GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1166046310
From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ellen's Paper
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:45:10 -0800 (PST)
I don't mean to sound persnickity, but I'd suggest you
read the studies yourself concerning their methodology
and prevention of misidentification and contamination.
I haven't been presented yet with evidence from the
Basque studies or the other aDNA studies that the
HVR-I sites utilized are particularly prone to
misidentification according to the criteria set out in
the Thomas study, which in reality are rather
For example, Alzualde states in his 2005 study that he
utilized coding region identification and correlated
it to the HVR-I results to prevent misidentification
of the samples. Additionally, extensive cloning of
the results was also performed in the Basque studies,
not to mention the Iberian study as well, to prevent
misidentification of the samples. This is discussed at
length in the studies.
The N1a samples came from Germany and Hungary. They
were utilized in the Haak study in which he argued
that N1a represents a now extinct European Neolithic
I'd suggest pointing to specific evidence from the
studies themselves which supports the contention of
misidentification of certain samples.
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.