GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-10 > 1129394631


From: charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYF markers
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:43:51 -0400
References: <434F3DDA.9000108@kerchner.com> <434FDD2D.4050104@kerchner.com> <op.syn17imfpqnhvj@localhost> <010901c5d19e$71f189e0$8998893e@Masterbedroom>
In-Reply-To: <010901c5d19e$71f189e0$8998893e@Masterbedroom>


Gareth Henson & Thomas Krahn:

Thanks for the education on the DYF marker prefix label ... on list and
off. More confusion for genetic genealogists. I'll have to add more
comments to my labmerge page about these so that people don't think
DYF385S1 is a typo variation of DYS385a,b . :-)

http://www.kerchner.com/labmerge.htm

Charles

wrote:

> 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
>

This thread: