GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-04 > 1050961129


From: Charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAPrint Test: Validation Studies
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:40:15 -0400
References: <20030421204306.91326.qmail@web41202.mail.yahoo.com>


David,

Good point. Did the people used in the samples have to submit documented
6 generation genealogical Pedigree Charts to verify their European-ness
or East-Asian-ness, plus a photo, and a signed sworn affidavit swearing
that to their knowledge they were 100% European or 100% East Asian, to
the best of their knowledge, as the case may be. The first question I
got initially was that maybe there was a surprise somewhere in my
Pedigree Chart. Not so. I stand by my Pedigree Chart as being solidly
European for at least 400 years, with the last 250 years being solidly
PA German, aka PA Dutch country. My Y chromosome R1b haplogroup and
mtDNA group of H also correlate with my European Pedigree Chart and
photo/phenotype. But now it appears that the answer lies in the
probability that the East Asian content is from more ancient sources.

So as David seems to be pointing out, who did the genealogy for the
people being used as the reference points, from whom the AIMs were
derived and selected and the BGA model and algorithm developed from, for
determining which AIMs would indicate who is 100% European and who is
100% East Asian. I'm really curious as to how the European and East
Asian AIMs data was collected, and how many from each of those
population groups were sampled, who checked their genealogy, and where
in their respective geographic group area did the sampled folks live.

Charles
http://www.kerchner.com/cfk1995.htm
http://www.kerchner.com/kerchdna.htm

David Faux wrote:
>
> I see a problem here Tony. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you really only had 20 East Asians - period. I am at work so do not have the Validation Study with me, but I seem to recall that the chart said 33 "Asians" - how are we to know if they are East Asians. I really need a more detailed description of the population here. Secondly, it is my understanding that you initially intended to differentiate East Asians from Pacific Islanders (and have a project in the works now to do precisely this). Therefore does it make any sense to toss the Polynesians into the East Asian group? Am I missing something? David.
> TONY N FRUDAKIS <> wrote:Not to beat a dead horse, but we have described the blind classification of
> 10 Japanese, 10 Chinese, 33 other assorted majority East Asians from the US
> and about 40 Pacific Islanders (Pacific Islanders were used in calculating
> the allele frequencies). This comes to almost 100 blind validations of the
> East Asian component of the test, without a single failure.
>
> The statement that we have only performed 20 East Asian blind validations is
> not accurate. We have performed 100. The results after this 100 are the
> same as those we have observed for our European sample after its first 100
> (which is now into the thousands).
>
> Tony Frudakis, Ph.D.
> DNAPrint genomics, Inc.
>
> Dr. David K. Faux, 4028 Larwin Ave., Cypress, CA, 90630, USA
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237


This thread: