Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-06 > 1308626935

From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Testing Results
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:28:55 -0400
References: <4318599B145A4855A2F27D7410B806A7@kenPC><><65A31C30741A43919DE0D0E43465A47F@ScottLaptop>
In-Reply-To: <65A31C30741A43919DE0D0E43465A47F@ScottLaptop>(

Scott wrote:
> Relative Genetics was our original study host/company. When they were
> purchased we went to Ancestry. During both of these, we had members who had
> irregularities at DYS385...a third repeat. I had Sorenson rerun ten members
> and it confirmed the third "peak". I used myself as a control as I was
> shown to not have the repeat. I still did not have the repeat.

I take it you mean a third copy and that all three copies had different
lengths. That seems to be a reliable determination.

> I then had one of the members with a third repeat tested at FTDNA. When the
> Kittler testing was done, it showed he did not have a third repeat at
> DYS385.

Note that the Kittler test uses special primers to sense separately the
usual two copies. That means each of the two special sets of primers
is designed to reject the "other" copy. It might therefore turn out
that *both* sets of primers reject the third copy found in your members.

When your member had a test at FTDNA and observed that the report
showed only two copies of DYS385, did you make a point of getting a
definitive, in-depth explanation? In other words, did you insist on
getting someone from the Arizon lab to review the pherogram and
confirm that only two peaks were there? The FTDNA database does not
yet support the recording of more than two copies (although it may be
on the brink of doing so), and so you really need the in-depth view.
For that matter, as far as I know, can't report three
copies of DYS385 either in an ordinary test. Is that why you went
to the Kittler test? So that you could get a report without begging
for special treatment? Good idea.

Of course, it is possible that the primers used at Arizona are
different enough from the ones used by Sorenson, that the third copy
is visible at one lab but invisible at the other.

John Chandler

This thread: