Guest slimwitless Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Fifty bucks says ya stick around. This Bigfoot ***** like crack ya know.... Ed: add remove expletive. Add goofy emoticons. No...you're right. I probably shouldn't have said that out loud. I was browsing here before all this but I didn't join until the revelations of late June and early July. I'll probably go back into that mode after the dust settles. It's been great fun, actually.
southernyahoo Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Well there are a lot ways that a specimen can be contaminated and the kits that they use to isolate contaminates won't catch everything. You can spend an awful lot of time thinking you are looking at similarities that are really just the same contaminate in each amplification. It can lead to false conclusions regarding the "polymorphisms" seen just like the one we are discussing in this thread. Now if a researcher wants to argue about those polymorphisms versus contaminates it can cause a very big delay in the publication of the sequence when they refuse to remove them. If this is the case as rumored, what is left is probably so close to human that it can't be distinguished from us. That's probably what the hold up is if I had to guess. Jodie, if the samples have anything consistent about them either in morphology or or specific sequences like the insertions and deletions that are not found in humans then there is a cogency of evidence that they represent a unique set that can't be explained with contamination. Thats what they have to find as a minimum.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Speculation What if you bought some bones from a pygmy out of Africa on eBay, then ground them up with some blood from the sample and mixed it together, would happen?
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Jodie, if the samples have anything consistent about them either in morphology or or specific sequences like the insertions and deletions that are not found in humans then there is a cogency of evidence that they represent a unique set that can't be explained with contamination. Thats what they have to find as a minimum. Based on the hear say, evidently whoever is asking for revisions thinks she has misinterpreted contaminates.I know you have your results, but have you compared those to anyone else's , or are you allowed to answer that? Not all of the contaminates are known or picked up in VecScreen, evidently there are some serious issues going on that may interfere with future sequencing. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016410 http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26921/
southernyahoo Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Speculation What if you bought some bones from a pygmy out of Africa on eBay, then ground them up with some blood from the sample and mixed it together, would happen? I think you would then have some mixed up results with double hits along the sequence which wouldn't match well with the other submitted samples.
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Speculation What if you bought some bones from a pygmy out of Africa on eBay, then ground them up with some blood from the sample and mixed it together, would happen? LOLOL- you would get pygmy and the blood sample donor. If it was that easy to hybridize something we would have menotaurs, mermaids, and Medusa. ( your personal favorite, I'm sure.) Edited November 23, 2011 by Jodie
southernyahoo Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Based on the hear say, evidently whoever is asking for revisions thinks she has misinterpreted contaminates.I know you have your results, but have you compared those to anyone else's , or are you allowed to answer that? Not all of the contaminates are known or picked up in VecScreen, evidently there are some serious issues going on that may interfere with future sequencing. http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0016410 http://www.technolog...og/arxiv/26921/ I'm not sure where you are hearing the hear say, but it is probably more speculation than anything concrete. I'm sure reviewers could come up with more experiments to harden the results, which might be expected, but if the samples are contaminated with human DNA then there won't be anything Non-human there right? So it would be puzzeling to me what tests the reviewers could be asking for if all they were seeing is 100% human. I can see wanting to be **** sure the samples weren't just human samples contaminated by something else, but that would not likely be consistent across the samples. The fact the contamination you linked about is detectable, is a good sign it won't get past top notch reviewers, provided they have access to the sequence data, and the published material you reference.
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Yeah, I hope so, I remember Bipedalist starting a topic on it way back and wondered if it would be an issue at all. Did you forget to answer my other question or were just ignoring it on purpose? So did you get to compare your results with anyone else's?
Guest Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) there is a lot of talk about contaminated samples. wouldn't that be one of the 1st things they would try and rule out ? wouldn't the samples come up with different results then all the same ? Edited November 23, 2011 by zigoapex
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 The only way I know to explain it is by using lego's or an erector set as an an example. Say you didn't have the directions to construct some kind of complicated tower that you can see a picture of on the front of the box. You can only see the front and a partial side of that tower so you have to intuitively assume how the back and other side fit together. It might look right from the front and be functional in the back, but the back won't be an exact copy of what was on the box. All your other towers get built the same way because the pieces fit, and they fit every single time, doesn't mean that the pieces are necessarily right. There are a lot of assumptions made when you sequence an entire genome, but if you do enough from the same type organism, you can get a general idea of what makes it unique. I hear she has 100 samples and I don't know if they all tested the same. There is that bigfoot theory floating around out there that there is more than one kind.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) I think you would then have some mixed up results with double hits along the sequence which wouldn't match well with the other submitted samples. So would that have to be thrown out, or would it still be worked with to get a result ? Thanks Tim LOLOL- you would get pygmy and the blood sample donor. If it was that easy to hybridize something we would have menotaurs, mermaids, and Medusa. ( your personal favorite, I'm sure.) Stop your getting me kinda worked up here ~ Edited November 23, 2011 by RedRatSnake
Guest wild eyed willy Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 "What's 'DNA'...? {Thought I'd toss-in a little humor....} DNA = Determined Not Animal
Guest wild eyed willy Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 not to be confused with NDA. NDA = NO! Dont Announce.
Guest Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 The only way I know to explain it is by using lego's or an erector set as an an example. Say you didn't have the directions to construct some kind of complicated tower that you can see a picture of on the front of the box. You can only see the front and a partial side of that tower so you have to intuitively assume how the back and other side fit together. It might look right from the front and be functional in the back, but the back won't be an exact copy of what was on the box. All your other towers get built the same way because the pieces fit, and they fit every single time, doesn't mean that the pieces are necessarily right. There are a lot of assumptions made when you sequence an entire genome, but if you do enough from the same type organism, you can get a general idea of what makes it unique. I hear she has 100 samples and I don't know if they all tested the same. There is that bigfoot theory floating around out there that there is more than one kind. that makes since. I thought that was something she was doing (more samples) to make sure she was getting the same results and was one of the reasons it was taking longer. maybe will all get lucky and a BF will break into someone's wine cellar, drink half of it, and like a college student, find him past out in someone's front lawn.
Guest wild eyed willy Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 that makes since. I thought that was something she was doing (more samples) to make sure she was getting the same results and was one of the reasons it was taking longer. maybe will all get lucky and a BF will break into someone's wine cellar, drink half of it, and like a college student, find him past out in someone's front lawn. Naked laying in a pool of his own puke with one leg crushing the lawn chair and the other tangled in the garden hose. Ah those were the days
Recommended Posts