GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-02 > 1171576787


From: "Roberta J. Estes" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:59:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: <45D4D465.90403@kerchner.com>


I think my math is right. I used the rates of both .02% and .04% because
the rate has not been agreed upon and both of these numbers are fairly
widely used, so I gave both rates.

3/160=.02 which is 2%. .02 is 100 faster than (.0002 which is .02%).

Please help me here if I goofed. Math was not my major (or minor):)

Thanks,

Roberta

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of charles
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA

Roberta,

I just looked at your slides. I think you have a decimal in the wrong place
for your "predicted" mutation rates. They should be 0.2% (0.002) and 0.4%
(0.004), not? That would affect your other calculations. Am I missing
something? Just trying to help out.

Charles Kerchner
http://www.kerchner.com/dnamutationrates.htm


Roberta J. Estes wrote:
> Thanks to Orin Wells and Ann Turner, the powerpoint slides are now up
> in two places.
>
> http://www.genealogydna.org/presentations/mutation_rates.ppt
>
> http://www.dnaheritage.com/files/rootswebupload/MutationRates.ppt
>
> I snipped these from the larger presentation. Here is what I was
> trying to convey.
>
> The Estes surname project is significantly larger than this, but when
> I prepared this chart, I used only proven genealogies, not ones where
> I know they connect but exactly how is "fuzzy", because I needed to
> know the number of transmission events that had occurred.
>
> On the page labeled 458, which is the marker number being discussed,
> Abraham is the founder and his DNA has been triangulated. I have
> people upstream from him due to other people testing. I know those
> folks descend from his uncle and grandfather, but some of the
> "inbetween" genealogy is fuzzy, mostly due to the fact that this
> Northern group of Esteses has has minimal research and has no active
> researchers now, hence, the people who tested didn't send me their
> complete genealogies, so I can't use them in this analysis, so I can't
> count back any further generations from Abraham for this analysis.
>
> Abraham's trangulated allele count is 18.
>
> Abraham's sons are listed and the number of mutation opportunities is
> the first number in the box. Looking at Abraham Jr., there are 10
> mutation opportunities for the one person who tested, and the allele count
is 18.
> That is true for both of the people who descend from Abraham Jr.
> Moving on to Moses, I have him broken down further because I go on
> later in the presenation to discuss this group in more detail, but as
> you can see, there are 5 proven descendants here and one of them has a
> an upward mutation and one has a downward mutation.
>
> You get the idea. So there are 3 mutations of a combined number of
> mutation opportunities of 160, for 2%. I'm assuming here of course
> that the mutation to 17 is a one time mutation that occurred some
> place upstream and is carried down as a line marker mutation.
>
> For marker 391, Abraham Sr. is 12, and you can see there are 8
> mutations out of 160 possible events, all downward mutations.
>
> The interesting thing for both of these mutations is how many
> individual lines they occurred in independently.
>
> I surely have to wonder why these alleles are "predisposed" (or maybe
> "inclined" for lack of another word) to mutation downward, in the case
> of 391.
>
> Roberta

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: