I'd like to see it get more refined. The original reason I wanted to do this
(thanks for listening, Joan!) was because while my name is German, starting in
the middle 1700s there was a lot of watering down of original German traits due
to a lot of New World intermarrying with non-German populations. Not to mention
the maternal line itself.
So they sorta answered my question, with my strongest reference group being UK,
and second strongest being German. Seems the German was overwhelmed. But I have
to delve a little deeper and find out how the Irish got left out. My maternal
great-grandfather was 100% an Irishman. Seems like the Irish would have been a
reference population, too. Surely Nat Geo is not so ignorant as to include the
Irish in UK? Or maybe it was third, but they gave me only two.
--Bob Whitmire
3.9% Neanderthal and Proud of It!
On May 16, 2013, at 7:57 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Cool, seems the new chip checks over 147K SNP's on chromosomal DNA
> including X, 31K on mtDNA,
> checks for 26K markers for Neanderthal, 12K markers on Y chromo and a
> bunch of others.
>
> They remove any medically relevant markers as not to get into trouble.
> It is clear a complete genome sequence including mt DNA will fall to
> the price of an MRI very soon.
>
> Waiting for geno 3.0? Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|