PDA

View Full Version : About nonsensicality of personal mt testing nad ficional matrylines once again...



Rethel
11-27-2018, 02:15 PM
Here: https://indo-european.eu/2018/11/biparental-inheritance-of-mitochondrial-dna-in-humans/?fbclid=IwAR1gxETVLZDyxwY6vja9kakyNokc08LoKzW5dLA8 uB1-TgwHm2S1jYY0kTQ

And that would be all. Case closed.
I have been repeating this since years over and over again.

Megalophias
11-27-2018, 04:04 PM
Thanks for the link.

study in question:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/11/21/1810946115

Not a completely new phenomenon, but here a more thorough study in multiple individuals.

Saetro
11-28-2018, 08:54 PM
Here: https://indo-european.eu/2018/11/biparental-inheritance-of-mitochondrial-dna-in-humans/?fbclid=IwAR1gxETVLZDyxwY6vja9kakyNokc08LoKzW5dLA8 uB1-TgwHm2S1jYY0kTQ

And that would be all. Case closed.
I have been repeating this since years over and over again.

Your conclusions do not accord with the material of the article.
They show that a small number of individuals who suffer some nasty genetic diseases came to be that way because in about 1 / 5000 individuals this unusual transmission occurs.
So, in about 4999 cases / 5000, it is perfectly valid to assume mtDNA comes from the mother.

spruithean
11-28-2018, 09:48 PM
This is so rare it does not really change much at the population level.

Rethel
11-28-2018, 10:02 PM
So, in about 4999 cases / 5000, it is perfectly valid to assume mtDNA comes from the mother.

Rare enuagh to make a difference was allready BEFORE that study.
AFTER this study it is much more relevant. Btw, you can;t also know,
when the paternal transsmission happend, so it makes whole ficional line
ficional much more. And further sudies will proof that it is more often.

1 on 5000 = 11 000 people in England have it right now.
Multiply it by the number of generations from the emerging
of the mt hg, and then you will find, that noone in England
has the right mt. And I am not even talking about the larger
spreading of wrong mt by having more children than average,
what is also an important factor.


This is so rare it does not really change much at the population level.

This is why I wrote about "nonsensicality of testing personal mt".
Mt is relevant as any other genetic feature, which is only usefull
in population, big population study, when it is not sure, why such
and such opulation looks as it looks, when it speaks such and such
and in contradiction such and such people did migrated. Just one
of many puzzels helping to explain some historical mysteries in
RARE cases, where is not enaugh and decisive proving material.

Saetro
11-29-2018, 08:44 PM
And I am not even talking about the larger
spreading of wrong mt by having more children than average,
what is also an important factor.

Where does this come from?
We have 3 additional cases (with another sibling presumed to be affected).
Where is anything mentioned on the number of children from such cases?

And is this statement likely?
Why would anyone in a pre-industrial age want to marry someone who had chronic fatigue?
The other symptoms mentioned would also tend towards lower marriageability.

An great-uncle had his foot stepped on by a horse when he was a child so limped thereafter. No other bad effects.
He could work, but his marriageability was almost zero in that community, because that community had occupations that all depended on personal mobility to earn the sort of income that was needed for a family of typical size.
And I know of other minor examples - all lesser ones than these appear to be.

Longer term effects of what happens in one generation are important but our current generation (and the past one) has ways of coping with disability that were not present in the deeper past, particularly the pre-industrial past.

Let's face it, some people consider one contrary example to completely destroy any usefulness of an overwhelming correlation.
We need people like that to be in charge of things like airplane safety.
For other situations, if most examples point in one direction, that correlation is useful in decision making. Even if it holds in only 99.9% of cases.

msmarjoribanks
11-30-2018, 04:58 AM
My dad's matrilineal line is traced back to an Ursula Kimball, wife of Richard Kimball, both of whom were from Rattlesden, Suffolk, and went to Massachusetts Bay colony (settling in Watertown) on a ship called the Elizabeth in 1634 (left Ipswich in April, arrived in July). Richard was 39 at the time of the voyage, and the couple had numerous children who traveled with them.

Ursula's maiden name was Scott, and several of her and her husband's relatives were also on the ship, including Ursula's brother and his family, and their widowed mother, Martha Scott (born Whatlock). Martha, of course is also my dad's matrilineal ancestor. Martha's husband Henry Scott left a will mentioning Martha, Ursula, and his grandchildren, including another matrilineal ancestor, Ursula's daughter Abigail, who came with her family to Massachusetts.

"Marth Watlock" was married to Henry Scott in 1594, and Martha Whatock was baptised in Rattlesden in 1568 (18 Jul), the daughter of Thomas Whatlock and his wife Joane.

The records going back to Ursula Scott were pretty good, since early New England settlers tend to have a lot of documentation, and her descendants ended up becoming Quaker, which also provides good documentation, and also my dad's aunt and cousin had done a bunch of work on this (and related) lines, which were consistent with mine.

However, it was pretty nice that when we tested his mtDNA, he turned out to have many matches (although it's not a particularly common type) who were also matrilineal descendants of Ursula or Abigail or one of her sisters. This seems to me to confirm my paper tree on that line, which is valuable to me.

mtDNA was also important to how the bones of Richard III were identified: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631.

spruithean
11-30-2018, 01:00 PM
I'm going to link this post (https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2018/11/26/can-mtdna-really-come-dad/). Which was written by someone who actually read the study.

In response to Rethel, while it has been confirmed that paternal inheritance can happen it likely co-presents with mitochondrial disease. You also mention 1/5000 is 11,000 people in Britain, out of a total population of ~66,000,000. That is a rather small portion and it is quite isolated to these families in the study, where all of them were suspects of mitochondrial diseases. The vast majority of the population on the planet will have maternal inheritance of their mtDNA and this will not affect someone's genealogical research. If paternal inheritance were to be more common and didn't present with disease it would only change the timing back to mt-Eve and the timings of mtDNA focused studies.

Carlos Quiles also quoted this study in his blog as we all know and specifically bolded important parts. One such part stated that for this inheritance to occur it would be likely that there was a mutation on a nuclear gene that is responsible for the elimination of paternal mtDNA (presumably at conception).

Judith
03-24-2019, 07:55 PM
I'm going to link this post (https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2018/11/26/can-mtdna-really-come-dad/). Which was written by someone who actually read the study.

Carlos Quiles also quoted this study in his blog as we all know and specifically bolded important parts. One such part stated that for this inheritance to occur it would be likely that there was a mutation on a nuclear gene that is responsible for the elimination of paternal mtDNA (presumably at conception).

Thank you for this link and critique since I was not going to pay (not even $10) for the article. Let’s be frank anyone with the disabilities described would have been the ‘village idiot’ and not have children so no transmission would happen unless the mutation was in royalty.

Rethel
03-25-2019, 07:24 PM
unless the mutation was in royalty.

In the past there was much more such 'royalty' in every second village and in every fourth family than in real royalty.

lehavre
03-25-2019, 07:27 PM
Ave Rethel