A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[GUT]

Don't get me wrong, GUT. I think everything Chris has posted has been correct.
DR JL is suggesting 314.1c is a global private mutation, it says so in the book. Chris has shown 314.1c is exactly the same mutation as 315.1c, an extra cytosine inserted in the c stretch between 310T and 315C.
What would be rare is if there was no extra cytosine inserted in this region and the sample matched the rCRS in having only 5 cytosines.

I'm inclined to agree, but even if it turns out t is wrong [and to repeat I don't think it is] he has still done a lot of work with patience and good humnour.

[mickreed]

I'm inclined to agree, but even if it turns out t is wrong [and to repeat I don't think it is] he has still done a lot of work with patience and good humnour.

I've no doubt Chris is spot on, GUT. And I second your comments on his efforts.

[sleekviper]

Well there is going to be a huge discrepancy with DNA from 1888, to modern day. Poland had a Jewish population of 3.3 million before the second world war, and after 3 million were no longer living. That is an enormous chunk of human life taken to try and compare DNA with today. The female DNA is what is of concern, so without a 50/50 split of male to female survivors, either the male DNA or female DNA of today, is going to seem rare as one or the other mates outside of traditional roles since I highly doubt survivors were equally split between male and female of the same age group. So there can't be much stock in what is called rare unless a large number can prove an unbroken female line dating to 1888. Well, at the least before the second world war. That happens with Aaron, to determine if it is rare it should be compared with only those that can do it also.

[mickreed]

Well there is going to be a huge discrepancy with DNA from 1888, to modern day. Poland had a Jewish population of 3.3 million before the second world war, and after 3 million were no longer living. That is an enormous chunk of human life taken to try and compare DNA with today. The female DNA is what is of concern, so without a 50/50 split of male to female survivors, either the male DNA or female DNA of today, is going to seem rare as one or the other mates outside of traditional roles since I highly doubt survivors were equally split between male and female of the same age group. So there can't be much stock in what is called rare unless a large number can prove an unbroken female line dating to 1888. Well, at the least before the second world war. That happens with Aaron, to determine if it is rare it should be compared with only those that can do it also.

Yes, and what a horror that all was? Nevertheless the mtDNA taken from Ashkenazi descendants is likely to be pretty close to that of the pre-war Polish Jewish population for the following reasons:

1. Very many Ashkenazis migrated (like Kosminski) to the UK, the US, Australia etc, long before the Nazis came to power. They left their relatives behind and we can test their descendants' DNA. We can therefore deduce the mtDNA profiles of those who died, if not individually, then overall.

2. The nature of mtDNA and its mutations suggest that most Jews descend (through the maternal line) from a tiny handful of women who arrived in Europe about a millennium ago. There is no reason to think that this is untypical of those who died in the camps. I quote:

Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.

Source:

Doron M. Behar et al, The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event

[sleekviper]

The first point is basically what I am thinking; test results from unbroken lines rather than just a broad association. Point two kind of backs it up with saying "close to half" rather than "over half". If it were me, I would need to base results on equal footing, which would mean an unbroken line to know that the war played no part in the mutation results of what is considered rare.

[John G]

Yes John, and the common haplogroup T1 (and therefore its sub-clade T1a1) that purports to be from Kosminski (despite being quite uncommon amongst Ashkenazis) includes 315.1C, or, as it is described by JL and RE, 314.1C and, as we know, that is extremely rare

Hi Mick,

Now i'm really confused. Is it now being argued that Kosminski and Eddowes shared a rare genetic mutation? And I thought 314.1c related to the hypervariable region and that this was a means of determining the haplogroup. Is it now being argued that Kosminski was not haplogroup T1a1? If so, why did JL and RE say he was?

I am very confused and seriously considering signing up for a genetics course!

Cheers,

John

[Fisherman]

Hi Mick,

Now i'm really confused. Is it now being argued that Kosminski and Eddowes shared a rare genetic mutation? And I thought 314.1c related to the hypervariable region and that this was a means of determining the haplogroup. Is it now being argued that Kosminski was not haplogroup T1a1? If so, why did JL and RE say he was?

I am very confused and seriously considering signing up for a genetics course!

Cheers,

John

Save the money, John - genetics won´t solve the Ripper riddle anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Now i'm really confused. Is it now being argued that Kosminski and Eddowes shared a rare genetic mutation? And I thought 314.1c related to the hypervariable region and that this was a means of determining the haplogroup. Is it now being argued that Kosminski was not haplogroup T1a1? If so, why did JL and RE say he was?

The basis of that T1a1 identification isn't clear, unfortunately. In the book, the 100%/99.2% match between the shawl DNA and 'M's' DNA is presented in the final chapter, then there is a sort of cliff-hanger ending, which leaves them waiting for geographical information. Then at the beginning of the conclusion, we get the results of a comparison with a "collection of DNA databases stored at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), based in Bethesda, USA." That's where the T1a1 haplotype comes from.

What's not clear is why the geographical origin wouldn't already have been clear from the match with 'M's' DNA, why the haplotype wouldn't have been clear for the same reason, and exactly what information from the shawl sequence was used for the match with the database.

But perhaps this subject should have its own thread ...

[John G]

The basis of that T1a1 identification isn't clear, unfortunately. In the book, the 100%/99.2% match between the shawl DNA and 'M's' DNA is presented in the final chapter, then there is a sort of cliff-hanger ending, which leaves them waiting for geographical information. Then at the beginning of the conclusion, we get the results of a comparison with a "collection of DNA databases stored at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), based in Bethesda, USA." That's where the T1a1 haplotype comes from.

What's not clear is why the geographical origin wouldn't already have been clear from the match with 'M's' DNA, why the haplotype wouldn't have been clear for the same reason, and exactly what information from the shawl sequence was used for the match with the database.

But perhaps this subject should have its own thread ...

Thanks for this Chris. I must say much of this is now going completely over my head! The reason I asked the question is that I thought that haplogroup T1a1, although not particularly common, wasn't rare either. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the statistics.

[Chris]

Thanks for this Chris. I must say much of this is now going completely over my head! The reason I asked the question is that I thought that haplogroup T1a1, although not particularly common, wasn't rare either. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the statistics.

Well, I really hope we'll get more information soon.

It's understandable that people are busy, but on the other hand it's quite a serious thing to accuse someone posthumously of murder, and even though it's a long time ago there are still great-nephews and -nieces of Aaron Kozminski living. I think there is a real responsibility on those concerned to provide credible evidence to back up the claims that have been published, especially considering the help that was given in the first place by members of this community.

[Robert]

Hopefully we'll get some answers. Some people seem to have made up their minds already, to judge from the flowers feature on this :

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=135577377

[Chris]

Hopefully we'll get some answers. Some people seem to have made up their minds already, to judge from the flowers feature on this :



http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...GRid=135577377

That's sad, and I must say at the moment I am regretting my involvement in this research.

[Robert]

No need to, Chris - not your fault.

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,

Now i'm really confused. Is it now being argued that Kosminski and Eddowes shared a rare genetic mutation? And I thought 314.1c related to the hypervariable region and that this was a means of determining the haplogroup. Is it now being argued that Kosminski was not haplogroup T1a1? If so, why did JL and RE say he was?

I am very confused and seriously considering signing up for a genetics course!

Cheers,

John

Confusion seems entirely appropriate John. I am as well. My post that you quote was possibly slightly facetious. 314.1c is, it seems, a misnomer for 315.1c which is in the HVR2 region. on its own, it doesn't define the haplogroup and can occur in many different haplogroups. T1a1 has it. I have it, and I'm mtDNA haplogroup K1a.

The DNA that is alleged to be Kosminski is haplogroup T1a1 and therefore will have 315.1c which is, so far as anyone can tell from the info in the book, a misnomer for the very 'rare' 314.1c allegedly defining the Eddowes DNA. If it really is a misnomer then it ain't rare so the 'clincher' that 'identifies' Eddowes is no such thing.

We don't know what JL and RE are up to. So far, I am very unimpressed. I do think it's time for JL to come out and explain. It's a month now, and Kosminski rellies are entitled to know something of the science. Frankly, from the little that Chris has told us about his questions to JL, it shouldn't be that hard a job to respond.

[mickreed]

That's sad, and I must say at the moment I am regretting my involvement in this research.

Damned sad,Chris. But as Robert says, not your fault. There are some odd people about.