4 ms·
One other point about twins. Twins while genetically similar, are not identical [1]. I'd guess that the differences are still significant enough to be able to a
by new299 10y ago
One other point about twins. Twins while genetically similar, are not identical [1]. I'd guess that the differences are still significant enough to be able to assign identity through whole genome sequencing.
[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-ge...
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoYour citations says: >"Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants." // So, it's "in some cases" monozygotic twins differ by having copy number variants [TIL! thanks]. So, not all cases (according to this citation) and so the point still stands that "Comparing complete genomes would unambiguously assign identity" appears to be false (albeit at a very low false match rate). Interestingly the article says that copy number variants appear to arise as a subject ages. Doesn't this mean that different cells in the body will have different multiples of particular genes; so a mismatch wouldn't necessarily mean that the DNA wasn't from the same twin?