mt DNA

Understanding pedigrees, inbreeding, dosage, etc.

Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy

stancaris
Restricted Stakes Winner
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:24 am

mt DNA

Postby stancaris » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:47 am

A question for the posters on this forum: Can I assume that the mt-DNA found in I'll Have Another is the same as that found in all other members of family 23b? Not counting mutations which are rare, is that mt-DNA identical for all members of a family provided that family identification is accurate.

User avatar
Pan Zareta
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2074
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Location: west TX boonies

Re: mt DNA

Postby Pan Zareta » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:59 pm

stancaris wrote:Can I assume that the mt-DNA found in I'll Have Another is the same as that found in all other members of family 23b?


Unfortunately, that assumption can't be made. Two mtDNA haplotypes have been documented in family 23b. Those haplotypes are so different that they could not both trace to the 23b taproot mare. So there's an error somewhere in the 23b stud book record.

User avatar
karenkarenn
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:01 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby karenkarenn » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:20 pm

Unfortunately, that assumption can't be made. Two mtDNA haplotypes have been documented in family 23b. Those haplotypes are so different that they could not both trace to the 23b taproot mare. So there's an error somewhere in the 23b stud book record.



How did that occur? And can we have different taproot mares that are closer than the 1800 or 1900? This is interesting.

xfactor fan
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm

Postby xfactor fan » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:35 pm

stancaris

If you go back to when the JC started DNA typing to verify parentage, and follow the female family of "I'll have another" back to that point. This will give you a mare to follow forward down all the female branches. These mares, and their sons should have the same mtDNA type as IHA. Sort of a short bush, not a large tree, but it might suit your practical needs.

Anyone know off hand when scientific verification started?

stancaris
Restricted Stakes Winner
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:24 am

gallopade 1828

Postby stancaris » Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:20 pm

X Factor Fan: I looked up the last 5 winners of the Derby that were members of family 23b and found that all five traced in tail female to Gallopade (1928). Is it safe to assume that these 5 Derby winners all have the same mt-DNA that Gallopade carried or could the mistakes have occurred after Gallopade's time?

The Five winners that carried Gallopade and are in family 23b are as follows: I'll Have Another, Mine That Bird, Lil E Tee, Winning Colors and Affirmed.

vineyridge
Grade III Winner
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:41 am

Postby vineyridge » Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:57 pm

PZ mentioned this earlier. From what she said, the only living branch of 23-b traces to Gallopade. So if there are two different mtDNA haplotypes found in that branch, the error must have come after Gallopade.
Thread Killer Extraordinaire

User avatar
Pan Zareta
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2074
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Location: west TX boonies

Postby Pan Zareta » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:40 pm

karenkarenn wrote:How did that occur? And can we have different taproot mares that are closer than the 1800 or 1900? This is interesting.

Errors happen. ;) As recognized in the db here, taproots of numbered families, and of branches within those families, may date anywhere between the 17th century and 1926 (La Troienne, tap of 1x).

xfactor fan wrote:Anyone know off hand when scientific verification started?

I want to say 1989 but can't lay my hands on a source to confirm that.

vineyridge wrote:PZ mentioned this earlier. From what she said, the only living branch of 23-b traces to Gallopade. So if there are two different mtDNA haplotypes found in that branch, the error must have come after Gallopade.


Correct. Two published TB mtDNA reports make reference to family 23. Bower et al. 2010 states This British Native maternal influence is apparent in the current Thoroughbred population, e.g. 2009 Kentucky Derby winner, Mine That Bird, probably has British Native maternal origins, since his founding matriarch, Piping Peg's Dam, foaled in 1690 is Clade[haplogroup] C1 based on the haplotype of her direct female descendants...". Table 2, Bower et al. 2012 (the mtDNA report pub. late July) reports two haplotypes from two different haplogroups in family 23b, one of them being the C1 haplotype discussed in the previous report.

The C1 haplotype is believed to be representative of the family 23 taproot presumably b/c it's documented in the 'trunk' as well as in 23a (at least one error there as well) and 23b. Wherever the error is in the descendants of *Gallopade it apparently may not involve the direct line of descent between her and Mine That Bird.

vineyridge
Grade III Winner
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:41 am

Postby vineyridge » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:14 pm

I'd be more interested in Affirmed than Mine That Bird. Won't You Tell was a very prolific broodmare with lots of daughters, so it wouldn't be hard to see if she was C1 or the other haplotype. The daughter of Gallopade to which she traces is Fandango, which gets you to Lizzie G and Mannie Gray and Correction. Chris Evert goes to Reel. Mine That Bird goes to Cotillion.
Thread Killer Extraordinaire

stancaris
Restricted Stakes Winner
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:24 am

I'll Have Another

Postby stancaris » Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:32 pm

To All: I'll Have Another traces in tail-female to Broom Flower which Bill Lathrop defines as his conduit mare. (the mare born closest to 1900 but not before that time). Now the question: Can I assume that Broom Flower is the real conduit mare of I'll Have Another or has recent research shown that the mt-DNA is different and that I'll Have Another's conduit mare is really not Broom Flower?

vineyridge
Grade III Winner
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:41 am

Postby vineyridge » Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:41 pm

I'll Have Another descends from Cotillion, just as does Mine That Bird.

To see if he has the same mtDNA haplotype as Broom Flower, he'd have to be tested. Then you'd have to find several different daughters of Broom Flower and test their descendants. If they all match, then one could justifiably say that they most likely descend from Broom Flower. Since most of the mtDNA work in TBs that has been published is European, one would doubt if they did much work on this American family.

This is the Pontivy/Patelin branch; and it's also the female family of Roanoke. One gets the feeling that it very much likes Ribot.
Thread Killer Extraordinaire

aethervox
Allowance Winner
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:39 am

Postby aethervox » Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:15 pm

I've been looking at this a bit.

Mine that Bird was said, in an article about Dr. Bower's paper on dam subfamilies at http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/matriarchs-of-thoroughbred-racehorses-unmasked/&sa=U&ei=netfUIXfOuGNygHg14GQCw&ved=0CBMQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGUK0RJ_mvBi_LjjrYznAs3XsklHw, to share the same mt-DNA as the founder of family 23, Piping Peg's dam.

However, there's a lot of controversy about Lizzie/Lizzy G., who is the tail-female ancestor of Affirmed. A lot of records got lost during the Civil War, and there was a lot of opportunities to fudge pedigrees.

Here's an article from the DRF in the 1920s that talks about the controversy of Lizzy G and her dam, the Lecomte Mare:

http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1920s;cc=drf1920s;q1=General%20wells;rgn=full%20text;idno=drf1922051401;didno=drf1922051401;view=pdf;seq=14_1;node=drf1922051401%3A14.1;passterms=1

User avatar
Pan Zareta
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2074
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Location: west TX boonies

Postby Pan Zareta » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:50 pm

It's quite true that the 'paper trail' for Lizzy/Lizzie G. is imperfect. But the facts recited in the DRF are not altogether accurate re. the early history and stud career of War Dance. He was sent to Texas around the time Keene Richards purchased him, under the supervision of Richards' friend and fellow Arab afficionado Geo. A. Feris of Houston. His earliest foals recorded in the ASB hit the ground in 1865 and were out of mares owned in Texas. As an unnamed 5yo by Lexington - Reel he was advertised at stud in Texas that same year (Weekly State Gazette, 22 Feb 1865). In 1866 he covered mares owned in Texas, Louisiana, and Kentucky, supporting a stop in Louisiana before being taken to Richards' Blue Grass Park.

User avatar
Pan Zareta
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2074
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Location: west TX boonies

Postby Pan Zareta » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:17 pm

Bloodlines has some new pages relevant to this subject. They're linked from the Pedigree Matters page. Also a scan of what's said to be the oldest known pedigree chart.

xfactor fan
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm

Postby xfactor fan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:28 pm

Pan Zareta, thanks for the great link. Spent way too much time working through them last night. The paper with the charts was a great visual illustration on what you have been saying about looking at other part of mtDNA Is it my imagination of were they kind of going after the Hill study? Some of the comments seem to have been a bit pointed.

Thanks again.

User avatar
Pan Zareta
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2074
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Location: west TX boonies

Postby Pan Zareta » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:46 pm

xfactor fan wrote:Pan Zareta, thanks for the great link. Spent way too much time working through them last night. The paper with the charts was a great visual illustration on what you have been saying about looking at other part of mtDNA Is it my imagination of were they kind of going after the Hill study? Some of the comments seem to have been a bit pointed.


Glad you found the material worth reading. I'm responsible for the paper with the charts. Wasn't trying to go after the report by Hill et al. 2002. That report and the recent mtDNA report by Bower et al. are 'manna from heaven' for everyone interested in the history of the breed. But there is room for disagreement with some of the research teams' conclusions about what the mtDNA evidence represents. And I seriously doubt that either lead author would deny that. In fact, back in 2002 Hill made that point herself outside the report. Unfortunately, the conclusions published in the reports have been taken by many as the only possible explanation for what the evidence represents.