I don't think Justin submitted to Sykes so I wonder if having participated in Dr. Ketchum's study was an automatic out. For those more involved in research what would be the reason for rejecting samples that were submitted to Dr. Ketchum's study if that were the case? The chance of getting conflicting results with the questions that would ensue from that assuming we ever get to see anything from Ketchum's study?
From talking with Sally, my understanding is that Dr. Ketchum did indeed sequence the nuclear genomes. From what I understand of Dr. Sykes study he was looking at relationships via the mtDNA and looking at the CO1 gene that they are using in the bar code project. Sally said that there were issues with getting anything from the mtDNA. I don't know if she knew what she was talking about or exactly what she meant. I was afraid to ask too many probing questions for fear of putting her off since she was in a talkative mood at the time.
Just to keep everyone on the straight and narrow, Sykes is actually going after Cytochrome B in the mitochondrial DNA, and 12S RNA. I am the one doing the bar code gene - CO1.
I do not know who Sally is, or her professional background, but i can tell you that it is MUCH EASIER and more CONSISTENT to get Mitochondrial DNA, that nuclear, so not sure why they would have problems with the easy stuff, so they switch to the hard stuff? doesn't make sense to me, but I do not know the whole story!
12S Cyto 1 and CO1 all are well established and accepted as having an excellent record of species ID. The reason we go after ribosomal DNA in this case: 2 reasons,
1. lots more available, so even in poor samples it is possible to get amplified sequence. There are maybe100 - 200 mitochondria in most cells, and in muscle cells , they are loaded with mitochondria, because the energy demand of the muscle cells. contrast that to nuclear DNA, where you only get one copy per cell , if you are lucky.
2. ID of species is typically done and reliably done using these mitochondrial genes. No need to go any further if you are looking for species ID.
Now in the case where the DNA does not match up with any known species, thats when it gets interesting. Then you would look at going after the whole genome.
As for the provenance of the samples. in most cases that does not make much difference. If the sample comes out to a known species, well all it does is reveal the imagination that went into convincing ones self that they did indeed have BF DNA.
The reason Sykes is getting the stories, at least in my opinion, is that assuming he gets the expected results, it will immediately reveal that the so called "best " BF DNA samples are indeed not bigfoot. That reveals either spectacular imagination, or intended hoax!
Pretty hard to fake DNA, even if you mixed species, it would typically be detected.
I suspect the reason you saw Melba shifting from mitochondrial to nuclear, is that mitochondrial told he a story she did not want to see, or believe, so she went looking for some way to "schmeer" results enough to at least give her a chance to make a claim of something different!
I think the current BF is a hibrid human" is a result of disapointing Melba DNA tests, so looking for any suitable explanation that may leave a sliver of a chance. So she began seeding the clouds with this idea.
Bottom line, if her samples did in fact reveal anything of interest, the sample should be immediately submitted to a couple of other known labs with good reputations. DNA is DNA, if you get it to amplify, thats it, 2 different amplifications from the same sample should reveal identical results.
That would be instant validation for Melba and her claims. But i don't see that ever happening, and I see the soap opera continuing there, with new fantastic claims and wispered "results" leaking out to keep the faithfull hoping and paying!
