Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler H - There would be no sasquatch in North American that wouldn't have HSS female mtDNA.

But it seems that the mtDNA recombines each time - so while it may have SOME HSS female mtDNA, it would no longer be 100% HSS mtDNA - is that not correct?

Corvus, I think it would be the " progenitor maternal lineage" that we would be in search of. The mtDNA doesn't recombine so you would just get one or the other. A sample size of 108 or 9 apparently didn't find it.

I thought the link you provided, SY, (http://learn.genetic...n/auto_dna.html) suggests that the mtDNA DOES recombine, and gets more 'diluted' with each generation... Maybe I should go watch that again.

[Guest]

No, that's not correct, you inherit strictly from the mother, it doesn't recombine with any mtDNA from the father.

[Guest Tyler H]

But it seems that the mtDNA recombines each time - so while it may have SOME HSS female mtDNA, it would no longer be 100% HSS mtDNA - is that not correct?

I thought the link you provided, SY, (http://learn.genetic...n/auto_dna.html) suggests that the mtDNA DOES recombine, and gets more 'diluted' with each generation... Maybe I should go watch that again.

Yep, agreed CTfoot - I tried to edit that post out - but was too late - you are right - I thought the DNA link was saying diffently, but that would not make sense when you draw it out on paper as I just did.

When I watched this link: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/extras/molgen/auto_dna.html I misunderstood - I thought that one of the autosomes represented the mtDNA, since there was one from each parent. My bad.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

From what I've learned, mtDNA has just 1 chromosome and it's not influenced by the father. So if there was a human/chimp hybrid and the mother was a human, the mtDNA would be 100% human. I hope that's a good example

Edited January 12, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

When I watched this link: http://learn.genetic...n/auto_dna.html I misunderstood - I thought that one of the autosomes represented the mtDNA, since there was one from each parent. My bad.

Just to make it all a little easier to understand.

A spermatozoon carries on average typically 1000x less mtDNA molecules than the egg which it hopes to fertilize.

So the odds are already stacked against the male mtDNA becoming an integral part of the offspring.

Furthermore, it is believed that those that do make it into the egg are in any case destroyed (apparently they carry a ubiquitin protein marker which aids this process).

I can't remember where I read it (and thus I can't guarantee it is true!), but I believe that there is the odd very rare case of male mtDNA making it into offspring. But that's not worth considering at all in regards to our BF context.

[bipedalist]

^ here you go Corvus: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20936375

http://www.nytimes.c...1real.html?_r=0

Yes, even identical twins can share differences in phenotypes new research suggests and are not 100% dna similar mapped individuals apparently. It's more than epigenetics and bores down to "copy number variation differences in the sequence".

Edited January 12, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest Theagenes]

^That's very interesting.

[southernyahoo]

I thought the link you provided, SY, (http://learn.genetic...n/auto_dna.html) suggests that the mtDNA DOES recombine, and gets more 'diluted' with each generation... Maybe I should go watch that again.

I see that CTfoot has addressed this, though it is my understanding that once a hybrization event has occurred, and a population has become isolated again, the mtDNA can begin to diverge as it acquires minor mutations over time. mtDNA does this quicker than other DNA does to my knowledge, so there can be some meaningful information there, however whatever control region markers that were there when the hybridization occured would most likely still be there. Re-hybridization would reset the clock and not give you this, so you might find some BF with a really old lineage and others more updated, and it might be that 15,000 years isn't enough time to give much resolution.

Edited January 12, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Guest Tyler H]

I suppose I should put the brakes on this - we've strayed into talking about ways to justify Melba's claims. I've tried to keep comments about our lab results off of the thread about her project, and have said our results should be looked at for their own merit, not as a comparison or challenge to her claims (eventhough I have let my personal opinions about that slip out).

WHat I would like to know, is if anyone here (Such as GenesRUs, or Tomafoot or anyone else in the know, would have suggestions of good labs to use for the boots. THere have been comments from Melba's camp that we should use a CORE lab. I'm all for it... if the expense is overwhelmingly different, guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[AaronD]

Just curious, Tyler--how much roughly does such a lab cost?

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^

Kinda along the lines of what I'm thinking if it's relatively inexpensive, if there's any such thing, just get it tested for bear and be done.

In fact I'll help ya out, odds are it's going to test positive for bear and human DNA

[AaronD]

^ C. We won't know til we know......ya know?

[southernyahoo]

I suppose I should put the brakes on this - we've strayed into talking about ways to justify Melba's claims. I've tried to keep comments about our lab results off of the thread about her project, and have said our results should be looked at for their own merit, not as a comparison or challenge to her claims (eventhough I have let my personal opinions about that slip out)

Yes I'd say you let it slip. Both you and Bart have said you would issue challenges to Ketchum if your testing did not match Ketchum's results. You simply can't challenge Ketchum "without" comparing results. You have some understanding of her claims, plus how and why they might differ. Clearly there is a difference in approach ( questions asked of the evidence and answered through testing.)

I'm not in a position to make a decision who was sequencing contamination and who wasn't. Trent's report leaves me questioning whether the human DNA really was Justin's , whether there was another human donor, and whether the morphology of the hair and tissue really is bear or other. My decision would have to be based on what I can see in reports, in photographs, and described methods of testing.

This Sierra sample seems to be a perfect case study in itself though. Bear hairs are suppose to be most similar to human hairs among indigenous mammals in North America. There's the potential for contamination from multiple sources plus degradation prior to collection and after. So this sample could be of value either as a negative control sample or a positive in the study. (all claims aside)

Tyler said.....

I can personally vouch for the fact that Melba claims Justin's samples are Sasquatch. SHe asserted this to me personally, and to several people I know. I don't follow her posts, tweets, releases, statements or what have you, enough to know if she ever said it in print or not, but I believe she has. I also don't think she will now be denying that. Her claim is that Justin must have sent different tissue to her than to myself and Bart.

[Guest BartloJays]

Yes I'd say you let it slip. Both you and Bart have said you would issue challenges to Ketchum if your testing did not match Ketchum's results. You simply can't challenge Ketchum "without" comparing results. You have some understanding of her claims, plus how and why they might differ. Clearly there is a difference in approach ( questions asked of the evidence and answered through)

I would not be surprised if we "never" see a comparison on both hers or the "outsourced PHD" work on the Sierra's sample. I really wouldn't be surprised, especially now.

Again, so you know, Ketchum's piece is the other half (bigger half) of the salted piece which according to my lab and verbal conversationswith the director (still waiting for report), is "ample" black bear with Justin's genomic dna level consistent with expected handling contamination.

^^^^

Kinda along the lines of what I'm thinking if it's relatively inexpensive, if there's any such thing, just get it tested for bear and be done.

In fact I'll help ya out, odds are it's going to test positive for bear and human DNA

Actually, because he's hunted and fished extensively prior to the purported shooting in them and quite a bit after, I expect the boots to yield evidence of many different contributors including black bear, deer, turkey, duck, fish blood etc.. However, the blood of the juvenile "should" hands down be the most prevelant by level of saturation. The incident happened 10/8/10 and they got into my custody in Nov of 2011, though he stopped wearing them right after July remains search (after I realized he's wearing only non-circumstantial evidence from shooting).

CTfoot and GenesRus would know this better than I but I suspect mold degradation is the biggest potential problem here besides contamination (which I guess could be sorted through with right testing). If we look at it optimistically, I'm sure at least some of those blood contributors on the boots will be identified so if story is completely accurate, the juvey has the best chance..by degree of saturation.

But hey, to some people the details are unimportant

Edited January 13, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest Tyler H]

Just curious, Tyler--how much roughly does such a lab cost?

Well, I know that Melba and her major financial back have both told me the bills have run up over $400k.

My bill for a much less challenging undertaking, was $7200.

On the one hand, now that we are more informed about what to do and what not to do, I could see any future testing efforts getting streamlined a bit. But on the other hand, because mold degradation and contamination will likely be bigger hurdles on the boots, and because we may take the technology of th elabs involved to "another level" I could see it going well over $10k, maybe up to $30k That would just be for identification of the species whose DNA is present in the boots. If we then got an unknown, and decided to map a genome, we could go higher after that.