Look, I'm not asking for detailed info (although their patent submission is online in the public domain [all you need to do is search the US patent site and you'll find it] and does seem to have marker info).
All I'm saying is: tell us what the parental samples are. Is that secret? They're willing to tell us for the NAM and SSA where the parentals are from and they give incomplete info for EA (China, Japan, and Southeast Asia - _where_ in SE Asia?), but for IE they just say "western Europe."
What countries? Britain? Germany? France? Italy? All of these? Some other nation?
I'm not "bashing" DNAP. I'm giving constructive criticism. The identity of the parental samples cannot be "proprietary." Answering legitimate questions about the validity of their parental samples is not beyond reason either.
The problem here is the intersection of science and profit. They make claims and then, when challenged, ignore the challenges, or claim "proprietary" information. A scientific study would not be able to make these claims w/o evidence, and peer review would include challenges that would require a coherent response.
Sooner or later, the information will become known. Better they give out the facts and explanations now, and get critical feedback that can help develop the test, then have in the future the realization that a grave error was made in the parentals and the work of the last "X" years is all screwed up.
Their track record is a bit sketchy. First they insisted that all admixture was from recent admixture, and PA Dutch people with EA MLE were told "you must have a Chinese greatgrandmother you know nothing about!" Later, after so many people said "look, I know my genealogy, and there is no hidden Chinese greatgrandmother", they 'suddenly' realized the quite obvious fact that simple MLE measurements cannot determine when admixture took place. Now, they push the idea of ancient admixture. Are they making the same mistake again - concentrating on the most obvious explanation?
certainly, when they are able to "time" admixture events by studying the patterns of AIMs along the chromosome, looking at the patterns, we'll get more answers.
But, I'm a bit skeptical about this revisionist history to explain what is more easily explained by poor choice of parental populations.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
