GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-04 > 1050961513


From: Charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAPrint Test: Validation Studies
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:46:39 -0400
References: <NGBBJJHDALCHOBFBBMPIEELFCJAA.tfrudakis@dnaprint.com>


Tony,

By your definition of East Asian, are Mongolians East Asian?

Charles


TONY N FRUDAKIS wrote:
>
> David,
>
> There is no problem - the East Asians were Vietnamese, Cambodian and even
> some Chinese and Japanese self-described as majority affiliation for each
> respective group. The 33 definitely are part of the blind East Asian group.
> They are every bit as East Asian as people from China are, just like you are
> presumably as European as someone from Britain is.
>
> There are markers for distinguishing East Asian from Pacific Islander, but
> they are not used in the 2.0 version of the test. We added Pacific
> Islanders with other East Asians because we do not have enough markers to
> distinguish reliably yet, but by adding these people to the parental pool by
> which allele frequencies are calculated, the markers we do use apply to this
> more broadly defined group by definition. To understand this one needs to
> appreciate how the maximum likelihood method works, and how it relies on the
> allele frequencies for a group however that group is defined. As long as
> there is a rational means by which to justify the inclusion of a group
> within a larger one (such as our difficulty resolving them, or finding
> markers to resolve them), this is very much a valid exercise.
>
> Tony Frudakis, Ph.D.
> DNAPrint genomics, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Faux [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 3:43 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [DNA] DNAPrint Test: Validation Studies
>
> 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
>
> ==============================
> 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: