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:10:01 -0700
References: <000001cac2ba$26997fe0$73cc7fa0$@com><006e01cac2bb$db3d9700$5e82af48@Ken1> <000001cac2c1$d4507600$7cf16200$@com><008301cac2c4$d0426070$5e82af48@Ken1><000001cac2c5$b178cbb0$146a6310$@com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
> So a full genome will find much that WTY won't. That's what I was hoping
> I should be able to find the message - I'll have a look and post out of
A full Y genome by itself, and the supporting databases of SNPs from many
males and in a useful form for the mass of hobbyists, would render, in my
opinion, the best of the STR haplotypes obsolete.
I think someone's survey concluded there were about 200 potentially useful
STRs on the Y. Let's say they maintained an average mutation rate of 1/300
each. Then a full 200 STR haplotype would have an expectation of about 2/3
mutations per generation.
A full Y genome has about the same expected mutation rate per generation.
So the time resolution of the two systems is about the same.
The full Y genome showing one's snps, however, have the cleancut ability to
resolve the time ordering (resulting in the node typology) of all the past
mutational events cleanly, while the STR haplotypes face substantial
statistical ambiguity on this score. This is because we reach about 1
mutation event per generation from the two systems in quite different ways.
In one case we look at a small number (200) of rather fast mutating STRs.
In the other case we look at a huge number (25 million) of very slow
So for right now, I would think the system with the best technological
prospects for improvement at costs we can afford is of greatest personal
|Re: [DNA] FW: Genome work ushersinnew geneticera- howcan we mine new data? by "Ken Nordtvedt" <>|