GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > 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)
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.
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
How come? Based on what?