I found this part of the study to be rather odd. First of all, saying that a single SNP can act as a surrogate for an entire haplogroup completely undermines the existence of the haplogroup. If it is a sufficient substitute, they haplogroup shouldn't have been necessary in the first place, as a single SNP in it would have worked just as well. The other thing is that D values in the 80's aren't very impressive. That means that their conclusion is wrong approximately 12% of the time. And finally, if their single SNP acts a satisfactory substitute for the haplogroup, they should be able to prove that via follow-up research directly correlating their SNP with symptoms (or better yet, actual gene function). Any idea if they've done that yet? It's been 7 years, so I'd think it's looking like a dead end thus far. None of this is looking convincing thus far.