GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-08 > 1123192652


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP mutation rates
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:57:32 -0600
References: <IGEOKAGLHNEKPCKPADIGOEIKKEAA.bbailey.lowedna@baileyconnection.com> <REME20050803190044@alum.mit.edu> <090b01c59884$6238c5c0$0200a8c0@c452380a> <REME20050803194536@alum.mit.edu> <097001c59905$fff2b6f0$0200a8c0@c452380a> <016401c59931$32d2cc10$84d62f50@Masterbedroom>


I was under the impression the SNPs we have are basically just what were
found; they were not chosen? By what technique do they efficiently find the
SNPs "that show consistent and regularly detectable patterns of variation"?
(I'm actually not sure what you mean by that?) Does that mean they have
thrown away a bunch that don't "show ...........patterns of variation."

This issue has concerned me for some time: do the (deep in time) SNPs that
just happened to have been found determine the divisions of the tree? So
that if all the work of the last decade or so were lost, and the SNP hunters
had to start all over again, would we get a substantially different tree by
the time we had discovered the first couple hundred SNPs the second time
around?

Ken


----- Original Message -----
From: "gareth.henson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP mutation rates


But the YCC tree SNPs are not randomly chosen
> locations, they are precisely those bases found so far that show
consistent
> and regularly detectable patterns of variation (a few private ones appear
to
> have sneaked in at the lowest levels). They are the needles in a very
large
> haystack. > Gareth
>
>


This thread: