DNA RESOURCEs: Romanov-related scientific papers

[I would like to restrict this topic to based-on-the-fact-arguments. I understand that it is also intriguing to explore your wild imagination regarding the DNA testing, but please post them in other topics. There are many interesting conspiracy theory related threads.]

Here, I am posting the Romanov-related DNA information and literature published in the scientific literature (I finally learned how to post photos). FA is also preparing the list at the official AP site, which is supposed to have more “neutral” viewpoint. I added my analysis, but I encourage everyone to read it critically.

I never received formal education in molecular genetics or forensic science. I taught myself using material from internet and TV programs like CSI. That is why I often find the rationale of the critics of DNA testing slothful and/or deceitful. If I can find anything, anybody can.    

This thread is for the purpose of scientific resources. Please feel free to cite or cut/paste to your own thread to make an argument. I would like to restrict this topic to based-on-the-fact-arguments. I understand that it is also intriguing to explore your wild imagination regarding the DNA testing, but please post them in other topics. There are many interesting conspiracy theory related threads.  

The whole science community is moving toward the direction in which all old scientific articles should be open to public on internet (see this week's Nature). But I can’t post the whole research article itself at this point because of copy right issue, so I’ll try to post other related article, figure, editorial, review etc.  

If you know any DNA-related articles that I don’t know of, please post it or send it to my email address. I would appreciate it.

Dave

Three month after the Gill’s Anna Anderson paper was published , in April 1995, Schweitzer, who refused to accept the DNA result,  was given a space to make his rebuttal.

Schweitzer RR.    
Anastasia and Anna Anderson.  
Nature Genetics. 1995 Apr;9(4):345.  




Here is Gill’s original data from (Nature  Genetics. 1995 Jan;9(1):9-10.) .

---------------STR profile of nuclear DNA from Anna Anderson--------------------

---------------mitochondria DNA profile from Anna Anderson--------------------

---------------mitochondrial DNA figure--------------------

---------------mitochondrial DNA figure--------------------


Schweitzer is making a bold statement in the letter.
1) Bernd Hermann's testing showed that DNA was completely different from the Peter Gill's result.

Here is my response: WHERE IS THE DATA? If this is true, why doesn't he show the different mtDNA profile? Schweitzer must know it, because he can't claim this unless he knows the sequence. And if he knew it, why didn’t he show the difference?
And why is Hermann silent while Gill and Nature make a false statement?  
If anyone knows about this, please let me know.

2) He also claimed that Stoneking didn't get STR from hair sample.

My response: Peter Gill already showed that he couldn't get STR from old hair sample. It is difficult, if not impossible, to get the nuclear DNA from old hair, that's why they needed intestine sample. That’s the whole point of the paper.

3) Many points suggested by Schweitzer are a typical red herring. For example, he claimed that sex of the mtDNA source was not determined. Of course you can’t determine the sex from mtDNA of hair sample, but why does it matter for the argument for the matching between Anna Anderson and FS’s maternal relative?  

4) This letter was written 10 years ago. He claimed he was going continuing his investigation. If he had any solid evidence to contradict the Gill’s result, why didn’t he publish (journal, book or even on internet) any of the result? Other critics of DNA testing like Alec Knight claims he will publish his new finding in a near future, but I am suspicious if they ever do it.

To understand Schweitzer letter, I have to put the Nature Genetics’ editorial.
Nature Genetics, November 1994, Editorial








Here are some points by me:
1) Nature wrote the Richard Schweitzer's wife as "a woman who claimed to be a descendant of the Tsar's private physician". This was interesting to me. Nature has professional editors, who are best of experts in broad disciplines including genetics, archeology, anthropology, and so on. And they used a specific word “claimed to be”.  Are they even suspecting the authenticity of Marina Schweitzer? No wonder that Schweitzer was furious!
2) Nature’s concern was prophetic. If DNA testing by three independent labs can’t convince Schweitzer, how could general public react to it in a court? Indeed, this was the central point in OJ case.

Here are the tables from Gill’s paper in 1994. It shows DNA profiles of nine skeletons.

Gill P, Ivanov PL, Kimpton C, Piercy R, Benson N, Tully G, Evett I, Hagelberg E, Sullivan K.  Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis.  
Nature Genetics. 1994 Feb;6(2):130-5.






Family Tree

This is the figure of STR loci of nuclear DNA from the Gill's review article in 2004.

This is acknowledgement section of Gill's AA paper. It clearly states that hair sample was from Peter Kurth.

i noticed that there is problem with loading. figure may be too big. I am still trying to fix it.

Thanks DaveK, keep it coming!

Here's the AA/Carl Maucher results

http://www.dnai.org/bioserver/clustalw_anna_and_carl.html

I can't get it to save but if anyone can save this as a document and post it that would be great, just in case this link goes down.

Thanks Annie! I didn't know this site.

This Anna Anderson affair was described in the book "The Quest for Anastasia" by John Klier. Bryan Sykes wrote a book review. This is important, because Nature's book review is not only a book review, but  is often  an expression of Nature’s opinion. For example, Michael Crichton has just published his book "State of Fear" which described the global warming as a scam. Nature’s book review vehemently criticized the Crichton's view as biased, twisted, distorted, and unsubstantiated.




Sykes states the followings as "facts". I think these points are controversial at AP site, but it seems that it is generally accepted as "fact".
1) Anna Anderson had "glaring anomalies (she spoke no Russian)".
2) "No one doubts Alexei was murdered in 1918 with the rest of the royal family."

For some reason, Sykes doesn’t mention FS. I am not sure if this was because he doesn’t support the hypothesis AA=FS, or he just doesn’t care the identity of a imposter as long as she was not Anastasia.

For some reason, Sykes doesn’t mention FS. I am not sure if this was because he doesn’t support the hypothesis AA=FS, or he just doesn’t care the identity of a imposter as long as she was not Anastasia.

In his book, The Seven Daughters of Eve, Bryan Sykes states that the DNA results "proved" that AA was FS.  

My daughter got it to work! I want to have this document on record in case the site or link goes down someday.

[“which side bears the burden of proof?”]

Thanks Helen. I didn't know about it.

There is a reason why I think it is important to show what is generally accepted among many scientists.

I think that there is a big confusions at AP as to the question “which side bears the burden of proof?”

For example, if I propose a hypothesis “George W Bush has an identical twin, and two Bush serve as the President every other day”, I am the one who has to prove that. I cannot demand non-believer of the crazy idea  to show the evidence of non-existence of twin brother.  The proof of burden is on my side, because it is generally accepted that he does not have a twin brother!

All Romanov family were killed in 1918. This is a generally accepted fact that you can find in Britannica encyclopedia. If you want to question it, that’s fine, but the burden of proof is on your side. You cannot demand like “show me the evidence that proves 100% for sure that they were killed on that night”. You are the one who has to provide the evidence that some of them were alive.

I know that even FA still maintains that AA may not be FS. But as the three independent DNA testing show that AA is FS for 99.99% to 99.99999%, the burden of proof is on the side of those who question the DNA testing. Unless you have evidence, you have to accept the hypothesis at least tentatively. That's how the society works.

Thanks Annie. That's great.
Actually this DNAi site has lots of other interesting stuff. I never seen such a great computer animation to explain the PCR.

... if I propose a hypothesis “George W Bush has an identical twin...

Dave, please don't even joke about that!     Sorry, I couldn't resist