mtDNA Question

[Gisele Hor]

Philip & all:

What is the current position concerning the relationship
between mtDNA polymorphisms in adjacent nucleotide sites
(9097[G] & 9098[C], for instance)? The consensus for these two
sites would be - A T.

Thanks.

Gisele

[Gisele Hor]

On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:36:19 GMT, g-horvat@shaw.ca (Gisele
Horvat) wrote:

>Philip & all:
>
>What is the current position concerning the relationship
>between mtDNA polymorphisms in adjacent nucleotide sites
>(9097[G] & 9098[C], for instance)? The consensus for these
>two sites would be - A T.

I should have also mentioned that the two above-mentioned
polymorphisms were in separate but seemingly closely related
sequences.

Gisele

[Philip Dei]

On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:52:26 GMT, g-horvat@shaw.ca (Gisele
Horvat) wrote:

>On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:36:19 GMT, g-horvat@shaw.ca (Gisele
>Horvat) wrote:
>
>>Philip & all:
>>
>>What is the current position concerning the relationship
>>between mtDNA polymorphisms in adjacent nucleotide sites
>>(9097[G] & 9098[C], for instance)? The consensus for these
>>two sites would be - A T.
>
>I should have also mentioned that the two above-mentioned
>polymorphisms were in separate but seemingly closely related
>sequences.

That would be the Cambridge reference sequence, some dude at
cambridge sequenced his mtDNA genome. Its not a concensus. To
get a concensus you need to have about 20 africa sequences and
a couple each of east and west eurasian types.

Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu

[Gisele Hor]

On Tue, 07 May 2002 05:16:11 GMT, pdeitik@worldnet.att.net
(Philip Deitiker) wrote:

>On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:52:26 GMT, g-horvat@shaw.ca (Gisele
>Horvat) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:36:19 GMT, g-horvat@shaw.ca (Gisele
>>Horvat) wrote:
>>
>>>Philip & all:
>>>
>>>What is the current position concerning the relationship
>>>between mtDNA polymorphisms in adjacent nucleotide sites
>>>(9097[G] & 9098[C], for instance)? The consensus for these
>>>two sites would be - A T.
>>
>>I should have also mentioned that the two above-mentioned
>>polymorphisms were in separate but seemingly closely related
>>sequences.
>
>That would be the Cambridge reference sequence, some dude at
>cambridge sequenced his mtDNA genome. Its not a concensus. To
>get a concensus you need to have about 20 africa sequences
>and a couple each of east and west eurasian types.

I used the expression "consensus" because I was fairly
certain that the CRS values for these two sites were the
consensus but I have, as yet, hardly made a dent in the
latest batch of 560 sequences and so I could be wrong. That
wasn't the question, though.

Gisele