GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-05 > 1179246037


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Allele length was Different Subject (correction)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:20:37 -0500
References: <801589.95438.qm@web81106.mail.mud.yahoo.com><DEDD5B82-9486-40A2-8C0A-7DD224F9E906@vizachero.com><4649CCE9.1090001@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <4649CCE9.1090001@sbcglobal.net>


Any multi-segment marker would be a good candidate for sequencing.
Perhaps Thomas could be persuaded to engineer a panel of such markers.

The goal of sequencing would be to uncover variation in the
"invariant" parts of the multi-segment markers. I think that such
variation would be more frequent than SNPs and less frequent than
RecLOH events, which is can be very helpful in clade detection.

I've mentioned on this list that a subclade of R1b1b has experienced
such an event in DYS390.

Vince



On May 15, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:

>> Vincent Vizachero wrote:
>
>> Right, which is why deletions at DYS390m and DYS390p are rare enough
>> to be considered UEPs which can reliably define subclades.
>>
>> Finding DYS390<21 is a good indicator that something funky is going
>> on, but confirmation requires sequencing DYS390 which is why I am
>> encouraging FTDNA to add this to their advanced test offerings.
>>
>> Vince
>>
>>
>
> According to Forster et al (2000) it would be useful to sequence
> DYS389
> too.
>
> I wonder what it would cost to sequence DYS389 & DYS390 each? This
> seems
> an important issue! I have no idea.
>
> Clearly there is alot of information to be gained by sequencing these
> Y-STRs at least.
> Al
>
> PS: The subject seems to be drifting again :-)
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: