tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post62356606406857461..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Every non-lethal genome position is variable in the human populationLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69558651591015833542013-07-27T22:27:26.485-04:002013-07-27T22:27:26.485-04:00For mutations to specific bases divide N by 3? St...For mutations to specific bases divide N by 3? Still 33 is rather impressive.W. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11019350102074238654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34098010554287339472013-07-26T08:57:16.614-04:002013-07-26T08:57:16.614-04:00I chip in a reference that might provide some of t...I chip in a reference that might provide some of the answer: “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”; (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2320168)Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29672254566315383672013-07-26T07:13:28.942-04:002013-07-26T07:13:28.942-04:00??
If the rate per site is 1.2*10^-8, the probab...?? <br /><br />If the rate per site is 1.2*10^-8, the probability for any site to remain unmutated even in 7.16 billion trials is (1-(1.2*10^-8))^7.16 billion. Using my cutting-edge computational software (Excel) I get that 1 in 390 such sites remains unmutated on average.<br /><br />When the population was 6 billion, it was 1 in 148 - the same as the chance of being an unmutated individual. (Disclaimer: IANAM).AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3225242201244857392013-07-25T19:34:03.965-04:002013-07-25T19:34:03.965-04:00I told you I had second sight.I told you I had second sight.steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49470754491260598012013-07-25T19:21:38.635-04:002013-07-25T19:21:38.635-04:00Berlinski spanked your a.s big time, so if I were ...Berlinski spanked your a.s big time, so if I were you, I would take some math courses this summer or I would go to the atheistic confession. I'm afraid however, that people like you lie to themselves so much, they can no longer distinguish what it is; what is the truth and a lie. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50886686029578053252013-07-25T19:10:44.408-04:002013-07-25T19:10:44.408-04:00I'll put in $5 for chalk, that's about all...I'll put in $5 for chalk, that's about all you need right?<br />NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91059420927948636182013-07-25T17:50:23.330-04:002013-07-25T17:50:23.330-04:00I'll chip in $100. That should pretty much cov...I'll chip in $100. That should pretty much cover it, eh?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50688365713834207902013-07-25T16:33:50.267-04:002013-07-25T16:33:50.267-04:00You're of course offering to fund my effort .....You're of course offering to fund my effort ...Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68817253637312273052013-07-25T14:54:29.155-04:002013-07-25T14:54:29.155-04:00Thanks for reposting.
I look forward to Joe'...Thanks for reposting. <br /><br />I look forward to Joe's calculation. <br /><br />I just like how cleanly this very simple calculation shows how we expect, on average, every site, to vary in a hundred or more individuals across the whole human population.<br /><br />We can take into account mutation rate variation across the chromosomes, context-dependent substitutions, inherited mutations from previous generations, and a host of other complications. This is why I will, hopefully, be employed for a few more years. :)mathbionerdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17525536407206138695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2459816299582737472013-07-25T13:47:53.649-04:002013-07-25T13:47:53.649-04:00Yeah, I know. It doesn't change the conclusion...Yeah, I know. It doesn't change the conclusion that every non-lethal site is mutated, but it underestimates the number of segregating mutations in the population.<br /><br />Do you know how to calculate the real number? It's tricky because you don't know the effective population sizes of semi-isolated human populations. I'm sure that if anyone can do it, it's you. Take your time and get back to us in a few months! :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13023904897809528672013-07-25T13:42:52.022-04:002013-07-25T13:42:52.022-04:00Good point. There are about 6 × 10^11 new mutation...Good point. There are about 6 × 10^11 new mutations every generation and only 1%, at most, are deleterious.<br /><br />That's 6 billion deleterious mutations per generation. I probably should have said "very few." :-) Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68825279687218095592013-07-25T13:15:37.576-04:002013-07-25T13:15:37.576-04:00The calculation Sayres made was only of mutations ...The calculation Sayres made was only of mutations that occurred in the present generation. If you consider those that occurred in previous generations and were passed on and are segregating in our population, the number is of course higher.<br /><br />It gets complicated, because it involves not only the coalescent tree of ancestry of the copies in the present generation, it also involves the way the coalescent process breaks down as an approximation when the sample taken is the whole population.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46209790736171331402013-07-25T12:08:11.852-04:002013-07-25T12:08:11.852-04:00I suppose that in a genome of 6 billion bases &quo...I suppose that in a genome of 6 billion bases "many" can still be a very small percentage, but "many of those mutations will be deleterious" still sounds a bit odd.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.com