/*2* Phylogenetic « analysis

.(cid:4) ) improve 1 > the : - statistical | | power of t F the - analysis, | , phylogenetic 1 relationships | ; between 1 : the *3 aM ee) individual | | haplotypes ' ~e PNS> Were ¢ - analysed ee ED| using | gues PeeIe rsmaximum | owe ee NE| parsimony « ee EITcriteria. 1  maximum parsimony tree Peswas JP eeegenerated eedand ++  ——SOgroups   eee eerelated  ahaplotypes <@(cid:9)(cid:15) +A++> were ————————formed - wee ye| from | this data | SNE(Fig. +>(cid:28) The PC SNefrequencies | of | "the | “ee EOP I YIhaplotypes « JrPerer MFP, contained | a LAP| within | each group | were | pooled ; oS| and : i ee| statistical ; aN| analysis ' » Was % s again | se Spee TP| performed, 1 males and | | females | > were also pes peereanalysed separately (Table %>(cid:28) y oe Sof”statistical ELEN DESsignificance was observed for the frequency peesdifferences eee KAbetween the se astwo age groups © oeafter the level of significance was ee eeadjusted  the eleven multiple sam Ser oecomparisons re weeusing Bonferroni’s 0 ON“orrection, a= +   ((cid:1);%+(cid:2)++(cid:3) ’ << | ((cid:28)((*3(cid:28) It is. of eee“interest eeeto! note | Grp. :(cid:30) containing five | different | a ne-haplo- types | ee_ (hap40, hap33,  hap43 | and | (cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:15)*3> is) Sr MMunique | to | the | ee NSaged cohort | Of | nee ee peesamples <%=> 7 \eeb) and 1 “pM| the « pp DAMA ee AEP- comparison | “anh ehas ¢  “rine| P-value of ( ((cid:28)(4((cid:28) Grp: % Noe) (hap3, | ma Se, hap4, | _hap20 ) and | (cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:15)+;> ) is AM ES eeobserved lat“ {al EEEi reduced | | frequency ( <,=> ) int \ the - aged : rn wee| samples « pee ep; compared 1 l tot “pes) the « NE NE IIE> controls ( <+%=> P-value. ((cid:28)(*3(cid:30) while eeinversely Grp ++ <(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:15)+> is eee eee eeeincreased in the aged samples <+’=> compared t tot “Mo UF) the « > controls ( <3=> in a) P-value ( ((cid:28)+(,(cid:28) wap ae. When; ) analysed \ 1 with 1 oa Sor1 respect t t tO | mae bee) gender i Aasrit | t was NTEobvious t ; that t t the { - females i weA™Msin ( 1 Grp | ++ | biased 1 1 the « > overall 1 ee J| result < tas t s they \ “are/ were es ©”> found ¢ o_o“lat : %= > int 1: the controls ¢ sand +3= in | | the eee> aged s oP eee| samples ( ; (P-value | ((cid:28)(*>(cid:30) , while the 1 wm J Nee’> males ' > Were I - reduced i lint | the aged | samples | <4=> eRe ees} compared | | to | eeethe « we rr"controls | <,=>(cid:28)



The | - absence. <(> of | “the | - polymorphic | Hinf  restriction | | site, +3(3%(cid:21)(cid:30) defines | the - estab- lished | NN Ne XS| European | LMF ee}mtDNA . & pee J ee Peehaplogroup | and i | in | OUT § study | this 1 ~ ANNs ©?restriction ; | site, +3(3%(cid:21)(cid:30) _ was absent i in all t | the | : haplotypes « EEE ONE; comprising | Grp ’ ,(cid:30) — Os yeeidentifying this | ; group ) as | the . & Ns Gm? hee| haplogroup. Statistical « ENN EES| analysis « “resof t “wTF this § EN ); group | eee oO» however | eR fee‘failed 1 1 to | Oe) find ¢ geese?| any s eee Ens rb: significant EN EIENt association | pe enn rt: between the . & NE EE LISS JOO| haplogroup | <@(cid:9)(cid:15) ,> conn])and | | the | Irish | aged | EN DELLS EE SY| community ' ‘2 towhen ; | analysed : | in | total | (P-value ((cid:28)43> “eer) or ' prev o*™‘with | ren ANE| respect 1 aetO | ff ANE) gender | ‘(male | “So, P-value | ((cid:28)*() eee PORN ESfemale NEE IEE- P-value | ((cid:28)*;>(cid:28) Iti Fis « ane MA”clear | ‘from esFig. + that. the | we pee ON”haplotypes - fn_ included in the . & NDhaplogroup | <@(cid:9)(cid:15) ,> Adivide ininto | ) two | | distinct “eeebranches. The top aes TNbranch contains five EEE OShaplotypes eM AMEE(hap41, hap 18, hap27, hap36 and (cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:15)4+> ) that | are | “eee- defined | by | the | ED IIE ET- polymorphic | spews J Mee Merestriction | eee es| sites +3(3%(cid:21) <(> and +34:;(cid:21) <+>(cid:30) Teerwhile t “fy Nee> the | > bottom | . branch « wees Ps| contains oethree | we pee eee- haplotypes ( s (hapS, | , hap23 ne} and | ows”| hap6) t ) that < [ are ¢ ee NSD- defined by | the : sites +3(3%(cid:21) <(> / and +3((((cid:21) <(>(cid:28) “ped bPWhen | ee MEeach | “bree fers| branch « pa| of | ‘the . & OP NL BEhaplogroup - is | taken Fe eeeseparately ; y and ¢ wee AMS| analysed < omlat 1 number « oOr of § > ANS Nef significant « OD DEI IIDD DED DI IDM IIISt differences/associations < > are coN~ ree ee- observed. ° . The apetop| CO EPy branch | has ¢ sat EEE Jf INNA REE1 frequency « of | +=  “SS  +(cid:3) int 1 the «   | group « ) compared t l to! := (Nn :  +((cid:3) yin aM Erthe « > aged : 1 samples \ aes with < Lal BON YEN1 Fisher’ s « exact J Ne ARE NSt P-value « > of ( ((cid:28)(+%(cid:30) over, while i a Ee» inversely t the | MN> bottom | RNAS1 branch has  SN ETEfrequency of +4=   +4(cid:3) in  controls Mang Eeecompared to | *=    %(cid:3) in the aged samples eeewith  J we heFisher’s | Aeexact apenasP-value of ((cid:28)(++(cid:28) ETEWhen the results ABe swere analysed “oton  eens sietegender basis  similar trend was observed  for the top branch <+34:;(cid:21)>(cid:30) 2 J ONnone of the oN. eahaplotypes were found in the female control group ne ee eeecompared » ASto re SOSseven ain the female eeeaged oJ Pegroup <:=>(cid:30) for the males the NEEDED IShaplotypes oerwere EEE EEobserved at one in the controls <’=> oNand er AMthree aein the aged group <,=>(cid:28) In JPYthe case of the bottom branch <+3((((cid:21)>  Ae seedecrease was observed “ofY™in anthe MMR ONS OM fe ADSfrequencies of the haplotypes found in see NEboth the Osmale <%  +’= in| the | controls | ee Eee; dropping | wanto +  ’= “in| the ; epeeaged ‘JPN *ueee®| samples) ; )and | | the | female | (cid:1):  +*= to *   %=(cid:3) ) aged | seen SP| samples.

BEEBERERPEESRREEREEPPERERE RSPR REESE EP ERE RE EE0 \oGrpllGrp9Grp5Grp4Grp3Grp2Grpl

Grp7J (16065g)