111-Marker mutation rates(4)

The results of the estimation done on 8 June were:

Model data                                                         34 markers, all in the 111-marker test
Sources                                                               Ballantyne et al, Burgarella & Vascues, YHRD
No of mutations                                                888
No of meioses                                                    240417
SS of error term (34 markers)                        0.00019511
R-squared (34 markers)                                  0.426
F-statistic  (34 markers)                                  11.521
Sum of mutation rates (111 markers)            0.432183

Results 1 July 2011

SS of error term (34 markers)                        0.00017187
R-squared (34 markers)                                  0.505
F-statistic  (34 markers)                                  15.845
Sum of mutation rates (111 markers)            0.409573

Results 24 July 2011

SS of error term (34 markers)                         0.00016189
R-squared (34 markers)                                   0.541
F-statistic  (34 markers)                                   18.25
Sum of mutation rates (111 markers)            0.413878

This is starting to look encouraging and a satisfactory fit may be possible in perhaps a month’s time. What seems to have happened is that the fit has improved as more 111-marker results have become known. Nine of the 34 markers included in the fit are in markers 68-111.

A file with the latest fit is at

 http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/MOD2307.xlsx

If you have an old version of Excel, you may have to use this link:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/Copy%20of%20MOD2307.xls

The columns are

A     DYS/DYF code
B     Marker order in 111-marker series
C     Observed M222 vriance
D     Observed L21 variance
E     Model mutation rate
F     Observed mutation rate
G     Square of error term

What’s interesting is that the estimated mutation rates of the much maligned markers CDYa,b are far lower than is commonly suggested, with a higher rate suggested for DYS710 that for CDYa,b.

It would be premature to use these modelled rates for any serious work at this stage.     

Thrice.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>