GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-10 > 1129390678


From: <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYF markers
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:37:58 +0100
References: <434F3DDA.9000108@kerchner.com> <434FDD2D.4050104@kerchner.com> <op.syn17imfpqnhvj@localhost>


David & List

all the multicopy markers discovered in the Kayser paper
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n6/41028/brief/41028
.abstract.html
were given DYF numbers. I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember where) that
the F stood for Family and that the D#F format was standard for naming
multicopy loci in the autosomal chromosomes (where # is the number of the
chromosome). The S1 on the end allows for numbering individual copies if
they can be separately identified (using S1, S2, S3 etc). Clearly this has
not be done consistently for the Y chromosome as we have multicopy markers
in the DYS format as well. It is a pity that the numbers were not kept
unique i.e. so you had DYS385 or DYF385S1 but not both. Looking at the
DNA-FP list of autosomal markers, some of them are up to four digits.

Gareth



----- Original Message -----
From: "David F Reynolds" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 3:51 AM
Subject: [DNA] DYF markers


> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:30:37 -0700, charles <> wrote:
>
> > DYF385S1 and DYF399S1. Don't ask me why they named these markers with
the prefix DYF instead of DYS. The scientists on
> > the list can talk to that part.
>
> Actually, I have wondered about that for a while. Can someone explain the
DYF###S1 nomenclature?
>
> --david


This thread: