Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
..."The company is expecting to complete commercialization of Retinome with grants from the National Institues of Justice"...
BTW, sorry about the excerpts, but I can't seem to cut and paste from that document.
Later,
W2P
The report includes a Figure 2. Product Pipeline that presents in graphical format the existing products in relation to Development, Trials, Launch, and Market status.
It shows Retinome and HA still in development, but AncestryByDNA 3.0, DNAWitness 3.0, Ovanome, and Statinome ALL at the trial stage...
Later,
W2P
Here's a PDF Version of the JM DUTTON Report:
http://www.jmdutton.com/research/DNAP/Reports/DNAP_Report_060804.pdf
Later,
W2P
Glaxo seems to have a bit of a problem:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=2&u=/nm/20040602/bs_nm/health_glax...
Later,
W2P
mingwan0...I believe the proper term would be "spin-off", and if memory serves, according to the respective 10Ks Affymetrix' position was reduced to a minority ownership position as of January or February 2003.
Later,
W2P
mingwan0...I find the absence of the mention of Perlegen as confounding as I found the absence of the mention of Affymetrix in last year's 10K filing.
I know that the Affymetrix 10K and 100K mapping arrays rely on allele frequency differences among biogeographically isolated populations as a basis for the technology's mapping ability. Given that, I found it odd at the time that DNAPrint didn't mention them as a potential competitor to ADMIXMAP.
As you are aware, shortly after the TWST Article became public last summer, and Hector was named CMO, Perlegen hired their own CMO and announced their intentions to in-license late-stage failed drugs that they hoped to resurrect. I have always thought that sounded eerily similar to the business plan DNAPrint announced last year.
You also know that early in 2003, Affymetrix, Perlegen, and Roche executed a series of licensing deals - Perlegen to Affy, Affy to Roche - and Roche back to Affy. Now we find DNAPrint, Roche, and Affymetrix all working at Moffitt along with IBM. Of course, at least in one aspect, Moffit is using Affy's gene expression profiling array as a competing technology, though there may be complimentary applications as well. And Roche, given their FDA approved chemotherapies would obviously be there anyway.
But the fact that DNAPrint doesn't mention any of these parties in their 10Ks makes me wonder if the group doesn't have a sort of non-aggression pact. lol Also makes me wonder if Perlegen doesn't somehow fit in to the mix here somewhere.
Won't be a series of small steps, but a couple of significant moves to get to NASDAQ? Oh well, certainly wild speculation on my part...but fun to imagine.
Later,
W2P
mingwan0...Sorry that I seem to be making life difficult for the "moderators of the list"...lol
I believe that a question should be a question.
Later,
W2P
From an old PR. Really didn't pay that much attention to this at the time:
Physical Profiling from Ancestry 2.0 Through Informatics:
DNA is commonly left at crime scenes, but until DNAPrint developed tests for doing so, no physical information could be reliably read from that DNA. In contrast to standard DNA testing, Ancestry 2.0 is expected to allow investigators to "paint" a partial physical profile from crime scene DNA, which could assist with the investigative process much like a human eye-witness could. For example, DNAPrint scientists and collaborators have used various versions of the Ancestry test to show correlation between European admixture and skin melanin content in African Americans (Shriver et al., Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry and admixture mapping, Human Genetics (2003) 112: 387-399). A precise inference of skin tone will require a specific genetic test, which the Company is working on, but to allow forensics customers the immediate ability to make inferences of physical characteristics from Ancestry 2.0 results, the Company intends to provide forensic customers next quarter with access to a database of several hundred digital photographs from individuals who have taken part in the Company's validation studies. The customer would query the database to retrieve photographs for every individual whose profile falls within a specified range, such as "80% European + 20% sub-Saharan African +/- 10%", Through inspection, the customer would gauge variation in physical appearance associated with that range.
Thought this was interesting in that it provides concrete evidence of DNAPrint's involvement in the Shriver, et al study, something TonyTox had quite the problem with awhile back. Oh, and despite it's mention in this DNAPrint PR, DNAPrint was NOT specifically mentioned as a collaborator on the study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12579416&...
Later,
W2P
minwan0...I have the following comments (in bold) to the list of shareholder questions:
Shareholders Meeting Questions (Draft) - Version 0.2
1 Company
1.a) How do you justify the wide margin between revenues ($709,638), administrative costs (i.e. payroll is approximately $3,857,925) and net loss ($7,789,905)?
Comment: This question strikes me as a "Management" question and I would suggest moving it to Section 2. Further, I might not lead that section off with this question.
1.b) Dr. Frudakis recently stated that the company plans to move from its current 7,000 square foot building to a new 20,000 square foot building at a cost of approximately $1,000,000. DNAP has 12 full-time employees as per the last 10K and not much equipment. Can you explain why the additional space if needed and in what timescale?
Comment: First, this information is contained in the company 10K filing. I believe that should be the point of reference, as opposed to invoking comments by Dr. Frudakis.
Second, per the same document, DNAPrint has told us that they wish to make that move as a part of executing their 2004 Plan of Operations. I don't know that the matter of timing is what the questioner REALLY wants to know. If you read questions 1.c and 1.d, I believe you may reach the conclusion that this question is redundant and could be eliminated altogether. I believe 1.c and 1.d get to the meat of question 1.b's intent.
1.c) Does the company intend to relocate to the new research facility being constructed at the USF, as indicated by having signed a letter of intent to do so? If not, has the company selected alternative premises? What is the timescale to finalize this decision and move to the new location? Will the existing offices at Cocoanut Avenue be retained?
1.d) Can you confirm the current number of employees, their function, and whether they are full time or part time or employed on a contract basis? Do all employees work at the company offices? What are the current plans for expanding the workforce in terms of numbers and functions of prospective employees?
1.e) In the January 2003 letter to shareholders, Dr. Frudakis intimated that shareholders would be able to participate in a warrants plan that the company intended at that time to implement. Was the vote for the increase in authorized shares on the basis that such a warrants plan would be provided? Why did the company not ultimately proceed with the warrants plan as initially envisaged?
Comment: The middle question, "Was the vote for the increase in authorized shares on the basis that such a warrants plan would be provided?", should be eliminated. The SEC proxy filing clearly stated that the Board may decide to implement alternative funding mechanisms. I believe the question shareholders want answered is expressed quite clearly by, Why did the company not ultimately proceed with the warrants plan as initially envisaged?
1.f) In the January letter to shareholders, Dr. Frudakis stated that the common shareholders would be given the right to vote on any further issuance of shares. Since that letter was released, DNAP has issued over 200,000,000 shares. Why have shareholders not received proxies from the company in relation to these issuances?
1.g) What is the current status of the agreement with Genomedics Inc (GMED)? Is the agreement still in force and what are the implications (if any) of this for DNAP?
1.h) Early in the companies history there was much discussion of the Orchid option agreement. It was described as a six month window of opportunity in which Orchid could obtain the exclusive rights to the first completed product. Mention was made in newsletters that the terms of the option created some hesitation on the part of potential partners/customers as they did not wish to lose their negotiated rights should Orchid chose to exercise their option. Since then we have heard that the rights to the option have transferred to Beckman and there has been very little said in regards to it lately. Does the option still exist? If not, what completed product was used to trigger the six month window and in what time frame did it occur? If it still exists, what are the ramifications in terms of any approaching project completions? Since Ancestry and DNAWitness were developed under different circumstances we are under the impression that the option agreement does not apply to them, is that a correct assumption?
1.i) Much has been made of the technology and innovation of the company and the potential value that can result from exploiting them, but in terms of material value, what are the tangible assets of the company? We are aware that the building is leased and that the actual ownership of the major piece of equipment (Orchid UHT) is questionable. Aside from the office and lab equipment, is there any other capital equipment that is the property of the company? The products themselves (Ancestry and DNAWitness) can be considered assets, but as they are 'service based' there is very little inventory associated with them. (swabs, plastic bags, printed material etc.). The major asset of the company is presumably the 'platform' from which the various products are derived, what exact form does the platform take? Is it a program/database and associated documentation resident on a computer? Is it a documented and archived set of CD-ROMS? Is it a collection of various parts that coalesces into a functional entity under the careful management of a trained individual? Is it therefore a tangible object that can be described, backed-up or duplicated at will, or is it an intangible collection of expertise and knowledge that requires the involved participation of a single, or set of, individuals? The patent applications are a growing repository of potential value that will perhaps provide a tangible asset if they are ever granted, until they are however, they must be considered intangible. What Safeguards are in place to protect the assets of the company?
1.j) Presumably the platform is protected from competitive duplication by patent application. We can see where this would prevent a competitor from reading the patent application and duplicating the platform and going into business with a competing service. How would it prevent a major pharmaceutical company, for instance, from duplicating the platform and using it in the privacy of their own lab to develop new drugs. Drugs that would come out of the drug pipeline just like countless others before them. The drugs themselves would not be in competition with DNAP so what would be the path for litigating the patent rights? How would anyone know, by what mechanism would the use of a duplicate platform be revealed?
1.k) Given that the assets of the company, while potentially valuable, are knowledge based and therefore somewhat intangible, are there any particular safeguards in place to protect shareholder value in the event of unforeseen business failure? Are the assets documented and archived such that they can be reconstituted by knowledgeable individuals? Are they listed on an asset sheet so that they can be tracked by auditors? Are there by-laws in place that would require a shareholder vote before such key assets could be transferred or licensed?
1.l) What is the legal status of the Orchid device if the company entered bankruptcy?
1.m) Can the company confirm the status of the NIH and the NIJ grant applications?
1.n) Can the company confirm the status of the company's application for forensic laboratory accreditation?
1.o) What happened to the proposed private placement?
1.p) Can the company provide an update on the civil case in the Florida circuit court involving a former employee?
1.q) Are there are other current or pending legal actions involving the company?
1.r) Has the company been, is it currently, or will it potentially be involved with DNA Phenomics in Malaysia? If not, has the company identified another partner(s) for product distribution in the Asia Pacific market?
1.s) Are there any initiatives underway or planned in relation to partner(s) for product distribution in Europe?
1.t) If the company share price reaches .025 will funding under the La Jolla Cove agreement be discontinued, be suspended until the share price recovers, or will funding continue?
1.u) Can the company provide an update in relation to its previous indications about becoming a drug company?
1.v) The company previously indicated that it would at some future stage make license fee payments to Genetic Technologies. Can you explain the context, and anticipated magnitude and timescale of these payments?
Here is where it gets scary . . . getting close to the end of the alphabet for 'company' questions.
2 Management
2.a) Can you explain and justify the level of management compensation and how this will change upon expiration of the existing one year employment agreements for the management team?
Comment: I might rephrase this one, as the one-year expiration was up in mid-May. Might ask, "...how DID this change upon expiration of the existing..."
2.b) Can you explain why it is necessary to have a Chief Financial Officer/Chief Operating Officer role at the present time? Would it have been possible to outsource these functions, possibly as an interim measure?
2.c) The securing of which co-commercialization and or co-development partner for the Company's first genomics - based patient classification test triggered the “performance condition” in the Performance Stock Agreement between the company and Tony Frudakis, that resulted in the vesting of 30,000,000 shares as per the terms of that agreement?
Comment: Under the "Performance Share Agreement" the Board had the right to redefine the criteria for award. That being the case, I believe this question would be better phrased as, "In previous SEC quarterly and annual filings, the company stated that the performance conditions necessary to award Dr. Frudakis' 30,000,000 performance shares had not been met, and were not likely to be met. The Board changed it's position sometime during the second quarter of 2003. Can you provide the criteria the Board determined had been met to merit award of those shares?"
2.d) What is Dr. Frudakis's involvement with the Biometrics Council (renamed to Biological Threats Council)? Are there any implications for the company as a result of his involvement with this initiative?
3 Scientific Advisory Board
3.a) Can you confirm the current composition of the SAB? Some individuals were previously listed in SEC returns and on the company website as being SAB members, e.g. Ramin Mirhashemi, Ferenado Arena and DC Rao, but these individuals no longer appear to be SAB members. For any people who are no longer SAB members can you provide an explanation as to why they are not?
3.b) Can you explain the role of the SAB and the services that are typically performed by SAB members?
3.c) Can you explain how the remuneration level of 50,000 shares of common stock per annum was arrived at? In the Company's opinion is this sufficient to attract and retain the type of individual that the company would want as SAB members?
3.d) As per the last 10K the company has initiated plans to expand the SAB to include "other scientists who will actively contribute to our effort in increasing the number of BGA sub-categories from our current four, to as many as 20." Can you provide an update on how these efforts are progressing? Are there any current plans to expand the SAB to include scientists in disciplines other than biogeographical ancestry?
3.e) Can you explain the difference between the SAB and the Board of Consultants, which was also mentioned in the last 10K?
4 Investor Relations
4.a) Does the company have any plans to enhance their access to customers or shareholders questions and suggestions?
Comment: I believe this question would be better phrased as, "A fundamental element to attracting and retaining capital investment in a public company is the need for professional Public Relations, Investor Relations and Marketing. This is an area of particular frustration for existing investors. How does the company plan to address these needs and when will we see improvements in these areas?
4.b) Does the company intend to provide newsletters on a regular basis in the future?
5 Website
5.a) Why are the “DNAP in the Press” and the “Conferences/Trade Shows/Presentations” sections of the company website not updated on a regular basis?
5.b) Why is the January 2003 letter to shareholders the only publicly released document from the company not available on the website?
6 Science
6.a) [Could have some technical questions about AIMS and ADMIXMAP here. I know Doug has a potential question...]
7 Services/Products
7.a) The two major products in the market today are AncestryByDNA (ABD) and DNAWitness. We have heard positive things about both. Since the two products have been on the market for a number of months now can you share any market analysis that you have obtained. We have heard some fairly large estimates for the size of the market for DNA testing as it relates to the forensic space, but those estimates include such unrelated to DNAWitness categories as CODIS testing of convicted felons and backlogged rape kits. Do you have any market analysis that focuses on the specific number of applications available for the DNAWitness product? What is your projection for the growth curve for ABD, is it still growing, at what rate? Is the curve showing signs of exponential growth, linear growth or is it flattening out?
7.b) Can you confirm the current status of the development of ABD 3.0?
7.c) Can you give any details about the parental populations used in the development of the AIMs? Specifically, what is the parental population for the Indo-European category? From what ethnic groups/part of Europe were these people from?
7.d) Is it possible that some of the admixture estimates that are derived are overestimated due to their being compared to a small (narrow) parental population?
7.e) What will the 20 categories be in ABD 3.0? Who is this product being developed in conjunction with and what are their aims for the project(s)? Is there an agreed taxonomy of racial categories and what correlation is there between any such taxonomy and the categories that the company intends to use?
7.f) Can the company provide any details of the scope and progress of the project to “date” admixture? How would such work result in new products or impact current products?
7.g) What is the company’s current anticipation of the likely adoption of DNA Witness for routine use by US and foreign Police Departments and/or Governmental agencies?
7.h) Can the company provide any details on the development of additional classifiers for traits such as hair color and facial features that would be components of DNA Witness?
7.i) Why has genotyping not been provided as a service to other companies to date? What are the current plans for offering this as a service? Why did the $1,000 genome scan appear not to generate market interest?
7.j) Will the company be providing so-called “validation genotyping” services for (GMED)?
7.k) Has any interest been expressed in the paternity testing service that was recently introduced by the company?
7.l) What is the status of Retinome? This was ostensibly 75% finished over two years ago. We then heard that the data was inconsistent due to ‘self reporting’ errors introduced by the participants, but a more sophisticated data set was obtained using digital equipment. We heard in a magazine article last summer Retinome would be introduced by the end of 2003. It is now mid 2004 and we have heard nothing lately. Could you clarify? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market?
7.m) What is the status of Statinome? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market? There has been some indication that competitors are working on similar projects, can you give us any indication of DNAP’s advantages or disadvantages in regards to these competing approaches?
7.n) What is the status of Ovanome? What is the anticipated timetable for completion of this product and its launch in the market?
7.o) Are there any other products currently in development or planned by the company?
8 Patent Applications
8.a) What is the current status of the various patent applications? What issues (if any) have been encountered in practice during the patent application review process? What is the company's expectation that any or all of these patents will be granted in due course?
8.b) Have all the inventions and patent applications been assigned to DNAP as the sole owner and assignee of those assets? If not, then who owns the inventions and patent applications?
8.c) Do all the employees of DNAP, including officers and staff members, and outside contract researchers have a written obligation to assign all of their inventions to the company as a condition of their employment or contract? If not, then how is ownership determined?
8.d) N.B. As utilized here, the term “inventions” comprise only those pertinent to the science, technology and business objectives of DNAP.
9 Collaborative Research
9.a) Can the company confirm the current status of the collaborative relationship with the University of Miami? Are Drs. Mirhashemi and Arena still employed by the University and are they participating in research with the company?
9.b) Is there any update on the FAMRI sponsored project on genetic susceptibility to cervical cancer in second hand smokers in conjunction with the University of Miami that was the subject of the press release in February 2003?
9.c) Can the company provide any update about the work that has been underway with New York University aimed at developing a transplant classifier?
9.d) Can the company explain what happened with the proposed collaboration with GeneLink which is apparently now not going forward?
9.e) Can the company provide more details about the relationship with H. Lee Moffitt (Moffitt) over and above what is contained in the 10K?
9.f) What is the nature of the relationship with Moffitt? Equal partners, both sharing in the costs of resources and materials of the various projects and then sharing equally in the resulting assets? Is DNAP acting as a service provider to Moffitt, being paid for their services and their expertise, but then Moffitt is the owner of any assets developed from the project. Is DNAP providing the project management or is it acting as a subcontractor taking direction from Moffit? Is there some other form for the relationship? How does the company see the process of co-development and co-commercialization working in practice with Moffitt?
9.g) Can the company provide any detail on the due diligence work that was undertaken by Moffitt before collaborating with DNAP and confirm when the projects actually started?
9.h) Can the company confirm that the following projects are currently underway in conjunction with Moffitt: Colon Cancer, Multiple Myeloma, Cyclophosphamide, Taxanes? Is is possible to provide any additional detail on the scope and anticipated timetable for these projects? Are there any other projects currently in progress or planned to be undertaken with Moffitt?
9.i) Can the company explain why they terminated the license agreement with the Penn State Research Foundation? Does this have any affect on the company’s intellectual property or on other work underway, or future work planned, in conjunction with Dr. Shriver?
9.j) Is there any update on the National Institutes of Justice Funded Project that was the subject of the press release in August 2003?
9.k) Can the company confirm the scope and status of any projects underway in conjunction with Senecio Inc?
10 Listing
10.a) Can the company confirm that it has applied to be delisted from the Berlin Exchange and also confirm the status of the listing on the Frankfurt Exchange? Does the company have plans to list on other foreign exchanges?
10.b) Has the company considered possible courses of action to address potential naked short-selling of its stock? These could include delisting from exchanges, removing its stock from the DTCC system and issuing physical certificates, and recalling all of its stock and re-issuing it to shareholders of record.
10.c) Does the company intend ultimately to list on NASDAQ or AMEX (or some other exchange)? Is there any timetable for such a listing?
11 Miscellaneous
11.a) Does the company intend to implement a reverse split of its stock in the foreseeable future? If not, how does the company think that the existing level of authorized shares will be perceived by the market? Is so, what would the ballpark split ratio be?
11.b) How does DNAP Utah impact/affect its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, DNAP Florida? What's the role/structure of the Utah parent company? Do they interact with DNAP Florida? If so, in what capacity? Is there overhead to DNAP Florida for this entity? Is Utah involved in the day-to-day operations of Florida? Do they handle employment contracts, etc? How many shares does Utah hold? Based on the above, what's the float?
Thanks to all for their contributions to this effort.
Later,
W2P
mingwan0...How long are you allowing for comments and revisions to this list? When do you anticipate forwarding the completed list to the company? I have some comments but can't get to it right away. A timetable would help.
Thanks,
W2P
GE...Great information. Thanks for the effort. From what they say, Frankfurt may be a problem as well.
Later,
W2P
OT: retro...It's great to hear that you came away from the experience with a positive outlook. I know that for some, incarceration is a hardening experience and many have difficulty readjusting to life on the outside.
We have a guy here in Wisconsin that was locked up for 18 years for a rape he didn't commit. He was recently released based on DNA evidence that implicated an already imprisoned sex offender.
The guy is very happy to be out, but he is currently living in a fishing shantee in the backyard of his sister's house. Says he got so used to the small living space that this is where he feel's most comfortable...sad but true.
It's good to know that you're adjusting well...
Later,
W2P
retro...How was the food? lol eom
Grateful...You've got mail...eom
ice105...Personal circumstances will dictate whether or not I am able to attend. I intend to be there if at all possible.
It is comforting to know that you will be there, though, as I have come to trust your judgement, and believe you offer objective opinions whether positive or negative.
Hope to see you there,
W2P
Whatever.....
frog...I doubt they would invite the shareholders to ..."tour the Company's facilities and to meet the management team that took office last year"...if the situation were "ominous". lol
Later,
W2P
Terry...Don't know that that is "always" the case. I think most public corporations schedule annual shareholders meetings as a matter of good business practice.
For instance, this Orchid PR from February announcing the R/S approval notes the upcoming annual shareholders meeting scheduled for June 11, 2004. They didn't need to file with the SEC to make that announcement:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040227/phf030_1.html
..."As a result of the approval obtained today, Orchid's Board of Directors has discretionary authority to implement a reverse stock split ranging from 1-for-3 shares to 1-for-7 shares at any time prior to the Company's Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which is scheduled to be held on June 11, 2004..."
Later,
W2P
frog...Just posed a simple question based not on reading "between" the lines...but reading "the" line in the PR. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.
As to the items you mention, I don't recall there ever BEING a stockholders meeting, outside of the one I attended last March relating specifically to the increased authorization. That was a special meeting of shareholders and didn't involve ANY other business.
The fact that they're calling a shareholders meeting is of interest to me.
Later,
W2P
I wonder whether there will be an additional announcement down the road as to what, if any, company business needs to be transacted at the shareholder's meeting:
DNAPrint Announces Annual Meeting
Monday May 17, 12:59 pm ET
SARASOTA, Fla., May 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- DNAPrint genomics (OTC Bulletin Board: DNAP - News) of Sarasota, FL today announced that it will hold its annual meeting of shareholders on July 29, 2004 at the Company's headquarters.
"We hope many of our shareholders will be able to attend," said Richard Gabriel, DNAPrint's chief executive officer and president. "The meeting provides the opportunity not only to transact Company business, but also for shareholders to tour the Company's facilities and to meet the management team that took office last year."
Later,
W2P
mingwan0...For those wondering what happened to Ovanome, we now know that Ovanome appears to be a very significant part of the Moffitt collaboration project.
Cyclophosphamide has application in a number of cancers (including Ovarian and Breast Cancers) and it's rate of metabolism is highly variable amoung individual patients.
More interesting is the work on Taxanes with Johanthan Lancaster at Moffitt. I'm not certain how many here recognized that Taxane is a term that refers to the "group" of drugs that includes paclitaxel (Taxol) and docetaxel. Here's a little info for those interested:
http://www.hersource.com/breast/04/i1-pac.cfm
The fourth study proposal listed in the Moffitt Collaboration Agreement in the most recent 10Q is titled:
STUDY PROPOSAL ON TAXANES
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR AT MOFFITT: JONATHAN M. LANCASTER, MD
Interesting..........
Later,
W2P
Is anyone else wondering, like I am, how much more we will learn about the Moffitt Research Collaboration from the 10Q?
Call me MR. Curious tonight, I guess...Oh, and BTW, I will be leaving very early Thursday and will not return until late Sunday. If it does come out end of this week, I won't even see it until Monday.
So whether it's good, bad, pretty or ugly, my lack of comment will be...well...due to ignorance and absence...lol Bet the boys on RB would get a kick out of THAT statement..lol
Later,
W2P
For those that, like I, found today's PR a bit confusing, this text from the 10K better explains what is being done with Pearl Street Software:
We have entered into a license agreement with Pearl Street Software. It will provide a link within their new release of Family Tree Legends software allowing our customers to upload their ANCESTRYbyDNATM results to a secure web page. Other family members will have the ability to add their test results, too. Together, family members can “pool” their results and create and construct a genetic family tree. Beta site tests are being conducted, and we anticipate launch of the service in late 2004.
First, it looks like the schedule has been moved up, and second it appears there is now a second product involved in the license.
Later,
W2P
mingwan0...You said:
I have for some time wondered whether a combined STR/SNP approach might well be able to shed more light on population affinity, and whether this has any possible bearing on the development of ABD/DNAWitness 3.0.
Perhaps something in this statement:
We have studied genetic variation at nine autosomal short tandem repeat loci in 20 globally distributed human populations defined by geographic and ethnic origins, viz., African, Caucasian, Asian, Native American and Oceanic.
20 populations they say? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.......
This from the DNAP 10K:
We hope to enlist universities and other personnel to help us collect DNA samples from across the globe. We have initiated plans to expand our scientific advisory board to include other scientists who will actively contribute to our effort in increasing the number of BGA sub-categories from our current four, to as many as 20.
20 you say? Hmmmmmmmmm.....
I have wondered for some time whether we might see Dr. Chakraborty added to the scientific advisory board...
Later,
W2P
It wouldn't surprise me:
...Metropolitan Police Detectives said the test gave them their biggest lead yet in a 12-year hunt for a serial sex attacker who preys on elderly women. "After 12 years we feel this is a major breakthrough and are confident that the new DNA results should lead us to the suspect or even his relatives," Detective Superintendent Simon Morgan of London's Metropolitan Police told reporters on Tuesday...
...Genetic tests can accurately determine familial relationships, using a number of “fast-evolving” regions in the human genome called STRs (Short Tandem Repeats). These types of tests can determine if an individual is related to a particular family line...
Later,
W2P
Perhaps a better idea behind the use of STR in genealogy is contained in that same article. This from page 9:
Genetic tests can accurately determine familial relationships, using a number of “fast-evolving” regions in the human genome called STRs (Short Tandem Repeats). These types of tests can determine if an individual is related to a particular family line. However, the decision as to whether a family is part of a tribal community would be made on historical or other non-genetic factors. Native American tribes use many different factors to justify enrollment in their community. These include percentage blood quantum of that tribe, being a direct descendant of an enrolled member, being born in that tribal community, and/or having a working knowledge of the culture (language and customs) of that tribal community. In some instances tribal membership is not dependent upon ancestry, and in these cases, DNA tests are not helpful for justifying membership in a tribal community. Otherwise, DNA based tests may be able to assist tribal communities in enrollment by supplying evidence of Native American ancestry in potential tribal members, but DNA based tests are not able to identify percentage ancestry at the tribal level.
Is this what we are doing with the New Scotland Yard to identify the perpetrator or his "family"? Interesting...
Later,
W2P
rideboldyride...That's our test all right. This link takes you to a PDF on the site. Go to page 7 and you'll find that the "autosomal" test is based on data by Shriver and Frudakis.
http://www.tracegenetics.com/nativeamericandna.pdf
Later,
W2P
gunnabeoneday...I really don't have a good idea what DNAP's cost is to run the test. While this price is considerably lower than typical STR CODIS testing, you must remember that there would undoubtedly be more overhead in the way of documentation and additional procedures related to chain-of-custody in forensic testing.
There could also be additional laboratory procedures involved with forensic DNA testing simply due to the nature and condition of the sample. A DNA sample retrieved from a crime scene may be quite different than a nice clean cheek swab from a genealogy enthusiast.
I would also guess that liability insurance could be pricy for CODIS type work as opposed to a genealogy test. Afterall, we could be talking life and death in a court case.
It would not surprise me to find out that this is an introductory rate that is either at cost or slightly above. I don't know why DNAPrint's costs would be too much different than any other DNA testing lab. But, there are valid reasons that DNAPrint charges a genealogist $219 for AncestryByDNA, yet charges a police agency $1,000 for virtually the same test. I would expect that we are looking at a similar situation here.
It does seem to me, though, that the STR Map testing for genealogy will allow them to gain needed experience and set the stage for the move into forensic STR testing.
At least we can see that things seem to be moving along...
Later,
W2P
The thing I'm curious about though, is this statement:
...STR testing, already a routine test for forensic and paternity labs, now is available for use as a genealogy tool.
They are using the terms "STR MAP" to describe the test. I am wondering how this is useful as a genealogy tool, except to match to other family members. Maybe that's all they're doing with it.
I guess we'll find out IF they decide to issue a PR announcing the new service (I'll not be holding my breath...lol).
Later,
W2P
bag8ger...As you can see from my prior post, I am perhaps not as informed as one might think! lol
Seems we ARE offering STR testing as we speak...not as an Accredited Lab at this point, but it appears we are getting our CODIS "feet" wet...lol
Later,
W2P
DNAPrint Offering STR Map Testing through AncestryByDNA. Looks like we're also offering expert witness testimony as well.
http://www.ancestrybydna.com/strorder.asp
STR MAP Analysis Order Form
STR Map
DNAPrint’s STR Map testing service represents the gold standard for human identification through genetic testing. The test is based on a genetic variation known as short tandem repeat or “STR”. These genetic markers form a unique identifying code for each individual statistically powerful enough for human identification. STR testing, already a routine test for forensic and paternity labs, now is available for use as a genealogy tool.
Your own STR Map test can be purchased from DNAPrint by phone at 941-366-3400 or on our web page (URL to follow).
The STR Map test is $100 USD per sample.
You will receive a DNA collection kit in the mail and once this kit is returned to DNAPrint your sample will be processed. Using your sample, DNAPrint will type your DNA at the 16 standard STR markers and report back to you the results of the STR Map test in approximately 3 to 6 weeks.
STR Map ANALYSIS CONSENT FORM
You are providing a biological sample of DNA from your cheek cells to DNAPrint Genomics, Inc. (“DNAPrint”) for the purpose of STR Map (DNA) testing. This Consent Form must be signed and returned with your sample.
The STR Map Test is a human identity test. This DNA test and any corresponding test results are not intended for medical use. Consult your doctor if you feel you need a genetic test for a specific medical purpose.
DNAPrint will perform a STR Map Test on your biological sample. When the test results are completed, you will receive a written report by mail from DNAPrint. Once we obtain proof of delivery of your test results, the biological sample you provided to DNAPrint will be discarded. Your tests results will be reported only to you. Your test results will not be shared with a third party.
The results of your STR Map Test may not be admissible in a court of law. If your test results are intended for court use, you should consult with legal counsel regarding the chain of custody of your biological sample before applying for a STR Map Test. Expert testimony by DNAPrint regarding STR Map Test results is available for an additional fee under a separate agreement, and is not included in the cost of your STR Map Test.
The DNA collection kit sent to you contains instructions for collecting cells from the inner lining of your cheeks. You agree to follow the instructions provided with the kit for collecting your own DNA. The risks associated with collecting your own DNA for this test are minimal. You may experience some temporary bruising or bleeding in the inner cheek from too vigorous a collection. DNAPrint Genomics, Inc. is not liable for consequences arising from the improper collection of your DNA.
By executing this Consent Form, you expressly acknowledge and agree to release and hold DNAPrint harmless for any damages, suits, claims, actions, or liability associated with DNAPrint’s STR Map Test or your test results, including any potential claims for emotional distress. In all cases, DNAPrint’s damages are limited to a refund of monies paid by you to DNAPrint for the services noted above.
I have read and understand this Consent Form and hereby affirm that the information provided below is accurate and true. By signing this document I affirm that the biological DNA sample provided herein is my own, it has not been contaminated and no other person has contributed DNA for this test.
Makes me wonder just how far off the Lab Accreditation could be...hmmmmmmmmmmm
Later,
W2P
stakddek...CyberGenetics has basically automated microsatellite testing and data analysis. This would be valuable to Orchid because the majority of their testing involves the STR marker sets used in forensic identity matching and CODIS. An STR IS a microsatellite marker:
DEFINITION:
A microsatellite consists of a specific sequence of DNA bases or nucleotides which contains mono, di, tri, or tetra tandem repeats. For example,
AAAAAAAAAAA would be referred to as (A)11
GTGTGTGTGTGT would be referred to as (GT)6
CTGCTGCTGCTG would be referred to as (CTG)4
ACTCACTCACTCACTC would be referred to as (ACTC)4
In the literature they can also be called simple sequence repeats (SSR), short tandem repeats (STR), or variable number tandem repeats (VNTR). Alleles at a specific location (locus) can differ in the number of repeats. Microsastellites are inherited in a Mendelian fashion.
But, Cybergenetics is not in competition with DNAPrint. In fact, if we ever achieve Forensic Lab Accreditation and begin doing STR testing we might also be in a position, at some point, to license their technology.
Hope this helps,
W2P
Tam...Good morning. That would be fine...eom
frog...High praise...Be still my beating heart...lol
I guess that means your original question has been answered to your satisfaction:
Can you envision a scenario in which it would have any value?
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2983576
In fact, I would add the thoughts of GE in this regard:
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAP&read=298836
Are you guys all working off the same talking points?
Later,
W2P
This is interesting. From the DNAWitness.net website:
DNA Witness 2.5 - About the Test
Markers:
The DNA Witness test for BGA determination is built on 176 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), pronounced “snips”. SNPs are single base changes in the same location of the genetic code found in a population. SNPs result from mutations that usually arose thousands of years ago and are stably passed down through generations. SNPs are primarily bi-allelic where one parent donates one allele and the other parent donates the second allele. At a given SNP that is a variation including “G” and “A” there are three possible genotypes, “GG”, GA”, and “AA”. There are thought to be over four million SNPs in our human genomes, so why settle on 176 for DNA Witness?
The SNPs chosen for DNA Witness were found to be Ancestry Informative Markers (AIMs), that is, they exhibited a significant difference in allele frequency among different population groups. Thousands of SNPs were tested during the development of DNA Witness until the list AIMs was narrowed down to the 176 most informative SNPs that were robust and reproducible.
An example of a well-known AIM is found in the Duffy gene and is referred to as FY-Null. At this marker the frequency of one allele is .9999 for Sub-Saharan Africans, where the allele frequency in Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans is close to zero. This sort of stark contrast is rare but there are several markers with greater than .5 delta values in allele frequency between different populations.
Populations:
The four parental populations consist of Sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Native Americans, and Europeans. Ninety samples from each of these four groups were genotyped to determine the allele frequencies at each marker. Obviously there are other population groups on the planet, but we felt that these four groups gave us a good starting point.
The Sub-Saharan African parental population consisted of individuals from Nigeria and the Republic of the Congo. The European parental population was from Western Europe. The East Asian parental group was from China, Japan, and Southeast Asia. The Native American parental group was from mainland Mexico.
Statistics:
A maximum likelihood calculation is used to determine the most likely population group(s) that the individual is affiliated with and at what percentage that affiliation is. For example, a tested person may be 75% European and 25% Native American.
The results are plotted for you on a standard bar graph depicting the most likely outcome and intervals of 2x confidence around those values. We also provide you with a triangle plot that is a bit less intuitive at first glance but depicts the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) and the 2, 5, and 10X confidence contours surrounding the MLE.
Geopolitical:
The main continental groups for which the percentages are reported can be highly informative. In most cases you can eliminate 2 or 3 of the 4 main continental groups. For instance, if the result reads “92% European and 8% East Asian”, the donor of that DNA sample is excluded from being Native American, East Asian, or Sub-Saharan African in appearance. But does this mean the person is Caucasian?
We have been assembling and will continue to assemble our geopolitical database consisting of individuals that we have tested, their BGAs, and their self reported ancestry. The admixture profile from the donor of a DNA sample at a crime scene can be compared to this database to help investigators understand what possible population groups may have that profile. Obviously, there are many smaller sub-populations in the world and individuals who share traits from two or more of the major continental populations but we are trying to include as many different examples as possible and multiples of any one example.
This database adds another level of information that may prove useful in an investigation. For instance, there are individuals in the database who self describe as American Indian but their admixture of Native American on DNA Witness is low. The individual may appear to be Caucasian but may live on a reservation. If your jurisdiction contains a reservation, you would not want to discount the fact that your suspect may be living on a reservation. Following that same logic, Middle East samples can have a high level of European admixture and therefore, you would not want to exclude people from the Middle East as suspect just because the result was high European admixture and only focus on Caucasians.
Photo DB
One of our goals is to establish a photo database of individuals from around the world linked to their BGA. Preliminary studies have indicated that a comprehensive photo database could be extremely useful in providing an investigator with an idea of what someone with a particular BGA profile might look like. Obviously, the true donor of a sample from the crime scene will not be pictured but if the investigator has 100 photos of people with BGA’s within a close range to their crime scene sample, it gives them an idea about the level of variation among the population around that BGA. We are currently seeking organizations that can help build this database rapidly. Ideally, this organization would already be taking digital mug shots and could collect a mouth swab from the subject. If you think your organization would like to participate, please send an email to forensics_info@dnaprint.com
Later,
W2P
frog...Let's suppose an envelope containing Anthrax was sent to someone in the government (I know, that would probably NEVER happen), would it be helpful if we could lift the oils out of the envelope and determine the probable biogeographical ancestry of someone that had handled the letter?
How about a canister of gas left in a subway?
How about a vial containing an unknown virus?
How about paperwork, glass, cigarette butt found at a location during an investigation in the aftermath of an attack. Even if you knew the last known resident, would it be helpful to seek additional samples from the site to know who else may have been there, and what their ancestry might be?
So many questions, so few answers...
Later,
W2P
frog...So what you're saying is that we already know all of their identities? No one would show up at a clandestine meeting that we wouldn't already know. Then I guess it follows that we can just go lock all of them up and end this whole terrorism thing...whew, that's a relief.
What was DNAPrint thinking developing these new investigative tools that have never before existed? What a waste...
Later,
W2P
frog...
1) Was that the case with the night club bombing in Bali? The train bombing in Spain? The embassy bombings in Africa?
2) Did the "African" American on Nightline know that he was African? Oh, that's right, he WASN'T African. He just LOOKED African. My mistake...
Later,
W2P
frog...Would this be a good time to point out that Al Quaeda has become an international organization that literally spans the globe. That being the case:
1) After a terrorist has blown himself to smitherines, would DNAWitness 2.5 be of assistance in the ensuing investigation?
2) If an agency such as Interpol or the CIA are investigating a location after having observed it's use by a group of suspected terror agents, would DNAWitness 2.5 perhaps be useful in helping to identify the geographical affiliation of the suspects?
Later,
W2P
Frog/ming...Perhaps you are focused on the terrorist after his suicide attack. The term geological origins would seem to fit in that instance...
Later,
W2P