hellopeople: when 23andme have more than a handful of sample pops I might try them.
23andme use a modern method that can be directly cross checked against several databases out there, as well as against new academic studies. So even if their own database is a bit sparse at the moment its not really an issue, especially as they're adding new populations anyway.
Long live STRs
LOL
Man, you butchered that quote to suit your own evil means. :)
It should read...
"To conclude, Romero et al. have clearly demonstrated that significant problems exist with both indels and SNPs, and they have also shown that the STRs are probably the best loci available today (but see Nielsen et al. (2004) for possible corrections for SNPs). One should probably take with a pinch of salt their claim that their STRs were unbiased or that the biases identified by Ray et al. (2005) were not real. But clearly, Romero et al.'s study is a significant step towards proper population genetics inference."
This paper is all about making sure that scientists reduce the bias in their results by picking the proper markers. It doesn't say SNPs are crud and STRs so much better. It just says that SNPs sets can be cross checked by certain STRs to make sure they're the best ones to use.
Hundreds of thousands of SNPs are the benchmark today, and the next step is full genome sequencing. Making sure that the methodology used is correct is important, but that doesn't change the very clear trends in genetics we're seeing now.
P.S. However, I did have a look at the DNA Tribes website just now, and their latest newsletters about Europe and Asia. I have to say I am impressed how accurate their findings have been in comparison to the academic stuff out there, considering they are using technology initially developed for use by the FBI in forensic work.
|
top of page