From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:46:58 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: RE: DNA (fwd)
Message-ID: <199810150122.UAA15016@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
> Subject: RE: DNA (fwd)
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:04:32 -0700

> Monozygotic [maternal] twins do have the same DNA. Hence they are
> identical.

In my earlier post I got the naming on the type of twin incorrect, it
shouldn't have been identical. I was trying to explain that aspect in the
second paragraph. My mistake.

> Clones on the otherhand and have identical nuclear DNA, but are not
> necessarily identical because some early development processes rely on
> maternal genome material and not nuclear DNA, and depending on the
> cloning process they may have different mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

I assume the mitochondrial differences are due to nucleus swapping,
different line of extra-nuclear heritage?


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------