GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1293586511


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] significance of GD 7 at 67 markers
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:35:19 -0700
References: <8CD74DD3905D19F-12DC-2022B@webmail-d101.sysops.aol.com>,<000001cba6cd$70c27610$52476230$@dgmweb.net>,<8CD74F1B209D23B-12DC-22461@webmail-d101.sysops.aol.com><COL118-W382FFB4E1F1BD139D7E6F6A0010@phx.gbl><000f01cba6f3$3ac45440$b04cfcc0$@dgmweb.net><004e01cba6f4$71c3f5d0$c2482dae@Ken1><E751F6FC-F815-485C-91B5-29D6CB149FB5@gmail.com>


If normally in a cluster you see DYS459a,b and DYS464a,b,c,d and CDYa,b in a
form where the multiple copies have different repeat values, then you see a
purported cluster member with 459, and CDY doubled up, and 464 reduced to
two doubled up values --- then you should probably conclude a single
mutational event has taken place in which a palindrome arm containing copies
of 459, CDY, and 464 has simply been deleted, or that one arm has aligned
itself with another arm and had its copies of 459, CDY, and 464 written over
by (copied) the other arm.

Those who keep very large databases see this kind of event happen fairly
often, though probably it has a rate less than most STR rates.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilcox Lisa" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] significance of GD 7 at 67 markers


> Can someone put this in context for me? Under what circumstances should we
> assume this has taken place?
>
> Lisa
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
>
>> Not only is the 464 and CDY mutations considered a single recLOH
>> mutational
>> event, the change at DYS459 is included as well in that one event.
>>
>> This is because it is believed all three of these changes resulted from a
>> single mutational event.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: