Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-11 > 1321627515

From: vernade didier <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] 111-Marker Mution rates
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:45:15 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To: <000001cca5f4$77a420b0$66ec6210$@com>

Are those rates taking into account the back mutations ? It seems to me that in his approach A. Klyosov is first applying a rate, and then correcting for back mutations. You might both apply similar rates on the overall process. Just a thought.


Hi Anatole

It's based on observed YHRD mutation rates plus those published by Ballantyne et al 2010 and Burgarella & Vasques 2010.

I found that these three sources gave results for 35 of the 111 markers. I then took observed variances in M222+ and L21+ and, using these, modelled the observed 35 mutation rates. I then used that model to re-estimate all 111 mutation rates.

By memory, I think John Chandler's estimated rates sum to .2243 over 67 markers. I know that he's expressed satisfaction with the rates 1-37 but has been more cautious about markers 38-67. Still, I don't think .2243 is far off.

If we then do a crude sanity check on the estimate of .41, we get

.2243 x 111 / 67 = .37

So I don't think .41 can be that far out.


>From: "Sandy Paterson" < >
>My estimation for the sum of the mutation rates for FTDNA markers 1-111 is
just over 0.41
>Anyone else?

Dear Sandy,
How come? Based on what?

This thread: