GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290807511


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP Breakthrough for I1*-AS
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:38:31 -0500
References: <455998.6672.qm@web113308.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,<003101cb8d8b$8c16b4e0$c2482dae@Ken1><COL118-W2033450FB708E4E083BC6CA0210@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <COL118-W2033450FB708E4E083BC6CA0210@phx.gbl>


Whether or not a genetic locus is called a "SNP" is not dependent on the
percentage of the population that possesses it -- nor on whether someone finds
the SNP "boring." It's not an expression of the *usefulness* of the
polymorphism. It's a well-established acronym with a very specific meaning in
genetics: a single locus at which the nucleotide has been found to vary.

Unless we want to coin new terms -- and be guilty of increasing the jargon,
which is always to be avoided -- the best solution is to continue to use "useful
SNP" or just, "SNP," for the useful ones and "private SNP" for the ones that are
not. Perhaps we could introduce the modifiers, "major" and "minor," to indicate
the SNPs that represent "major forks" in the tree vs. the "minor twigs" of the
subclades.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:genealogy-dna-
> ] On Behalf Of Gareth Henson
> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 2:56 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP Breakthrough for I1*-AS
>
>
> I agree - from a utility point of view the opposite of a "private" SNP which
is only seen in
> one cluster of close relatives is not a SNP which is found in almost all of a
haplogroup
> (or major subgroup), but one which splits the larger group roughly 50-50.
>
>
> It is the splitting SNPs which should be the first round tests in SNP testing,
not the older,
> predictable (and boring) backbone ones.
>
> Gareth
>
>
>
> > From:
> > To:
> > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:01:16 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP Breakthrough for I1*-AS
> >
> > I have alerted the head of the Hamilton project to recruit someone
> > from the Group A and Group B Hamiltons to take the L338 test.
> >
> > I hope many people read your quote from Dr. Krahn. Once a new snp is
> > found in a large population like I1*, the later tests which turn up
> > ancestral are just as important as those turning up derived. Purpose
> > of snps is to clarify the branching of a tree --- separation of different
subhaplogroups.
> >
> > A snp which everyone is ancestral or everyone is derived is sort of boring.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Aaron Salles Torres" <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP Breakthrough for I1*-AS
> >
> >
> > > List,
> > >
> > > It seems as though I was the I1* (I1-AS (generic)) WTY participant
> > > who tested ancestral for L338. Dr. Thomas Krahn's words:
> > >
> > > "Unfortunately we have not found a new SNP in your sequences.
> > > However we have found that your L338 result is ancestral. This is at
> > > least as important as a new SNP because previous I-M253 WTY
> > > participants have been
> > > L338+. From this finding it looks like L338 represents a significant
> > > division in between the I1 branches. Without your participation we
> > > may have not discovered the importance of L338."
> > >
> > > My FT DNA kit number is 148532 and my ysearch ID is 7PGXX. I also
> > > ordered the L338 test for my maternal grandfather's line (Fernandes,
> > > FT DNA kit
> > > number: 172172). Besides the deeper understanding of I1 followed by
> > > this discovery, I am curious as to how the Frame and Hamilton
> > > clusters will test for L338.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Aaron Torres
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: