Back to Pedigree Query
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:29 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: mt DNA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
Restricted Stakes Winner

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 763
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: mt DNA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Posts: 2061
Location: west TX boonies
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:20 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:01 pm
Posts: 2145
Location: Planet Earth
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Posts: 2212
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: gallopade 1828
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline
Restricted Stakes Winner

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 763
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:57 pm 
Offline
Grade III Winner

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 1191
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:40 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Posts: 2061
Location: west TX boonies
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:14 pm 
Offline
Grade III Winner

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 1191
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I'll Have Another
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:32 pm 
Offline
Restricted Stakes Winner

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 763
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:41 pm 
Offline
Grade III Winner

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 1191
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:15 pm 
Offline
Allowance Winner

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:39 am
Posts: 388
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Posts: 2061
Location: west TX boonies
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:17 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Posts: 2061
Location: west TX boonies
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:28 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Posts: 2212
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:46 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Posts: 2061
Location: west TX boonies
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group