GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-10 > 1318154467


From: Raymond Wing <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] RecLOH - is it observed that 'over-written' copiescontinue to have step mutations
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 03:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
References: <mailman.1252.1318101143.2745.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><35E79931-832C-4380-AD24-8FA502756818@charter.net><76C8CD446ACE47ABA4CF3BA9092AD305@julief20dec08><012701cc8631$26b86540$74292fc0$@dgmweb.net>
In-Reply-To: <012701cc8631$26b86540$74292fc0$@dgmweb.net>


I realized after I wrote my email that I was wrong in my description of the RecLOH.  My mind was on the specific RecLOH around DYS464. In R1b, there was a SNP near one of the 464 markers (where the ancestral values are gggg, and the SNP created a gggc), and through the RecLOH process, it had propagated across several of the markers (so that the typical markers today are cccg).

Sorry to add to the confusion!



________________________________
From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] RecLOH - is it observed that 'over-written' copiescontinue to have step mutations

...

> and Raymond said: ' In addition,
> nothing about the RecLOH (which actually affects
> a SNP near the STR rather than the STR itself) would
> impact its mutation rate, etc.'

To tell you the truth, I don't understand Raymond's statement.  Can
someone explain it, please?

...

Diana


This thread: