Jump to content


Photo

Mitochondrial Dna From Hair.


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Branco

Branco

    Chiye-tanka

  • Members
  • 754 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:09 PM

I posted the following information on the Alabama Bigfoot Forums today. (Rockinkt - a forum member here mentioned the lab.)

Mitotyping Technologies told me they have done mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analyses on small fragments of hair for over ten years. They state they are sucessful in recovering mtDNA from such hair 99.5% of the time. The odds would be a little better than that because the OKLA hair has not been significantly degraded by time or weathering. The hair would be cleansed to insure there is no contamination. They believe they can determine whether the hair is from a human or from any other known primate.

The test will cost about $1500.

Is anyone interested?


I would like to solicit opinions, especially from those member here that have a scientific background, as to the value of the analyses if:

1) The analyses revealed that the hair's mDNA NEARLY matched that of a human,

2) The mDNA showed similaries to particular wild primates but were not the same; and,

3) The mDNA did not match that of any known and classified animal.

What would be the objective and initial opinions of the lab results by those educated in the sciences?
  • 0

"If you see one, just admire it and appreciate it, but hands off. Just admire'em, cause it's part of the good Lord's creation."  Charles Branson. retired USFS employee, July, 2011-Le Flore County. OK. (KTEN TV news.)

 

"The area has beaver, badger, grouse, waterfowl, rabbits, moose, deer, marten, coyote, squirrels., bears, cougars, bobcat, porcupines, and many sasquatch sightings." --- Evasion/training chart, 1ST Edition May 2003, USAF Survival School, North East area, Sherman Peak Training Area, WA, 


#2 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:42 PM

I posted the following information on the Alabama Bigfoot Forums today. (Rockinkt - a forum member here mentioned the lab.)

Mitotyping Technologies told me they have done mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analyses on small fragments of hair for over ten years. They state they are sucessful in recovering mtDNA from such hair 99.5% of the time. The odds would be a little better than that because the OKLA hair has not been significantly degraded by time or weathering. The hair would be cleansed to insure there is no contamination. They believe they can determine whether the hair is from a human or from any other known primate.

The test will cost about $1500.

Is anyone interested?


I would like to solicit opinions, especially from those member here that have a scientific background, as to the value of the analyses if:

1) The analyses revealed that the hair's mDNA NEARLY matched that of a human,

2) The mDNA showed similaries to particular wild primates but were not the same; and,

3) The mDNA did not match that of any known and classified animal.

What would be the objective and initial opinions of the lab results by those educated in the sciences?


If you want an unambiguous answer, contact Todd Disotell.
Anyone who gives an ambiguous answer on an adequate specimen is pulling your leg and pulling your wallet out of your pocket, or is just incompetent to do this sort of analysis. This "almost human" and "unknown primate" stuff is what I am referring to.
These "forensic" DNA labs are NOT what you want, imho. They are set up to match Billy Bob's semen to Billy Bob's cheek swab or investigate Rover's family tree. I am exaggerating but that is not what you want. You'll waste 1500 clams, imho.
  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#3 vilnoori

vilnoori

    Yeti

  • Inactive
  • 2,666 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:55 PM

Personally I get the impression that Todd Disotell is no longer impartial. He has made up his mind about the sasquatch question to the negative, and says so quite openly. His reason is simply that because his lab has had many samples sent in and so far had no positive indications it means that the case is closed. I agree--that it indicates a closed mind, not a closed case.

And yes, mitochondrial DNA is enough to indicate a new species of hominin may exist, however, you must be careful to get a lab that do the right tests. For example, the recent announcement of so called X-woman, from a single small finger bone. The number of labs that do this quality of work is not that high, and that is more of the issue. So yes, be careful.

http://news.national...ova-dna-nature/
  • 0

#4 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,986 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 05:38 PM

If you were to pay 1500 for the test, I would insist on the actual results in hand, none of this , "in our opinion" it is this or that. You want something you can take and get second opinions on. The actual sequence extracted in other words. Humans are variable as Todd Disotell would tell you. Any human sample would match other human samples within 99.1 to 99.999999 percent. I would'nt want some lab to just stretch that downward to avoid some other possible conclusion. Remember that this lab apparently prides itself on positive ID's (think, there is no unknown out there) and they may not wish to conclude such a thing as an undiscovered hominid.
  • 0
www.texlaresearch.com

"The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes."Nikola Tesla

Body + human DNA = Human

#5 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,986 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:09 PM

I would also be on gaurd against certain ID techniques ,such as the use of the barcode analysis based on the COI gene as noted in the following link. It is an effective tool in ID of known species but is said to be not so reliable in ID of cryptic species.

http://www.bolinfone...NA_barcodes.pdf
  • 0
www.texlaresearch.com

"The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes."Nikola Tesla

Body + human DNA = Human

#6 driftinmark

driftinmark

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 691 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:21 PM

do not contact Todd Disotell.........

try another lab like this place......

http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/

they are working on compiling tests in what you are looking for......but be forewarned , do you want to spend 1500 clams to find out its a cow?

be sure of what you send in........

this is disotell talking about "crazy theories "

starts about 7 mins in


  • 0

#7 vilnoori

vilnoori

    Yeti

  • Inactive
  • 2,666 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:57 PM

I think the thing that perked up the dnadiagnostics lab's interest was they combined the microscopic AND the DNA test. So they got a hair sample, and it tested human for DNA, BUT the size (diameter) of the hair shafts was as large as a horse, and therefore outside the normal human parameters which happened to be known by the researcher (who must be a thorough type of scientist and not just interested in mere debunking). Since I've always thought that going according to foot morphology, if sasquatch exists, it is a type of human, perhaps a sub-species or even within our species (able to interbreed) but having a different size and other slight differences (such as comparing a wolf to a toy poodle or even to a coyote), it may just possibly test out as human DNA at a certain level of testing. BUT if you went further, did the type of tests that the Max Plank lab does in Europe instead of the standard animal typing testing Todd Disotell et al are doing, you might come up with something much more interesting. Word has it that this lab is indeed going to come out with a paper soon. Good for them, and I'm really looking forward to hearing about it.
  • 2

#8 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,986 posts

Posted 18 September 2010 - 12:14 PM

I think the thing that perked up the dnadiagnostics lab's interest was they combined the microscopic AND the DNA test. So they got a hair sample, and it tested human for DNA, BUT the size (diameter) of the hair shafts was as large as a horse, and therefore outside the normal human parameters which happened to be known by the researcher (who must be a thorough type of scientist and not just interested in mere debunking). Since I've always thought that going according to foot morphology, if sasquatch exists, it is a type of human, perhaps a sub-species or even within our species (able to interbreed) but having a different size and other slight differences (such as comparing a wolf to a toy poodle or even to a coyote), it may just possibly test out as human DNA at a certain level of testing. BUT if you went further, did the type of tests that the Max Plank lab does in Europe instead of the standard animal typing testing Todd Disotell et al are doing, you might come up with something much more interesting. Word has it that this lab is indeed going to come out with a paper soon. Good for them, and I'm really looking forward to hearing about it.



My bolding,

Exactly, I haven't seen any evidence that Disotell is using morphology as any indication of sample origins. I haven't seen any sequence data from the unknowns sent to him either. He just comes out and says he found this DNA or that, which leaves no ability for independent review of the findings.

Edited by southernyahoo, 18 September 2010 - 12:15 PM.

  • 0
www.texlaresearch.com

"The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes."Nikola Tesla

Body + human DNA = Human

#9 Branco

Branco

    Chiye-tanka

  • Members
  • 754 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:12 AM

If you want an unambiguous answer, contact Todd Disotell.
Anyone who gives an ambiguous answer on an adequate specimen is pulling your leg and pulling your wallet out of your pocket, or is just incompetent to do this sort of analysis. This "almost human" and "unknown primate" stuff is what I am referring to.
These "forensic" DNA labs are NOT what you want, imho. They are set up to match Billy Bob's semen to Billy Bob's cheek swab or investigate Rover's family tree. I am exaggerating but that is not what you want. You'll waste 1500 clams, imho.


Thanks, but no thanks. After seeing the video posted by "driftingmar", and before I even got the sound turned up, he was pretty well ruled out. After hearing his opinions, he was firmly ruled out.

And the terms I used in my questions, ("almost human" and "unknown primate") of course were mine, not a lab's wording.
  • 0

"If you see one, just admire it and appreciate it, but hands off. Just admire'em, cause it's part of the good Lord's creation."  Charles Branson. retired USFS employee, July, 2011-Le Flore County. OK. (KTEN TV news.)

 

"The area has beaver, badger, grouse, waterfowl, rabbits, moose, deer, marten, coyote, squirrels., bears, cougars, bobcat, porcupines, and many sasquatch sightings." --- Evasion/training chart, 1ST Edition May 2003, USAF Survival School, North East area, Sherman Peak Training Area, WA, 


#10 will

will

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,114 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 05:47 PM

Nice try parnassus :P :D

Could someone tell me how close a chimp DNA is to a human.

Thanks

Edited by will, 19 September 2010 - 05:48 PM.

  • 0

#11 BobZenor

BobZenor

    Yeti

  • Sésquac
  • 2,309 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 09:42 PM

The mitochondrial sequence used in the test of a chimp and a human are about 91 percent the same. They are far enough apart that even just a few hundred base pairs is enough. If it were something very close to a modern human like Neanderthal or the example suggested you would want several hundred base pairs. The more the better. Neanderthals would be roughly ten times more similar to us than a chimp.

There is also an added problem if they are very close. There could be hybrids and that could give them modern human mitochondrial DNA that are passed down from the mother.
  • 0

#12 gigantor

gigantor

    Sasquatch

  • Tech
  • 5,308 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 12:31 AM

Bob, just a question to augment my general fund of knowledge, which is not great about DNA analysis.

Does DNA analysis for comparison between samples rely on a statistical analysis? I have a computer science background so I'm familiar with statistical analysis in my field.

Also, do you know of a basic explanation / overview of the comparison process? If so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would point me to it.

Thanks.

Edited by gigantor, 26 September 2010 - 12:44 AM.

  • 0

#13 BobZenor

BobZenor

    Yeti

  • Sésquac
  • 2,309 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 05:55 PM

I only understand the basic biology of it but don't have the practical experience doing the analysis. It would probably require someone that does these sorts of analysis to get a reliable answer to that specific of a question.

There are so many articles about the subject that I couldn't remember how to find some of the better ones.
This one was pretty good on the basic background.
  • 0

#14 vilnoori

vilnoori

    Yeti

  • Inactive
  • 2,666 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 11:46 PM

Nice try parnassus :P :D

Could someone tell me how close a chimp DNA is to a human.

Thanks


The DNA is very similar, however, a simpler test can distinguish ape from human: a chromosome count. Apes have 24 pairs, humans have 23 (one fewer pair). Chromosome 2 in humans seems to consist of two chromosomes in apes that fused. These chromosomes even code for the same general proteins in the same areas on the chromosomes. Amazing, eh.

http://www.gate.net/..._ape_chrom.html

However, the odds seem pretty good that the DNA of a sasquatch would actually be human. Including the number of chromosomes. The foot is the most human-like of any hominins that we know of, or at least the most like a neanderthals.

Edited by vilnoori, 26 September 2010 - 11:48 PM.

  • 0

#15 BobTo

BobTo

    Wildman

  • Readers
  • 120 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 05:31 AM

Did you see this posted here in the "Announcements" forum?

http://bigfootforums...troduce-myself/

May be of some help.?.?
  • 0

#16 vilnoori

vilnoori

    Yeti

  • Inactive
  • 2,666 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 11:24 AM

Awesome. Yet another good place to send DNA samples to.

Info from Wikipedia's entry on the Denisova hominin (x-woman): http://en.wikipedia....enisova_hominin

Little is known of the anatomical features of the individual in question since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone from which only mitochondrial genetic material was gathered. The Siberian bone's mtDNA differs from that of modern humans by 385 bases (nucleotides) in the mtDNA strand out of approximately 16,500, whereas the difference between modern humans and Neanderthals is around 202 bases. In contrast, the difference between chimpanzees and modern humans is approximately 1,462 mtDNA base pairs. Analysis of the specimen's nuclear DNA is under way and is expected to clarify whether the find is a distinct species.[1][4] Even though the Denisova hominin's mtDNA lineage predates the divergence of modern humans and Neanderthals, coalescent theory does not preclude a more recent divergence date for her nuclear DNA.


I've been wanting to post this image in a while as well:

Posted Image

Edited by vilnoori, 19 October 2010 - 11:48 AM.

  • 0

#17 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 12:36 PM

The DNA is very similar, however, a simpler test can distinguish ape from human: a chromosome count. Apes have 24 pairs, humans have 23 (one fewer pair). Chromosome 2 in humans seems to consist of two chromosomes in apes that fused. These chromosomes even code for the same general proteins in the same areas on the chromosomes. Amazing, eh.

http://www.gate.net/..._ape_chrom.html

However, the odds seem pretty good that the DNA of a sasquatch would actually be human. Including the number of chromosomes. The foot is the most human-like of any hominins that we know of, or at least the most like a neanderthals.

Vil: I hope everyone realizes that the link you give is basically concerned with the microscopic appearance of stained chromosomes, a rather old technique which does not analyze DNA.

Your statement "the odds seem pretty good that the DNA of a sasquatch would actually be human" is interesting to me, because 1)you have no evidence for it and 2)this is exactly what I believe Paulides (and Ketchum) is going to try to tell you...bigfoot is a human with weird hair....it's brilliant marketing. It won't stand up to scientific scrutiny, but they might get it published in a veterinary journal and it will please bigfoot proponents no end.

Having said that, let me qualify that and say that most historic accounts (before the hoaxing era) of "sasquatch" (Anglo and/or tribal accounts) were actually accounts of other races of human, neighboring tribesmen or homeless or crazy or deaf/dumb or homeless unshaven derelicts. If we had photographs, that would be obvious, and if we had DNA from those old accounts, it would substantiate that they were human beings. But if you believe in today's Bigfoot, the post-Bluff Creek, 7 plus foot tall, 400 lb, huge loosy goosey feet, covered in hair, Patty style bigfoot, with literally super-natural powers in avoiding humans, then the idea that this modern "creature" would have human DNA is just unsupportable, scientifically. Again, please write to Jeff Meldrum and tell him your idea that Sasquatch has human DNA and see what he says.

Edited by parnassus, 19 October 2010 - 12:39 PM.

  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#18 vilnoori

vilnoori

    Yeti

  • Inactive
  • 2,666 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 01:34 PM

Parnassus, you do know that the appelation "Homo" means human, right? Have a look at the morphology of what "Homo" includes. Chances are very good that the DNA will follow the morphology as has been the case, for the most part, with the rest of the fauna. There are many now who make a case for the genus Homo to include Australopithecines, as well. But that is another debate entirely. And lets not forget about little Homo floresiensis. She too is human. If you can include a tiny three foot tall hominin in the genus Homo then why not a larger possible equivalent?

My point is that humanity includes, over the last two million years, a great deal of morphological diversity. Chances are very good that Denisova woman is going to be either a very small H. georgicus or possibly something similar to H. floresiensis or H. habilis. And Denisova is human. As you can see from the mitochondrial map above she is much closer to Neanderthals than to chimps.

Here is a good overview of the whole subject. Click on point 3, "Genus Homo." homepage.mac.com/wis/Personal/lectures/

Also lets do a bit of number crunching on the mitochondrial DNA differences. Out of 16, 500 base pairs, a chimp differs 8.9% from that. Denisova differs 2.3%. Neanderthals differ 1.2% from modern human mDNA.

Edited by vilnoori, 19 October 2010 - 01:49 PM.

  • 0

#19 bipedalist

bipedalist

    Sasquatch

  • Researcher 1
  • 12,107 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 11:00 AM

Ketchum stated on the blogtalk radio show BF Busters last night that because there is mtDNA in as many as a hundred organelles in each cell, the probability of finding the needle in the haystack goes up significantly when compared to expending that one bullet shot looking for nuclear DNA (if I heard her right).Edited to add it sounds like the mtDNA produces many "snippets" or sequences but the nuclear seems to provide a wider catalog or volume of sequences if it is not degraded.

Edited by bipedalist, 01 November 2010 - 12:56 PM.

  • 0

#20 Spazmo

Spazmo

    Chiye-tanka

  • Inactive
  • 807 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 12:03 PM

Your statement "the odds seem pretty good that the DNA of a sasquatch would actually be human" is interesting to me, because 1)you have no evidence for it and 2)this is exactly what I believe Paulides (and Ketchum) is going to try to tell you...bigfoot is a human with weird hair....it's brilliant marketing. It won't stand up to scientific scrutiny, but they might get it published in a veterinary journal and it will please bigfoot proponents no end.

Vil has no evidence for "the odds seeming pretty good"? Exactly what type of evidence would you like in this regard, Parn? This sounds to me like an educated opinion, not a statement of fact. Agree?

Having said that, let me qualify that and say that most historic accounts (before the hoaxing era) of "sasquatch" (Anglo and/or tribal accounts) were actually accounts of other races of human, neighboring tribesmen or homeless or crazy or deaf/dumb or homeless unshaven derelicts. If we had photographs, that would be obvious, and if we had DNA from those old accounts, it would substantiate that they were human beings. But if you believe in today's Bigfoot, the post-Bluff Creek, 7 plus foot tall, 400 lb, huge loosy goosey feet, covered in hair, Patty style bigfoot, with literally super-natural powers in avoiding humans, then the idea that this modern "creature" would have human DNA is just unsupportable, scientifically. Again, please write to Jeff Meldrum and tell him your idea that Sasquatch has human DNA and see what he says.

Ah, here we go, another perfect example. This is far from any sort of established fact, yet you seem to state it as such. This is common from you, as is your criticism of others for what you perceive to be the same thing.
This type of debate strategy isn't scoring you any points or helping to support your theories. At least throw in an "IMO" once in a while if what you're stating is your opinion and not established fact.
  • 0