The paper has been published.
Breaking update: The paper has been published. But there are some major problems that are being revealed with the publication in which this paper is appearing. Number one that the “journal” (or website) is new, apparently purchased as a way to get the paper published. The domain date is February 4, 2013. Not enough time for any credible peer-reviewing under the editorship of a new journal. Is this vanity publishing? Is this scientific suicide?
Sharon Hill goes into some detailed critiques on her blog.
Here is the abstract:
Special Issue
Solo Publication
Abstract (short)
One hundred eleven samples of blood, tissue, hair, and other types of specimens were studied, characterized and hypothesized to be obtained from elusive hominins in North America commonly referred to as Sasquatch. DNA was extracted and purified from a subset of these samples that survived rigorous screening for wildlife species identification. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing, specific genetic loci sequencing, forensic short tandem repeat (STR) testing, whole genome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) bead array analysis, and next generation whole genome sequencing were conducted on purported Sasquatch DNA samples gathered from various locations in North America. Additionally, histopathologic and electron microscopic examination were performed on a large tissue sample. vel non-human DNA.
DeNovo Scientific Journal, Vol. No. 1
NEWS
TUESDAY
2/13/2013
Title:
Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies
Author(s):
Ketchum, M. S., Wojtkiewicz, P. W., Watts, A. B., Spence, D. W., Holzenburg, A. K., Toler, D. G., Prychitko, T. M., Zhang, F., Bollinger, S., Shoulders, R., Smith, R. (2013)
Keywords: Species Identification, Human DNA Identification, Forensic Hair Analysis, Electron Microscopy, Next Generation Whole Genome Sequencing, Mitochondrial DNA
Is it time to be actually carried away?
I have always agreed with John Hawks’ memorable quote about last fall’s premature media storm that “Bigfoot has been discovered.”
One of the most pointed and yet considered opinions was posted by anthropologist John Hawks on his blog. He wrote, in part: “Until I see the data, I am withholding judgment….No data, no discovery.”
When anthropologist John Hawks famously said, “No data, no discovery,” he reflected the caution that many of us practice. Now, upon us, may be the actual data to study.
Dr. Melba Ketchum, in anticipation of the release of her new paper on what she has discovered about the DNA found in so-called Bigfoot hair, said on Facebook on Darwin’s birthday, “Buckle up!”
Her paper, shared in the writing with the following coauthors, is reportedly going to be published in the DeNovo Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology.
The authors of the paper are said to be “Kethcum MS, Wojkiewicz PW, Watts AB, Spence DW, Holzenburg AK, Toler DG, Prychitko TM, Zhang F, Bollinger S, Shoulder R, Smith R.”
The complete name of the paper, allegedly, is “Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies.”
How and what did the Ketchum group end up studying?
The paper reveals part of the answer: “Next-generation whole genome sequencing with the HiSeq 2000 platform by Illumina was performed at the University of Texas, Southwestern on one tissue sample, a saliva sample and one blood sample to produce 3 whole genomes.”
In the paper, Ketchum relates that after “extensive forensic controls to prevent contanimation, mtDNA testing of the Sasquatch samples yielded fully modern human profiles.” But the other results showed unique findings. The paper states the group’s finding that “the Sasquatch nuDNA results were a mosaic of novel primate and human sequence.”
Ketchum is further quoted as stating, “While the three Sasquatch nuclear genomes aligned well with one another and showed significant homology to human chromosome 11 which is highly conserved in primates, the Sasquatch genomes were novel and fell well outside of known ancient hominin as well as ape sequences. Because some of the mtDNA haplogroups found in our Sasquatch samples originated as late as 13,000 years ago, we are hypothesizing that the Sasquatch are human hybrids, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.”
BTW, the use of the threshold parameter of “13,000 years” is the horizon date also mentioned for Homo floresiensis, as noted by Science and other journals that discussed the groundbreaking new species discovery in 2003. Is this a coincidence?
I look forward to reading the entire paper.
Update: DeNovo Journal appears to be a new journal. This paper is in Vol. No. 1. It seems to be live now.
Now the questions will begin. Who funded and started this new journal?
(Our thanks to Dr. Matthew A Johnson of “Team Squatchin USA” for initially pointing to this news, via his sharing of the following.)
I’ll accept it when i see it. ;}P>
On the other hand, i’m looking forward very much to seeing it. :}D>
The paper is live now. I’m tempted to pay the $30 fee to download a copy…
It does seem unusual that the site is virtually brand new and this is Vol 1 of the journal.
If self-published as some suggestions say, it still may not be readily accepted.
What do we know about Ketchum’s co-authors?
Finally, the wait is over and there is “something” to review.
Now, I guess I’ll wait while greater minds than mine parse the published results and wrangle over the findings.
I must admit, though, the origins of the “new” DeNovo Journal give me pause.
Oh well, let the debate re Patty’s Coming-Out Party begin!
It seems that Ketchum et al launched this new journal specifically to publish the paper. It does raise suspicion.
Folks I wouldn’t Jump to conclusions here. This is an amazing amount work and can be easy for some to judge others when we live in a I want it now world. Take a deep breath, now let it out. Remember her career rides on this lets read it. If we need help breaking down the science end, we will get it. Most Important Have a great day. Thank you Ken Gentry, Veneta, Or.
Hi, just wanted to add a few pros and cons….as someone who has family relations in the scientific field, who publish in scientific peer reviewed journals, I’d like to say some of Dr. Ketchum’s stuff seems good, some weird, here is what I mean:
1–It is a long and tedious process for anyone trying to publish, no matter how strong the paper….just because an article passes peer review does not mean a journal has to publish it, according to Dr Ketchum, the journal’s lawyers advised them against publishing it, as it would ruin their reputations, that is possible.
2–Buying a journal is a little weird, though not totally, and in this case, its possible that Dr. Ketchum saw no other way to get this stuff out, and, if this pans out to be the biggie it could be, it could allow future cutting edge discoveries an outlet to be published. This may be a good thing for the crypto world. According to Dr. Ketchum the paper did pass peer review before the journal was purchased, which means basically purchasing their web site, subscriptions, email list etc. Also, she did say on Coast to Coast that if it wasn’t published she would find a way to get the material posted on the web…maybe this is it, and can help others out in the future too.
3–The short video posted is part of the paper, submitted as supporting material, however, just my opinion, but I think at this point, if one was going to put something out there, it should really be something convincing, its a nice video, but not definitive of a new creature existing….still, its her choice…
4–It would be nice to see what the reviewers said, if the evidence is indisputable or questionable…it passed peer review, but by how much? With flying colors? Were there any skeptics on the review committee and what did they say?
Anyway, thats just what I think, and I just felt like putting it out there:)
I don’t understand where all the hatred being leveled at Melba is coming from. Most people haven’t read the paper and the few bloggers who have and have posted about it aren’t qualified to weigh in on it. Getting a paper published is often more of a political exercise than a scientific one and the subject matter and the fact that Melba doesn’t work for a university makes publication in any “legitimate” journal near impossible.
FYI
Ars Technica got a copy of the paper and has some interesting info up, they are sending it on to sequencing specialists for their take as well.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bigfoot-genome-paper-conclusively-proves-that-sasquatch-is-real/
I don’t know what to think at this point. The fact that they claim the human interbreeding took place 13k years ago yet they have several different types of human mtDNA (Native American, Middle Eastern, European, etc) doesn’t make any sense at all. Native Americans should have been the only humans here at that time. Even if you go with the land bridge, ancient explorer theory it still brings too many different regions into play. And why didn’t they concentrate on the non-human primate DNA that was found, I’d be quite curious to see what it most closely matched.
Going to De Novo’s page, I find a disturbing little tidbit. All printed names for the publication are “DeNovo”, however, their copyright bug states DeVono Publishing. Is this just their being sloppy? If so, how much else is sloppy in their publishing efforts?