Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment, please, on OAK Project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paul_Sheats
    replied
    That's pretty detailed. It might be easier to read if you had bullet points and separated it out a bit (maybe by lineage?). I don't use kit numbers at my project site, but member numbers instead, like S-1, S-2, S-3, etc. Also there is a typo in the second to last sentence, beginning "All tree of these markers..." Otherwise, the content seems fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • fmoakes
    replied
    "MCRA" meant MRCA

    Leave a comment:


  • fmoakes
    started a topic Comment, please, on OAK Project

    Comment, please, on OAK Project

    I would appreciate any constructive comments you care to make on the following RESULTS post on the OAK Project page. Lineage 2 is the area of interest and I want to insure I am giving the members correct and complete information regarding their test results.
    Thank you,
    Floyd Oakes
    OAK Project Co-coordinator

    "The Haplotypes of the 11 current members of the project have been grouped in 5 separate lineages. Lineages 1, 3 and 4 have single members. Lineage 5 was known to be one family, prior to testing. Lineage 2 has two OAKS and one OAKES that match on 34 of the 37 markers. The two OAKS(Kit#s 19654 & 12350) match on all except one off on DYS# 449. The OAKES(Kit# 12519) is one different on DYS# 449 from one of the OAKS(19654) and one different from both of the OAKS on DYS#'s 570 and CDYa. Kit# 12350 possibly matchs the MCRA for this lineage and Kit# 19654 has had a mutation at DYS# 449 and Kit# 12519 has had a mutation at DYS#s 570 and CDYa. All tree of these markers are indicated by FTDNA to be fast mutators. An upgrade from 37 to 67 markers would determine if this is truely a single lineage or if it should be split."
    Last edited by fmoakes; 2 July 2006, 02:45 PM.
Working...
X