Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I've been...er...away. Anyone so kind as to sum up what the fudge has happened? A colleague told me that she self-published and that's the last I heard. Do we have the raw data? Is it a shambles? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 20, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2013 She is absolutely sure that the mtDNA genomes are 100% HSS. So if you find a human hair out in the woods and sequence it's entire mitochondria, Identity markers and all, can you upload it to GenBank? Yes or No? It's that simple. While I have not abandoned Dr Ketchum yet, I have a thought about this .. playing devil's advocate to myself ... what if she KNOWS not only that some of the mtDNA in the "Sierra" sample is HSS, but she can identify the person .. because it is **Justin's** ? That would surely put a different spin on whether she could upload it to GenBank under their rules. She'd have to have his signature, and to get it, she'd have to acknowledge contamination. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) ... what if she KNOWS not only that some of the mtDNA in the "Sierra" sample is HSS, but she can identify the person .. because it is **Justin's** ? That would surely put a different spin on whether she could upload it to GenBank under their rules. She'd have to have his signature, and to get it, she'd have to acknowledge contamination. Plussed. This is exactly my thoughts as well. If she knows or even suspects some of the mtDNA is from those that submitted samples and not from a sasquatch she would know she was breaking the rules regarding uploading to GenBank, and the only way to counter this would be to get permission from the sample providers which would obviously expose her hand. Edited March 20, 2013 by Silent Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I think everyone is still missing the point.... I was told four times through a spokesperson that there is no more data. Everything she has is in the paper. All the raw data is in the paper. But this contradicts what it says in her own paper. Why? If she can suddenly publish to Genbank and there's more data that she provided, her statements to me are false. Except this time they aren't hidden in emails, they're published for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I've been...er...away. Anyone so kind as to sum up what the fudge has happened? A colleague told me that she self-published and that's the last I heard. Do we have the raw data? Is it a shambles? Cheers Paging Mounty...Mounty...summary clean-up needed in aisle 6... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 She is absolutely sure that the mtDNA genomes are 100% HSS. So if you find a human hair out in the woods and sequence it's entire mitochondria, Identity markers and all, can you upload it to GenBank? Yes or No? It's that simple. She is absolutely sure the the nuDNA genomes are not 100% HSS and are from a species with no expectation of privacy according to her paper. Yes, if you find hair/blood on a wire fence in a public area you can upload it with no worries. You could also use spit off a sidewalk or dig through someone's trash on their curb to find material and upload it to GenBank with no worry. The only time you would have trouble would be if you tried to patent and profit off the material and you pulled the sample from an area where the recognized species (protected by law) had an expectation of privacy - case law has already been established on DNA collection. I think you are making a mountain out a mole-hill on this issue...either MK is committing fraud by charging $30 for a paper where she knows the samples are HSS and knows the identity of the submitter or you are worried that a non-HSS individual is going to download the paper, recognize their DNA and subsequently sue to recover damages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I think everyone is still missing the point.... I was told four times through a spokesperson that there is no more data. Everything she has is in the paper. All the raw data is in the paper. But this contradicts what it says in her own paper. Why? If she can suddenly publish to Genbank and there's more data that she provided, her statements to me are false. Except this time they aren't hidden in emails, they're published for all to see. There is clearly some inaccuracies with the truth from MK. She clearly and emphatically states in the paper she has 90Gbp of data, 3 whole genomes, 30x coverage. She did not publish this much data. So one of the statements has to be in error. I am inclined to believe MK and her spokes person are stating that they feel all of the data necessary for this manuscript has been put out, and that there is no more data to put into this paper. I think there is a lot more data. BUT again, I am only asking for release of the data that she mentions in her paper AND that supports her conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Here is a summary just-released DNA paper, with all data included. http://www.eva.mpg.d...rtal/index.html It details a Neandertal sequence discovered from a Toe bone in Denisova. Take a look at the paper http://www.eva.mpg.de/neandertal/press/presskit-neandertal/pdf/Science_Green.pdf Edited March 20, 2013 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Take a look at the paper http://www.eva.mpg.d...ience_Green.pdf It's ok I guess, kind of plain looking. Some horse pictures would spruce it up nicely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) I agree 100% with ohiobill. MK could set up an internal review board (IRB) to determine if these samples require consent, if she is concerned. GenBank states, as we have heard before, "GenBank assumes that the submitter has received any necessary informed consent authorizations required prior to submitting sequences." And for me, the NECESSARY wording suffices to allow uploading. If MK found one of the sequences was a match for someone she has tested, there would be no point in uploading it. SY, I applaud your abundance of caution - it is a good thing. But here we are, where your level of caution and critical thinking has not been employed, dealing with the manuscript we have at hand. Any privacy issues have already be breached with the sequence she has already published (whether in GenBank or not) and opens herself up to potential lawsuits no different than if she had been able to upload to GenBank. That bridge has been crossed. Even the table with the mtDNA mutations has been provided, and if someone felt inclined, could use the reference sequence as a template and make the changes manually. It would be tedious, but that info, IF it is complete (no other alterations than which are stated), is there already. And to move forward, as many on this forum desperately want to do, additional data needs to be made available. I personally do not think that anything other than more nuDNA sequence will substantiate her findings. More HSS mtDNA sequence will not substantiate a new species. You are absolutely correct in that the Y chromosome is the area to focus on for identifying this as a new species, and how it came to be. Perhaps for me the bigger question is not if Bf is a human hybrid, but what it is the non-human part. This statement sounds pedantic and obvious, but the MK paper really just has suggestions of human on one side and a big unknown on the other side. And I am still not convinced of the human on one side. Edited March 20, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Here is a summary just-released DNA paper, with all data included. http://www.eva.mpg.d...rtal/index.html It details a Neandertal sequence discovered from a Toe bone in Denisova. Take a look at the paper http://www.eva.mpg.d...ience_Green.pdf Well, keep in mind that there is an identifiable specimen from which the sample came (a toe bone, generally conceded to come from a source specific). The fundamental problem I have had with this entire flap is that no such identifiable specimen seems to exist here. Without it the DNA results are utterly moot, except insofar as they generate scientific interest and serve as a referent after the animal is confirmed. Obviously the specimen won't be "known," as the animal isn't conceded to exist yet. But it would have to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that we have something new here. Hair and steaks aren't doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Plussed. This is exactly my thoughts as well. If she knows or even suspects some of the mtDNA is from those that submitted samples and not from a sasquatch she would know she was breaking the rules regarding uploading to GenBank, and the only way to counter this would be to get permission from the sample providers which would obviously expose her hand. Sounds like my reasoning is not so flawed. So I say again, she should only upload the human data that can be tied to the novel nuDNA sequences, and after she can have that replicated , verified etc. I don't think this is something that would have been done in peer review. Peer review would take an author's word for certain things, but not on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 ... what if she KNOWS not only that some of the mtDNA in the "Sierra" sample is HSS, but she can identify the person .. because it is **Justin's** ? That would surely put a different spin on whether she could upload it to GenBank under their rules. She'd have to have his signature, and to get it, she'd have to acknowledge contamination. MIB Well in this scenario, she should not upload the sequence as a new species called HSC, because that would be clearly fraudulent, irrespective of submission rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 SY - There is no lawbreaking unless she is knowingly submitting identifiable HSS DNA without permission. IF she has consent from the evidence submitters to rule out contamination (as reported and expected) it would not be considered breaking the law to upload the data. She would be uploading novel DNA w/contamination and not knowingly violating someone's privacy (which she would already be protected from by obtaining the consent to rule out contamination as necessary). Again, you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill here unless you are claiming she is KNOWINGLY and without consent submitting identifiable HSS DNA to GenBank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I agree 100% with ohiobill. MK could set up an internal review board (IRB) to determine if these samples require consent, if she is concerned. GenBank states, as we have heard before, And to move forward, as many on this forum desperately want to do, additional data needs to be made available. I personally do not think that anything other than more nuDNA sequence will substantiate her findings. More HSS mtDNA sequence will not substantiate a new species. You are absolutely correct in that the Y chromosome is the area to focus on for identifying this as a new species, and how it came to be. Perhaps for me the bigger question is not if Bf is a human hybrid, but what it is the non-human part. This statement sounds pedantic and obvious, but the MK paper really just has suggestions of human on one side and a big unknown on the other side. And I am still not convinced of the human on one side. I'm convinced of the human on one side, and yep , you are right there with me on the rest of it, so here's hoping Sykes can get a read on the amelogenin locus X and Y chromosomes. This is something he does daily at Oxford Ancestors. http://www.oxfordancestors.com/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,flypage/product_id,20/category_id,7/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,67/ A fifteen-digit Y-Clan Cassic signature of your Y-chromosome. A full explanation of the scientific procedures that we used to generate your Y-Clan Classic signature. A premium quality “Paternal Clans†certificate, signed by Prof Sykes, identifying your ancient paternal clan. Information about your ancient paternal clan and its distribution in the current human population. Detailed instructions on the use of your Y-Clan Classic signature for genealogical research. Free access to our on-line, Y-Clan database with unlimited surname and DNA signature searches Oh, and this a for profit service BTW........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts