Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Menarue]

Elspeth please explain this to me (probably everyone else understands)
I am afraid I should read "DNA for Dummies" so what does this say, who is related (probably) to whom? Does this confirm that FA is not AA or what?
Thanks.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Menarue

Elspeth please explain this to me (probably everyone else understands)
I am afraid I should read "DNA for Dummies" so what does this say, who is related (probably) to whom? Does this confirm that FA is not AA or what?
Thanks.

Well, I'm not entirely sure myself, but the biggest thing here is that the DNA sequence of the blood sample said to have come from Anna Anderson in Germany in 1951 doesn't match the sequence of the intestine and hair samples in the USA.

The two American samples (intestine and hair) matched the samples from Karl Maucher and Margarete Ellerick; the German blood sample didn't. This means that the German and American samples weren't from the same person, or that one or other of them was contaminated. Since the two American samples were the same as each other, the greater likelihood is that the German sample is the one that has the problem.

Neither the American nor the German samples matched the sample from Prince Philip or the sample from Princess Sofia. Dr Ginther says the Philip and Sofia samples matched each other, but the sequences they give for the Sofia one look wrong (the nucleotides of the reference sequence aren't correct).

They tried to sequence samples from needles and other items but the DNA was too degraded to be useful. This means that they didn't have an independent sample to check the blood sample against. So although the chain of custody of the blood sample looks pretty good, there is the possibility, which Dr Ginther acknowledges, that it was contaminated. There's also the possibility that it wasn't from Anna Anderson in the first place, although I don't know how strong a possibility that is. For the American samples, they had the independent confirmation because the intestine sample and the hair sample, from different sources and sequenced in different labs, gave the same results.

It seems that Dr Ginther didn't publish his work. My guess is that the lack of independent confirmation, coupled with finding a different sequence from the ones obtained by the Gill and Stoneking groups, means that he couldn't be sure his results were correct.

[Menarue]

In other words, more confusion. Thanks Elspeth for explaining this for me, it is enough to make anyone´s head spin.

[Anna was Franziska]

Oh, so that's what it was about! You had me scared for a minute! I've seen this addressed several times before (though not in so much detail) and really no one in the scientific community who did the other testing puts much value in it.

Interesting that Chat and others of his 'ilk' (as they like to call me and my 'ilk') will say with certainty that this was hers while calling the hair and intestine 'putative.' Well, speaking of 'putative', this 1951 blood sample is the one least likely to actually be hers. In addition to that, the chances of contamination due to time and not completely enclosed storage are much, much greater than they were with the intestine, which was sterile, airtight and sealed in parafin wax. So if anyone's going to start talking about problems with a sample, this is the place to start, not Martha Jefferson Hospital.

The same problems, age, likely contamination and less than pure storage conditions are also the likely issues with the Japanese sample that allegedly belonged to the Tsar. It was supposed to be a rag used to wipe his blood when he was hit by the sword in 1891, yet in reality, the first time another person touched it, or even breathed on it, all bets were off. Both it and the 'putative' blood sample were saved in times when no one had any idea that DNA testing would ever exist and what pure conditions would be required for obtaining an accurate result. Blood typing is one possibility, but for something as precise and delicate as DNA testing, more careful handling is required.

Honestly, of all the samples taken, the old blood sample, as well as the Japanese rag, are far, far more prone to outside contamination and therefore inaccurate results than the intestine. The intestine matching the hair, both matching Maucher and neither Prince Phillip is really too much to discount with anything. As you say too, the fact that he never published his results make it even more likely they are wrong, and that he considers this possibility to be high.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Interesting that Chat and others of his 'ilk' (as they like to call me and my 'ilk') will say with certainty that this was hers while calling the hair and intestine 'putative.'

If my memory serves me right, the word "putative" came from Dr. Gill, not from me and my ilk.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

not from me and my ilk.

I've been called 'ilk' or 'you and your ilk' by a lot of AA supporters over a lot of toics, not just this.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I've been called 'ilk' or 'you and your ilk' by a lot of AA supporters over a lot of toics, not just this.

Somehow, I don't see how that pertains to the discussion.

[Anna was Franziska]

Just pointing out it had nothing to do with Dr. Gill.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Just pointing out it had nothing to do with Dr. Gill.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Anna was Franziska]

So, what about those chances that the 1950 blood sample and the 1891 rag were exposed to contamination, unlike the intestine which was sterile and sealed in parafin wax?

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, I'm not entirely sure myself, but the biggest thing here is that the DNA sequence of the blood sample said to have come from Anna Anderson in Germany in 1951 doesn't match the sequence of the intestine and hair samples in the USA.

The two American samples (intestine and hair) matched the samples from Karl Maucher and Margarete Ellerick; the German blood sample didn't. This means that the German and American samples weren't from the same person, or that one or other of them was contaminated. Since the two American samples were the same as each other, the greater likelihood is that the German sample is the one that has the problem.

Neither the American nor the German samples matched the sample from Prince Philip or the sample from Princess Sofia. Dr Ginther says the Philip and Sofia samples matched each other, but the sequences they give for the Sofia one look wrong (the nucleotides of the reference sequence aren't correct).

They tried to sequence samples from needles and other items but the DNA was too degraded to be useful. This means that they didn't have an independent sample to check the blood sample against. So although the chain of custody of the blood sample looks pretty good, there is the possibility, which Dr Ginther acknowledges, that it was contaminated. There's also the possibility that it wasn't from Anna Anderson in the first place, although I don't know how strong a possibility that is. For the American samples, they had the independent confirmation because the intestine sample and the hair sample, from different sources and sequenced in different labs, gave the same results.

It seems that Dr Ginther didn't publish his work. My guess is that the lack of independent confirmation, coupled with finding a different sequence from the ones obtained by the Gill and Stoneking groups, means that he couldn't be sure his results were correct.

You are assuming a great deal about why Ginther didn't publish his work. And, in case you missed it, he was the one who under Dr. King, ran the same kind of testing as Dr. Gill. He was quite sure of his results and I'm not sure how you acquired the idea that he was not.

Please head over to my forum and read exactly what Dr. Ginther wrote to my friend Curious One, who allowed me to copy his e-mail to her.

AGRBear

PS: RomanovsRussia :: Login

[Elspeth]

I did read exactly what he wrote, as you should be able to see from the fact that I copied excerpts from it in my previous post.

I know he did the same sorts of tests as Dr Gill, as you can also see from my previous post. However, he took a blood sample claimed to be from Anna Anderson, sequenced the DNA, and came up with a different result from Gill and Stoneking. His attempt to confirm his result by testing an independent sample failed. Therefore he has no way of knowing, as he said himself, whether his different result was due to contamination of the blood sample. Hence my statement about not being confident of his result.

This comment, assuming it was from him, is incorrect if he's talking about the Gill and Stoneking results as well as his own:

ASIDE: The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.

The sequence from Margarete Ellerick exactly matched the sequences obtained for the Anna Anderson samples by Drs Gill and Stoneking. However, if he's just talking about the different analyses he did on the blood sample and the attempted analyses of the needles and other items, it's probably true that there wasn't a match.

He said: "Assuming that the mtDNA isolated from the slide was authentic DNA from Anna Anderson, and not a contamination (an important assumption,) the data suggests that Anna Anderson is not related to the Schanzkowska family."

Please note the wording "an important assumption" and "suggests" rather than "confirms."

He goes on to talk about DNA isolated from a needle case. He said he did the isolation and that someone from Mary King's lab did the sequencing, which, incidentally, isn't the same as saying that he was working in Mary King's lab. His next comment was, "The isolation was very difficult and I would not put great faith in the results." He said, and this is significant, "The sequence obtained differed from the Cambridge sequence in the region 16252-16355 at 16266 (C->T), and 16311 (T->C). This is not identical to either of the above sequences." So his attempt at independent confirmation of the results from the slide, by sequencing an unrelated sample in a different lab, led to the result that the two samples claimed to be from Anna Anderson had different sequences. He mentioned contamination of the blood sample as a possible reason for the difference between its sequence and that of the sequence obtained by Gill and Stoneking, and he said about the needle case sample that he wouldn't put great faith in the results.

He also did as a good scientist would do in a case like this, and sent part of the blood sample to another lab for independent analysis. That lab (in Germany) isolated mtDNA samples and sent them back to him for sequencing. In his own words, "The data was not pretty: Without going into detail, the PCR samples produced 9 different sequences. None of the sequences were identical to those of Sofia of Hanover or Magarette Ellevik. The only possible conclusion is that the results from these PCR experiments are not very meaningful and did nothing to clarify the status of Anna Anderson."

He also talked about some other items from which he attempted, and failed, to get samples.


His summation was: "ASIDE: As to your question about what I think happened. Clearly the Anna Anderson slide did not contain enough high quality DNA from the original donor to produce consistent results. The sequences obtained varied from one PCR experiment to the next, and thus cannot even be attributed to Anna Anderson or any other single individual. I would presume that the slide was both contaminated and contained little, if any, of the original donor DNA. Any data from that slide is, in my opinion, not believable."

This is talking about the original slide, not the three items mentioned above, since he said he couldn't get any results from them. The samples from the slide gave different results in different analyses, and he couldn't get enough DNA from the other sources to run independent analyses so he could compare the results.


So to sum up, the only times he said that something was believable are the following.

1. I would generally believe the work of Mark Stoneking (Penn State), Mark Wilson (FBI),, Mitch Holland (US Army), Peter Gill and Kevin Sullivan (Forensic Sci. Service, UK),
(these are the authors of the Gill paper who analysed the intestine and hair samples)

2. I never sequenced Prince Philip, and that was done by Dr. Peter Gill. Instead, I sequenced Sofia, also a maternal relative of Alexandra. The sequences of Sofia and Philip matched. As will be shown below, the none of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" isolated matched Sofia’s sequence. This data is believable.

3. The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.

None of which had to do with the blood sample. And his opinion about the results from the blood sample were "Any data from that slide is, in my opinion, not believable."

As long as he acknowledges that his data aren't believable, I think you have your answer about why the work wasn't published. There was nothing he could say other than that he was working with a heavily contaminated sample which gave different results every time it was tested. No journal is going to touch that.

[Anna was Franziska]

Where did the Margaret Ellerick sample come from? I had heard she refused to give one, and this is why Maucher was used.

[Elspeth]

The implication from the letter was that Dr Ginther had done the analysis of a sample from Margarete Ellerick, but there were no details about how he obtained it.

[Anna was Franziska]

I just read one of your earlier posts that said she was sequenced by 'someone else' but he didn't say who.

He also reported the sequencing of a sample from Margarette Ellerick by someone else and said that it didn't match the Anna Anderson sample. He then said the Margarette Ellerick sample was an exact match to the Karl Maucher sample. Since the Karl Maucher sample did match the Anna Anderson samples analysed by Gill and Stoneking, I think this is where the discrepancy lies, because at the moment you have A equals B equals C doesn't equal A. He does mention some actual data, though, so I'll pull out my copy of the Gill-Stoneking paper and see if the nucleotides match.

So if she matches Maucher and Maucher matches AA, how can she not also match AA, and how can she not be the same as her own son? (Unless there is something wrong with the Ellerick sequence) If you find out more on where it came from please let us know.

[Elspeth]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Ellerick sample because it matches both the Maucher sample and the two Anna Anderson samples reported in the Gill/Stoneking paper. The thing it doesn't match is the Anna Anderson sample from the slide, and Dr Ginther concluded that that sample was too contaminated for the results to be useful.

Looking at the letter again, it appears that Dr Ginther analysed the sample from Margarete Ellerick; I was getting confused with some of the third-person reporting.