JAMES-L Archives

Archiver > JAMES > 2005-12 > 1134510819


From: "Gwen Boyer Bjorkman" <>
Subject: FW: New DNA Test Results Posted for a Group Member in Group James
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:53:39 -0800


Here is the response from Eileen Krause of FTDNA about that two step mutation that was found on the
DNA test for Patsy James Paterson's William James DNA test. This was the test that we thought
should match Doyle and Richard James. Patsy, we really need to have you order that 25 marker test
for William James.

Gwen Boyer Bjorkman


-----Original Message-----
From: Eileen Krause [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:53 PM
To:
Subject: RE: New DNA Test Results Posted for a Group Member in Group
James

Hello Gwen,

I agree that we would need to see more markers from William James. I'm also
putting in his kit for marker review with the lab for DYS392, since it is
different by two steps from the others. It is a rather high result, but
it's possible for even the slower-moving markers to make a leap in a single
mutation. The FTDNATiP Calculator assumes that any difference of more than
one in a marker took place in a single mutation.

E-mail any time,
Eileen Krause
Anthrogenealogy Response Center
Family Tree DNA
http://www.familytreedna.com
713-868-1438

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Gwen Boyer Bjorkman" <>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:05:52 -0800

We have the new 12 marker results back for William James sponsored by Patsy
James Paterson. FTDNA is saying that he has no matches, but when you look
at Richard Dale and Doyle Roland you see that they have a mutation on the
11th marker. Now because this is a genetic distance of 2 on this marker
they count it as no match! I am not sure about that. You really need the 25
marker test on all of these R1b Haplogroup men. It does seem interesting
that they are so close. Here is the explanation from FTDNA.

When comparing people's samples in our system we show individuals who are
closely matched, but not identically matched, as being different by what the
Anthropologists call genetic distance.

If two people were identical in all markers except they are off in one
marker by 1 point, the genetic distance would be 1. If they were off at 2
different markers by 1 point in each marker, then the genetic distance of
those two samples would be 2. If they were off by 2 points at one marker and
1 point in a second marker, then the genetic distance would be 3. This is
called the Stepwise Model of calculating genetic distance for shallow time
depths. (i.e. Genealogy not Anthropology)

WILLIAM JAMES #46312
E-mail: Patsy James Paterson
Harmon Franklin James 1867 Rutherford Co, TN-1942 Rutherford Co, TN/Louetta
Margaret McCrary
John W. James 1832 Rutherford Co, TN/Mary Jane Vaught
Harmon James abt 1799 NC-1884 Rutherford Co, TN/Hannah
46312 William James R1b 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 15 29

42754 Richard Dale James R1b 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 16 9 9 11
11 25 15 19 30 15 15 15 17

25727 Doyle Roland James R1b 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 16 9 9 11
11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 11 19 23 16 16 19 17 37 40 11 12

46312 William James R1b 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 15 29

Now Doyle and Richard are considered a match at 25 markers with a genetic
distance of 2. But you see that the 24th marker has a genetic distance of 2
besides the genetic distance of 1 on the 21st marker. So how can that be?
I going to copy to FTDNA for an explanation.

Gwen Boyer Bjorkman




This thread: