A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[tji]

Mr P - or Mr Lucky - Tracy?. Or are they the same?

No Mick we are not all the same, Mr P and Mr Lucky are. I am one of a kind

tj

[mickreed]

No Mick we are not all the same, Mr P and Mr Lucky are. I am one of a kind

tj

Bugger, Tracy,

Mr P has mellowed muchly on jtrforums. I have begun to rather like him.

Mr Lucky would do well to emulate P.

Hi ho.

[tji]

Hi Mick


Ignore me, they are not the same person, me getting my wires crossed completely. Apologies for the confusion.

Tracy

[mickreed]

Hi Mick


Ignore me, they are not the same person, me getting my wires crossed completely. Apologies for the confusion.

Tracy

Great Tracy,

As I say Mr P seems all right these days.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mr. Lucky,

So, are you a Kosminski man now?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky

I'll try again.

What I am asking you is whether you agree that the sequence denoted by 314.1C is identical with the sequence denoted by 315.1C, as shown in (2) and (3) below:

(1) This is the reference sequence for mitochondrial DNA starting at position 310:
TCCCCCG

(2) This is what 314.1C means (claimed frequency 1 in 290,000):
TCCCCCCG

(3) This is what 315.1C means (frequency in database 99.2%):
TCCCCCCG

If you don't agree with that, I am asking you to point out where you claim the error is in what I have posted.

By all means say that you don't understand what 314.1C means, if that is the problem.

I have no idea whether it's correct or not, as once again you have failed to cite the source of the information correctly.

As I said earlier, perhaps you should get someone to help you with this.

[Mr Lucky]

Yet you have no problem with insulting people Mr P?




Seriously below the belt!! Chris has posted everything he can to help ensure poster's have the correct information available, although I can see why people stop sharing when all they do is get **** on!

Tj

Dear Matilda,

It's no good threatening me with exclusion, I'm already excluded.

[Mr Lucky]

Mr. Lucky,

So, are you a Kosminski man now?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

No I'm not , I'm just a 'gullible science believer'

[Mr Lucky]

I thought I would put forward a response to what I think is being suggested in the largely incoherent op. This is my personal interpretation on some of the issues raised. I'm making no claims that this is correct, it's largely a result of a couple of hours googling the other day - and unlike Chris I'm not claiming any sort of expertise over this

A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

Firstly and most importantly, nothing produced so far suggest any sort of problem with the "DNA match" - we actually know next to nothing about this match at all. What we have been told by Chris is that there is a problem with the nomenclature in this part of the mtDNA (314) - this is clearly completely independent from the issue of whether these two samples match or not.

At best this 'problem' can only ever be said to effect the statistical likely hood of the two sample matching, not whether they actually match or not.

The title is unnecessarily provocative and disingenuous

"One of these amplified mtDNA segments had a sequence variation which have a match between one of the shawl samples and Karen Miller’s DNA only; i.e. the DNA sequence retrieved from the shawl did not match with control reference sequences. This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/ 290,000. This figure has been calculated using the database at Institute of Legal Medicine, GMI, based on the latest available information."

Above is the quote from post 1, if we break this down into shorter sections.

"One of these amplified mtDNA segments had a sequence variation which have a match between one of the shawl samples and Karen Miller’s DNA only;"

this DNA "sequence variation" is the difference between the standard DNA as found in various data bases and that found in two of samples tested - one of the shawl samples and Karen Miller's. - of all the samples tested this particular sequence variation is only found in these two, this why these two samples are then assumed to have a shared common origin.

The problem with the nomenclature at 314/ 315 is universal, and will by definition effect all samples. This leads me to suggest that it is not the same as the DNA "sequence variation" which was found only in two of the many samples tested.

"i.e. the DNA sequence retrieved from the shawl did not match with control reference sequences."

This same sequence of DNA, the "sequence variation" did not match with those known sequences found in standard databases. We know the variations in the poly-cytosine region are found in these databases. This again leads me to suggest that what is referred to as a "sequence variation" in not the same as the known problem with variations in the poly-cytosine region.

"This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation"

A loose definition of a "global private mutation" is a mutation found in a sample of DNA that is not found in any DNA databases. (can anyone start to see a problem with the notion that because this "sequence variation" is not found in the DNA databases it doesn't exist?)

"(314.1C)"

The problem with the nomenclature appears to be caused by the variation in the number of C's in the "poly-cytosine region". When the numbering system was adopted the mass samples used gave the result that there were 5 C's at locations 311, 312, 313, 314 and 315. However it has now become known that there are large numbers of people carrying 6 or even 7 C's in this region. The only option as far as nomenclature went was to simply add the other C's at region 315 (for 6C's instead of five) and at region 314 (7C's instead of five) - rather than renumbering everything in the whole of the mtDNA (similar to when a new additional house in a pre existing row between numbers 23 and 24 would be called 23a)

310 -T
311 -C
312 -C
313 -C
314 -C
314.1C -C
315 -C
315.1C -C
316 - G

I would suggest that 315.2C is another way of referencing 314.1C - It may depend on what rules that particular database had adopted.

I would suggest that the 'global private mutation' found in the Eddowes family mtDNA is not "314.1C" but starts at location 314.1C

"and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/ 290,000. This figure has been calculated using the database at Institute of Legal Medicine, GMI, based on the latest available information."

I don't have enough information to comment on this

[Tom_Wescott]

Why is ol' Teej being called Matilda and Lucky is being called Mr. Poster? Somebody or somebodies are very confused.

Lucky, so you believe Eddowes' DNA is on the shawl but not Kosminski's?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mickreed]

Why is ol' Teej being called Matilda and Lucky is being called Mr. Poster? Somebody or somebodies are very confused.

Lucky, so you believe Eddowes' DNA is on the shawl but not Kosminski's?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I can only assume Tom, that Lucky saw ol' Teej on the dance floor, waltzin', and so assumed she was Matilda.

And poor ol' Mr P must have thought it was his lucky day to be confused with the other mister.

And now I'm confused.

[Chris]

Mr Lucky

No - 314.1C simply means the insertion of a C after position 314, just as 315.1C means the insertion of a C after position 315.

The situation where there is a series of seven Cs would be described as 315.1C 315.2C. Anyone perverse enough could indeed describe it as 314.1C 315.1C, or in various other non-standard ways. But clearly they couldn't describe it simply as 314.1C, because that would mean only one extra C had been inserted, not two.

Incidentally, if you put 315.1C 315.2C into the EMPOP database, you'll see that while it is rare - about 0.18% - it's not remotely as rare as 1 in 290,000.

[Debra A]

Hi Pete
I have to agree with everything Chris has just said.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pete
I have to agree with everything Chris has just said.

Uh oh, Mr. Lucky's in trouble now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mr Lucky]

Lucky, so you believe Eddowes' DNA is on the shawl but not Kosminski's?

Don't you get this? It's nothing to do with what I believe Tom, I can detect BS about DNA when I see it , it's a simple as that really and I object to it. Someone has got to stick up for science here against the mob, and I'm sure there may be others who would like too, but are not confident enough about the subject and are scared of being brow beaten out of it - frankly I'd rather some one else did it - but if I have too, I will.