Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: DYS464 results vs DYS464x results

Expand Messages
  • Alex
    Hi John I know this is a Beatty-Byrne s cluster forum, but I gather from your question you are interested in 464 vs. 464X results in general. There are a
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi John

      I know this is a Beatty-Byrne's cluster forum, but I gather from your question you are interested in 464 vs. 464X results in general.

      There are a number of men from my Little Scottish Cluster whose 464 results are 13-13-15-17, but their 464X results are 13-15-17-17. A few years ago, I had 5 or 6 Little Scottish Cluster men who had 464 results of 13-13-15-17 tested, and all returned 464X results of 13-15-17-17. These men were Williamsons, Sloans, and Colson, if I recall correctly.

      I believe the two methods use a slightly different technique to extract the results. I would be very curious to know what is special about our DYS 464 markers, that leads to this ambiguity in testing.

      I am in fact very interested in whatever DYS 464X results might be available as well, but for a different purpose. I am curious about the pattern of 464 mutations. A quick look at any 464 results clearly shows that some sets of values are far more common than others. By further breaking down the 464 results, I'd love to try and understand this better.

      Regards,
      Alex


      > How many cases, if any, do we have where the DYS464 values did NOT match the
      > DYS464x values.
    • dnalister@comcast.net
      John, I am trying to remember an example of DYS464 results that did not come out the same as DYS464X results. Maybe it happened once? If so, I may have brought
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 14, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        John,

        I am trying to remember an example of DYS464 results that did not come out the same as DYS464X results. Maybe it happened once? If so, I may have brought the matter to the attention of FTDNA and one of the results may have been changed. I think it would be a good idea to add you as a co-administrator. That would help with this and when you want to do Fluxus charts, too. I'm not really sure how adding administrators works since I haven't tried to add any new administrators since GAP 2.0 was introduced, but I may have to add you as an administrator, and if you prefer to be a co-administrator, you can demote yourself. I will see what I can do.

        Kirsten

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "John S Walden" <JohnSWalden@...>
        To: "Beatty Byrnes DNA" <Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: "John B Robb" <john@...>
        Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:25:33 PM
        Subject: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] DYS464 results vs DYS464x results

         

        Kirsten

        Since our 464xccgg project has one of the largest sets of 464x data I have a question
        And  only the Admins have access to all the data.

        How many cases, if any, do we have where the DYS464 values did NOT match the
        DYS464x values.

        I ask this because I know of two cases for sure  one is in a Adams family
        that is in J haplogroup and the second is in Walden family (my family)
        where  14,14,14,17 (confirmed via second reading of the data) became
        14,14,17,17 on the 464x results.

        John W
        [If you wish to add me as a co-admin to the group so I can research issues like this
        that is OK with me.  I do not know how to do that with GAP 2.0]

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.