GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1269382773


From: "Nick n Dale" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re : Usefulness of SNP tests
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:19:33 +1100
References: <8a51f.1467430a.38da1007@aol.com>


Thanks Ann, it's reassuring to know that someone has had a look at this with
real data. I've downloaded the article you mentioned and will take a closer
look at PSORS1. Thank you also in emphasising that distinction between gene
and region. That part of chromosome 6 has a lot of relevance for some of my
relatives with possibly HLA related conditions such as ulcerative colitis,
coeliacs and haemochromatosis. BTW I enjoyed your essay on Phasing in the
JoGG 2008. I am assuming that one needs 3 consecutive generations to
determine crossover points for autosomes of the grandchildren. Something I
don't have at this point.

Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re : Usefulness of SNP tests


>I have some real-life data for two parent-child trios, and your synthetic
> child is right on target. For one set, the child's haplotype (set of
> alleles
> on one chromosome) could be determined for 84% of the SNPs; the other set
> was 94%. From there, you can split the parents' genotypes into two sets
> (passed on vs not passed on). Long stretches will correspond to
> haplotypes, but
> you won't be able to determine the crossover points. I still found this
> useful
> in my family study of an inherited hearing impairment.
>
> PSOR1 and PSOR2 are not genes -- they are regions containing several
> genes.
> No SNPs have been assigned an rs (reference SNP) number. You might be
> interested in this article about PSOR1:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC379192/pdf/AJHGv71p554.pdf
>
> Ann Turner
>
>


This thread: