Louis Kessler’s Behold Blog The Behold User Forum
Blog Comments
282.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 21 Dec 2015
Thank you for this Justin. Do you know if the system is documented and formalized anywhere, or is it an informal system you all use?.
It is a bit different in goal because I'm aiming at DNA relationship mapping for the purpose of stating just blood relationships and the expected percentage of DNA shared, so ...
283.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by justincyork - 21 Dec 2015
While developing fs-traversal we had a need to describe arbitrary relationships. We came up with a similar notation with letters representing each step. Though we wanted to know both the direction and gender (if possible) so we came up with:
s = son
d = daughter
c = child
m = mother
f = father
h = ...
284.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
Actually, the bottom of: http://gcbias.org/2013/12/02/how-many-genomic-blocks-do-you-share-with-a-cousin/ gets into the sort of thing I would look for, and it describes the Poisson distribution of shared blocks in a genomic region. My stats background would allow me to do the calculations necessary.
But ...
285.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
Rob: I was looking into possibly giving ranges of percentages. I did look for, but was unable to find any statistics about the random nature of how DNA combines. If I had some theoretical study that estimated the combinatorial probabilities, then I might be willing to include ranges using that.
But I don't ...
286.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by robhoare - 20 Dec 2015
Thanks for fixing up the first comment (it did show that angle brackets was a bad choice!). Allowing more than one ancestor inside the parentheses does make the string a bit harder to parse and count: for example it's easy to see that YY(Y)YYYY (all male descendants both sides from a male MRCA) will share ...
287.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
Tony:
Getting me to think again, aren't you.
The purpose of this notation is to precisely define a known relationship between two people, so I wasn't thinking of determining the relationship from the DNA.
However, the wonderful byproduct is that this notation could now make that possible. With the ...
288.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
I really like your ideas, Rob. I was originally thinking of maybe using a different letter, or a different color, or maybe bold text. But parenthesis is better because it can be transferred as raw text and has the advantage of being able to include both common ancestors if desired as in: XYX(XY)XY. I've now ...
289.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by acproctor - 20 Dec 2015
I'm glad someone is looking at this Louis, but there's a part of the proposal that I don't quite understand. Imagine that a DNA test shows that two people have some genetic connection. Obviously, it doesn't imply that either one is descended from the other, but probably indicates that they have a common ...
290.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by robhoare - 19 Dec 2015
The angle brackets in my previous comment where removed by the commenting software (it probably thinks they're html tags), so they're out. :-)
For example, on the "A suggestion for the MRCA" there was a Y inside greater than and less than signs before the final XY of XYXXY. Parentheses would work better.
Prev 271-280
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by robhoare - 23 Dec 2015