DNA
Chez
preface, I'd just like to say we are not trying to match surnames, but
are interested in general ethic testing.
"Since Y-chromosome DNA is found only within the all-male patrilineal
line and mtDNA only provides matches to the all-female matrilineal
line, DNA testing is only applicable to lines going back through two of
our eight greatgrandparents - our father's paternal grandfather and our
mother's maternal grandmother. If you want to use DNA to determine
ancestry through any of your other six great-grandparents you will need
to convince an aunt, uncle, or cousin who descends directly from that
ancestor through an all-male or all-female line to provide a DNA
sample. Additionally, since women don't carry the Y-chromosome, their
paternal male line can only be traced through the DNA of a father or
brother."
We are puzzled about the idea of her needing to have her father (no
brothers) tested. I am aware of chromosomes and the differences between
the genders. It is my my impression - confirmed - that that each
chomosome has genetic material from both mother and father. We do not
inherit one complete chromosome from each parent. They mix during a
process called meiosis.
The reason behind the reason is this: If we want her father tested (my
parents are dead) it is right that we pay for it. If her father is
tested, then her mother will want to be tested - if we pay for one,
then it would be hard to not pay for two - especially if the third
person is my mother-in-law. We can manage paying for me and one other,
but not me and two others.
Please explain why she can't get a reasonably complete test just from
herself. How much of the testing companies saying that she needs her
father tested is salesmanship?
If I sound grumpy it is because I'm confused.
Thanks
Dennis
>My wife and I are seriously considering haveing our DNA tested. As a
>preface, I'd just like to say we are not trying to match surnames, but
>are interested in general ethic testing.
You should do a little more research before you take the plunge. Google
is your friend. Search for "ethnic dna testing".
Besides Y-DNA and mtDNA (looking for ancestral lines), you have
autosomal DNA testing. Your choice depends on what you are trying to
accomplish, which is not clear from your post.
>How much of the testing companies saying that she needs her
>father tested is salesmanship?
None. Y-DNA testing requires a male donor (looks at markers from the
Y-chromosome, which only males have). mtDNA testing can be either
(because mtDNA is inherited from the mother regardless of gender).
I am not an expert ... I'm sure one will chime in shortly with more
details.
--
Dennis
Bob Melson
I'm by no means an expert and am very much a skeptic when it comes
to "molecular" or "genetic" genealogy. For an excellent set of articles
on DNA testing, you should go to http://www.smgf.org , the website of the
Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation. I won't try to answer your
question because I think Sorenson does a much better job of explanation
than I'm capable of.
Snowy Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big
enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
Wes Groleau
> Please explain why she can't get a reasonably complete test just from
> herself. How much of the testing companies saying that she needs her
> father tested is salesmanship?
You are right that about half the father's DNA
and half the mother's DNA mix. But they are
randomly selected halves, so you don't know which
comes from who except in two cases:
1. One of the 23 pairs determines gender.
Males have an X-shaped and a Y-shaped.
Females have two that are X-shaped.
If father provides the Y-half, he has a son.
If he provides the X-half, he has a daughter.
Therefore, a female does not have a "Y" which
is the only part that you KNOW comes from the
father.
2. 23 pairs of chromosomes are in the nucleus of
the cell. The sperm goes into the egg, then
into its nucleus, and gives up its DNA.
However, the egg, like most cells, also has
little things called mitochondria outside of
the nucleus. These have DNA in them. Sperm
do not have them, so the mitochondrial DNA
pattern in every person comes from his/her mother.
So, son (not daughter) gets Y from father, who got
it from father, who got it from father, ....
And everyone gets mtDNA from mother, who got it
from mother, who ....
--
Wes Groleau
First Language Acquisition observed up—close & personal
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1349
Michael Kenefick
Consider testing her dad and any uncles, since she has no brothers. If
her mom is available test her as well.
For your side have any sisters / brothers tested as well as mom and dad,
if they are available.
This probably will not give you Ethnicity(?) but http://www.smgf.org/ is
(was?) conducting free DNA testing.
My sister had me tested on www.familytreedna.com. A little pricey to do
all the people listed.
Mike in Ohio
Dennis
<kene...@copper.net> wrote:
>This probably will not give you Ethnicity(?) but http://www.smgf.org/ is
>(was?) conducting free DNA testing.
I submitted my DNA to SMGF almost 2 years ago and they still haven't
posted the results. In addition, they don't actually let you know what
the results are (marker values). If you want the marker values you need
to submit search after search until you get a 100% match on your query
... which is limited by a restriction of 50 searches per day.
If you need the results before the grim reaper comes calling, don't
count on SMGF.
--
Dennis
Bob Melson
Dennis,
I was in the same situation until recently, when I found I could have my
SMGF results transferred to GeneTree (an SMGF "subsidiary") for a modest
fee. While it torqued (and still torques) me to pay for a "free" service,
the end result was worthwhile. Of the multitude of DNA testing labs,
Sorenson, from everything I've learned, does a more complete analysis than
most and continues to test and update the results over time.
HTH,
Wes Groleau
> This probably will not give you Ethnicity(?) but http://www.smgf.org/ is
> (was?) conducting free DNA testing.
Maybe they were, but now:
> To join the SMGF Project, _purchase_ a DNA test from GeneTree.
> Sign the SMGF Consent Form that comes in the GeneTree kit
> and include a pedigree chart of your family history. We
> are especially interested in family lines showing ancestors
> born outside of the USA or before 1850.
--
Wes Groleau
Gaffes Can Be Deceiving
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=610
Hugh Watkins
> My wife and I are seriously considering haveing our DNA tested. As a
> preface, I'd just like to say we are not trying to match surnames, but
why?
best don under supervision of your doctor
not by picking from a phobe book
Hugh W
Dennis
wrote:
>I was in the same situation until recently, when I found I could have my
>SMGF results transferred to GeneTree (an SMGF "subsidiary") for a modest
>fee.
I have never received any results to transfer.
--
Dennis
Chez
> Consider testing her dad and any uncles, since she has no brothers. If
> her mom is available test her as well.
>
> For your side have any sisters / brothers tested as well as mom and
> dad, if they are available.
If it waere up to me I would test the world.
All that sounds like a good idea. If you want, you could make a depsoit
in my PayPal account. It's a streatch to get my wife and I done. I'm
reluctant to have my father in law tested because if we pay to have him
tested, then my mother in law's jeleasy (sp?) would require her to be
tested - first - and we don't have the money.
Bruce Remick
"Chez" <cheze...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2009120609084616807-chezelwig1@comcastnet...
What would you all be "tested" FOR, if I may be so bold? What would you
hope to discover, and what would you do with the information?
Bob Melson
Nor had I; matter of fact, 2 years down the line I'm still waiting for my
surname to appear on SMGF, as well as for my results to be posted there.
It has turned out to be something of a goat-rope, but can be fixed.
What you do is go to GeneTree (http://www.genetree.com), and sign up for a
free account. Once you've got the account, click on the DNA tab and then
on "SMGF Unlock" to order the transfer of your results. GeneTree says it
will take 6 weeks to get the results, but my experience was that it was
far less - after 2 years waiting, what's another couple of weeks, though?
Dennis
wrote:
>What you do is go to GeneTree (http://www.genetree.com), and sign up for a
>free account. Once you've got the account, click on the DNA tab and then
>on "SMGF Unlock" to order the transfer of your results. GeneTree says it
>will take 6 weeks to get the results, but my experience was that it was
>far less - after 2 years waiting, what's another couple of weeks, though?
Done.
What do they send you? An offer to purchase the results? How much?
--
Dennis
Bob Melson
You get a confirming email when you place your unlock order, then one
announcing the results' availability once they've been
transferred/unlocked. Once they become available there's a multi-page
report on-line (and downloadable) for the type you ordered (Y- or mtDNA,
or both). Your markers are included in the report, so you can take that
info and hand enter them on, say, Ancestry-DNA, if you wish. They're
fully searchable on both GeneTree and SMGF, which may be all that's
necessary (I have no matches on either - or on any of the other sites, for
that matter).
Cost varies, I think. My mtDNA results cost USD$19.50, the 46-marker YDNA
was USD$49.50. Worst case would seem to be ~USD$100 for both, but that's
a question you'd probably be better off asking them. GeneTree has good
on-line help through their "chat" facility - friendly, willing to go the
extra step when the "help desk" folks don't know the answer directly.
There are no charges to your credit card, BTW, until after the results
become available and you tell 'em to proceed.
I'm not going to sit here and say they're the best thing since the
invention of sex, but they do a pretty good job and, all things
considered, are worth both the price and your time. I'm sure there are
those who will disagree with that assessment and YMMV - opinions are like
portions of the anatomy: everybody has one. Despite the disappointment
of finding no exact or 1-difference matches, it's worked well for me and
what few complaints I have are, ummm, procedural and not at all
substantive.
Wes Groleau
> I'm not going to sit here and say they're the best thing since the
> invention of sex, but they do a pretty good job and, all things
> considered, are worth both the price and your time. I'm sure there are
To each his own. There is NO possible way I or 90% of my known
relatives will ever scrape up what GeneTree charges for a kit,
and SMGF says they won't accept any other. (Besides, others
are even more expensive.)
It does look like a potentially useful tool. I wonder whether
(being non-profit) they'd make improvements that will help
those of us who can't afford to test.
For example, I can find siblings of my ancestors just
searching for the surname with the "sample" test results.
Now if they would allow me to see that relative's actual
values, I could put those in for another search and maybe
get some useful information.
I couldn't figure out how to get anything from the mtDNA.
Since the maternal line so often changes surname every
generation, how do you do any kind of search?
--
Wes Groleau
In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.
Dennis
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>For example, I can find siblings of my ancestors just
>searching for the surname with the "sample" test results.
>Now if they would allow me to see that relative's actual
>values, I could put those in for another search and maybe
>get some useful information.
You can take what they do give you and keep changing the mismatches
until you get a 100% match. I actually wrote a screen scrape program to
do this, and used it to gather DNA values for a one-name study. But they
changed things around to require a login, which broke my program. If I
were ambitious, I could probably figure out a way to incorporate the
login in my program. Probably not worth the effort now...
--
Dennis
Bob Melson
opined:
> Bob Melson wrote:
>> I'm not going to sit here and say they're the best thing since the
>> invention of sex, but they do a pretty good job and, all things
>> considered, are worth both the price and your time. I'm sure there are
>
> To each his own. There is NO possible way I or 90% of my known
> relatives will ever scrape up what GeneTree charges for a kit,
> and SMGF says they won't accept any other. (Besides, others
> are even more expensive.)
I quite agree. I was in the same boat when SMGF made their offer for free
testing and jumped at the opportunity, despite being skeptical about the
value of DNA testing. When 2 years had passed and I still hadn't received
any indication that my sample had been tested, I poked both them and
GeneTree and found what I reported earlier. In essence, for $70 I got
what most other labs charge $150 or more for (46 marker YDNA and H1, 2 and
3 mtDNA). It's too bad it has ended, but that's the nature of the beast,
I suppose.
>
> It does look like a potentially useful tool. I wonder whether
> (being non-profit) they'd make improvements that will help
> those of us who can't afford to test.
The SMGF page suggests that they and GeneTree are working on better
comparison tools, but that seems to presuppose you have been or will be
tested and have access to results.
>
> For example, I can find siblings of my ancestors just
> searching for the surname with the "sample" test results.
> Now if they would allow me to see that relative's actual
> values, I could put those in for another search and maybe
> get some useful information.
>
> I couldn't figure out how to get anything from the mtDNA.
> Since the maternal line so often changes surname every
> generation, how do you do any kind of search?
I'm telling you nothing you don't know, I realize, but it's all a matter of
statistics and is based on the number, if any, of differences between
individuals in successive generations. I'm not absolutely sure how it
works, but my understanding is that mtDNA results are usually reported as
differences from the Cambridge Reference Set/Suite/Standard and persons
showing exactly the same deviations from the standard - no differences
between their results - are more likely to be related on the maternal line
than are those with 1 or more differences between them. If I'm not 180
out, this means that if my mtDNA results and Jane Doe's are an exact
match, meaning we deviate from the CRS in the same way/degree, we share a
common female ancestor somewhere in "historic" time and possibly within
just a few generations; we could, unbeknownst to one another, even be
siblings. As the number of differences between our results increase, the
less likely we are to have a common female ancestor in "historic" times,
although we may still be descended from one of the "7 Eves" - the
progenetrix of our particular haplogroup, back in pre-history.
All that said, I'm going to bail now because I'm not entirely comfortable
with what I think I know about what mtDNA results mean and how to
interpret them. Some wiser head than mine can probably give a better
answer.
Stumped Ol' Bob
>
> --
> Wes Groleau
>
> In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
> from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
Huntersglenn
testing done at Family Tree DNA is more geared toward those who are
interested in finding relatives. In that case, your wife could be
tested, as she and her mother have the same mt-DNA. Your father-in-law,
has his father's YDNA and his mother's mt-DNA. You have your father's
YDNA and your mother's mt-DNA. So, test results for your mother-in-law
and your wife would be the same (unless your wife is adopted and was
never informed of that fact).
For the general ethnic testing - I recently had testing done at 23andMe,
as did my husband. They are extremely expensive, but do run sales every
now and then. They do the autosomnal (not sure that's spelled right)
testing that can indicate your ethnic background - as well as helping
you find relatives. The problem with that kind of testing is that
results can vary because a child inherits bits of DNA from both parents.
Two children of the same parents can inherit different bits from both
parents. As an example, I match as a relative with a woman and one of
her daughters (we have a DNA segment in common), but I don't share that
segment with her other daughter, who was also tested. Same thing with a
pair of brothers - I share a segment with one, but not the other. So,
it's, excuse the expression, a bit more of a crap shoot when it comes to
finding people you are related to.
However, since that's not what you're interested in, then you would be
just as well served by having you and your wife tested - your test will
reveal your ethnicity as would hers. Since your wife encompasses the
DNA and ethnicity of both of her parents, then testing either one of
them would not be necessary when you could just test your wife. And of
course, I have to toss in a BUT <grin>. Let's say that you had an
ancestor who came over in 1607, his son married an Native American.
That means that you would have DNA that reflects this (it would show up
as Asian, at least at 23andMe). But, with each generation, that
percentage decreases, unless another ancestor intermarried with a Native
American. So, the next generation child is 50% Native American and 50%
European. The next generation is less Native American and so on.
Eventually you would reach a percentage point that is low enough to
where they don't officially count it. Doesn't change the fact that your
ancestor was a Native American, it just means you can't prove it
genetically after a certain number of generations. So, testing an older
generation might give considerably different results than testing a
younger generation (in your case, say testing the father-in-law as
opposed to testing one of your children).
I suggest that you read the information at the sites that others
mentioned. I also recommend the book "Trace Your Roots with DNA: Using
Genetic Testing to Explore Your Family Tree", byt Megan Smolenyak
Smolenyak and Ann Turner. The book is easy to understand and there is a
chapter that explains the different kinds of genetic testing for
genealogical purposes.
Read up on what kind of testing you want and go into this with an open
mind - the results might not be what you were expecting.
Good luck,
Cathy
Wes Groleau
> On Sunday 06 December 2009 14:17, Wes Groleau (Grolea...@FreeShell.org)
>> Since the maternal line so often changes surname every
>> generation, how do you do any kind of search?
>
> I'm telling you nothing you don't know, I realize, but it's all a matter of
> statistics and is based on the number, if any, of differences between
Right, I did know that. What I don't understand is what value there is
in a surname search in that database.
--
Wes Groleau
Here’s a short essay on our primitive sense of community
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1524
Bob Melson
opined:
Not sure I can answer that question. I suppose by doing a surname search
and eliminating the low percentage mtDNA "hits", you narrow down the field
of candidates to be investigated by more traditional means.
But, as you point out, and using my own maternal line names, how do you
reasonably do a surname search when the path is Rice->Heitikko->Fogel->??
How do you proceed when, as in mine, the maternal line comes from a
society where there were no surnames as we know them today until about
1900, and your gggma's surname was either a patronymic (Samuelentytar) or
derived from the farm or croft the family lived on (Sosvari or Kupparla)
and changes each time the family place of residence changes? I flat don't
have an answer to that and am not sure anybody really can answer
convincingly.
What's a fella to do? Beats me!
Stupefied Ol' Bob
herman...@invalid.be
> My wife and I are seriously considering haveing our DNA tested. As a
> preface, I'd just like to say we are not trying to match surnames, but
> are interested in general ethic testing.
I presume - as others did - you mean ethnic testing?
I'm wondering what you expect from it? I hope not much, since it will NOT
give you any conclusive evidence on your roots.
What it will tell you is that you might have some DNA sequence(s) that are
prevalent in such or such part of the world.
Does this prove that (parts of) your ancestors came from that region. No
way. Why not?
Because research of genetic variety has shown that individual variety within
ethnic groups (or geographical location) is far greater than the variety
between the groups. So all it tells you if that you were in Africa, your
profile would fit in the (I'm dreaming up some numbers now) 60% of this
population, but as well in 20% of the Eskimo population. That' it - and no
more.
Herman Viaene
--
Veel mensen danken hun goed geweten aan hun slecht geheugen. (G. Bomans)
Lots of people owe their good conscience to their bad memory (G. Bomans)
Michael Kenefick
Huntersglenn wrote:
<snip>
my sister and I did not have a full connection at familytreedna. She is
a mutant (lol). Of course she says I am the mutant. We checked with
FTDNA as this caused us some concern. AKA do mom and dad have something
to tell us? But the difference was only one of the items tested. Per
FTNDA it is not that uncommon for the type of testing they do.
It is not scientific but I have brown eyes and my sister has blue. My
mother had brown and my dad has blue.
The problem with that kind of testing is that
> results can vary because a child inherits bits of DNA from both parents.
> Two children of the same parents can inherit different bits from both
> parents. As an example, I match as a relative with a woman and one of
> her daughters (we have a DNA segment in common), but I don't share that
> segment with her other daughter, who was also tested. Same thing with a
> pair of brothers - I share a segment with one, but not the other. So,
> it's, excuse the expression, a bit more of a crap shoot when it comes to
> finding people you are related to.
Mike in Ohio
Wes Groleau
> It is not scientific but I have brown eyes and my sister has blue. My
> mother had brown and my dad has blue.
Your mother has one gene for brown eyes and one for blue.
Your father has two genes for blue eyes.
You got one brown from your mother and one blue from your father.
Brown eye gene usually wins in that case.
You sister got one blue from each parent.
No brown, no contest.
--
Wes Groleau
Daily lessons & activities & their assessment
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1413
Chez
My wife and I decided to haave me tested first because we know much
more about her family. She ordered the kit from Family Tree and it
arrived yesterday. They test the Mitochondial and Y chromosomes.
Why do they not test my mother's X chromosome? My several time
great-grandfather was Swiss and I'm interested in that.
Thanks
Bob Melson
Best answer I can give you is to suggest you look at what I'll call "DNA
for Dummies" (of which I am one) on the FTDNA site or on any other testing
site. That generally explains why the tests are performed on the
mitochondria on the female line and the YDNA on the male.
Look at it this way, though. Females have an XX chromosome pattern, males
an XY, one chromosome from each parent. When the cells split in preparing
the egg or the sperm, you'll only get an X from Mom, but you can get an X
or a Y from Dad. The X you get from Mom can be from either her mother or
her father, while the chromosome you get from Dad can be either the X he
inherited from either _his_ mom or dad or the Y that can only come from
his father. Because the Y can come only from Dad, who had it from Grampa,
who had it from _his_ father, etc., you can trace paternal heritage pretty
reliably using the Y-chromosome. But in Mom's case, since her X
chromosome can come from either parent, you can't be sure which parent it
came from and can't use it to trace maternal heritage. (There's lots of
handwaving here, I know, and I have to repeat my earlier suggestion - find
and read the "DNA for Dummies" material on the FTDNA site or on any
other "genetic genealogy" site for a much better explanation.)
HTH,
Swell Ol' Bob
Huntersglenn
goal is to use the genetic tests to help people find relatives, as
opposed to identifying ethnic heritage, etc.
If you're really that interested in finding out more on your ethnic
heritage, which would not necessarily tell you anything about your
several times great-grandfather, then I suggest keeping your eyes open
for when the testing companies that do that kind of testing offer sales.
As an example, 23andMe has had two sales recently on their kits, with
tremendous savings, and they've also broken down their test kits, so you
can just order the genealogy oriented one and not the medical one.
However, even on sale, the testing is still in the hundreds of dollars,
but it's something you can save up for and then do at a later date.
Cathy
Chez
Humans have 46 (?) chromosomes. All that is tested is the mitochondrial
DNA and the Y chromosome. It looks like all the others are not tested
by any one.
Oh well, my daughter was a bio major - maybe if/when she gets a job
with Abbot Labs...
toot...@webtv.net
be through the National Genographic Project. This project is shepherded
by Dr. Spencer Wells. The cost is about $100 per test. They only do
Y-dna and mitochondrial dna (mtDNA) testing.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
They only do "deep" ancestry testing. [HVR1 for mtdna and 12 markers for
Y-dna testing] However, the actual testing work is done by FamilyTreeDNA
(FTDNA) and you have the option of additional testing through them. You
can have your results uploaded from the project to FTDNA.
To see who is represented in your personal genealogy by these two tests,
here is a visual:
Run a standard ancestry test with yourself as the test subject. It will
be funnel-shaped with you at the end of the funnel.
The upper line should start with your father, then his father, his
father, etc. Your Y-dna reflects dna ancestry ONLY from the people in
this line of your chart. None of the people in the middle contribute to
this test result. Example, your father's mother is not included nor any
of her ancestors.
The bottom line will start with your mother, then her mother, her
mother, etc. Your mtDNA reflects dna ancestry ONLY from the people in
this line of your chart. None of the people in the middle contribute to
this test result. Your mother's father is not included nor any of his
ancestors.
Of course if married couples are otherwise related there will be
overlap.
Now you need to look at some of the lines in between to figure out what
relative to test to get the Y-dna or mtDNA for those lines.
My example: Both of my parents and all of their siblings are deceased.
For my mother's mtDNA I tested myself.
For my mother's father's Y-dna, I tested her brother's son.
For my father's mtDNA, I tested his sister's daughter's daughter.
For my father's Y-dna, I tested his brother's son.
I have a line I am considering testing for the mtDNA of my mother's
father. He broke the female-to-female line down to my mother, so I need
to find others to test. His mother's sister has a family of descendants
who represent a direct female to female line from his grandmother. There
are the mother and 4 or 5 children, any of whom can be tested for this
mtDNA.
Wes Groleau
> her father, while the chromosome you get from Dad can be either the X he
> inherited from either _his_ mom or dad or the Y that can only come from
Not quite, Bob. The sex chromosome you get from Dad
_will_ be X if you are female, but he did not get it
from his dad.
--
Wes Groleau
Up-coming lesson on explicit grammar instruction
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1589
Wes Groleau
> Humans have 46 (?) chromosomes. All that is tested is the mitochondrial
> DNA and the Y chromosome. It looks like all the others are not tested by
Humans have 46 in the nucleus. mitochondria are outside the nucleus.
Other chromosomes are tested to estimate ethnicity, to prove
guilt/innocence in a criminal case, to prove/refute paternity,
to find medical info, ....
But the Y-chromosome and the mtDNA are the only ones
that have genealogical value (other than immediate paternity)
--
Wes Groleau
"There are more people worthy of blame
than there is blame to go around."
Bob Melson
opined:
Picky, picky, picky!
Well, yeah. Poor choice of phrasing. I know what I wanted to say and,
clearly, didn't. (Mom)-X + X-(Dad) == daughter; (Mom)-X + Y-(Dad) == son.
No other combination is possible unless you want to talk about some of the
genetic abnormalities (XXY, f'rinstance) The point was, I think, that you
can't reliably trace the maternal line through analyzing Mom's X
chromosome because you don't know whether that X chromosome came from her
mother or her father.
Swearin' Ol' Bob
toot...@webtv.net
the maternal line testing. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is used instead.
MtDNA, similar to Y-dna for the male line, is passed down only from the
mother. Everybody gets it, but only females pass it on, so you can
reliably determine from whom it came.
Example:
Testing for my paternal grandmother's mtDNA
My father and his siblings are all deceased. His sister has 4 living
children, 2 daughters, 2 sons, plus numerous grandchildren.
I can test any of her 4 children for her mtDNA. However, if I were going
to test one of the grandchildren, I can only test a child of one of her
daughters.
toot
toot...@webtv.net
>Run a standard ancestry TEST with yourself >as the test subject. It
will be funnel-shaped
> with you at the end of the funnel.
I MEANT to say:
Run a standard ancestry CHART on your genealogy software, with yourself
as the subject.....
toot
Bruce Remick
"Bob Melson" <amia...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:4tydnYmanqcd3L7W...@earthlink.com...
> On Friday 11 December 2009 22:28, Wes Groleau (Grolea...@FreeShell.org)
> opined:
>
>> Bob Melson wrote:
>>> her father, while the chromosome you get from Dad can be either the X he
>>> inherited from either _his_ mom or dad or the Y that can only come from
>>
>> Not quite, Bob. The sex chromosome you get from Dad
>> _will_ be X if you are female, but he did not get it
>> from his dad.
>>
>> --
>> Wes Groleau
>>
>> Up-coming lesson on explicit grammar instruction
>> http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1589
> Picky, picky, picky!
>
> Well, yeah. Poor choice of phrasing. I know what I wanted to say and,
> clearly, didn't. (Mom)-X + X-(Dad) == daughter; (Mom)-X + Y-(Dad) == son.
> No other combination is possible unless you want to talk about some of the
> genetic abnormalities (XXY, f'rinstance) The point was, I think, that you
> can't reliably trace the maternal line through analyzing Mom's X
> chromosome because you don't know whether that X chromosome came from her
> mother or her father.
>
> Swearin' Ol' Bob
I'd be interested if some of you folks could offer examples of what
you've actually learned from this testing that led to expanding your
ancestral search? I'm lost in how the expense of all these X's and Y's can
translate into specific family discoveries.
Dennis
wrote:
> I'd be interested if some of you folks could offer examples of what
>you've actually learned from this testing that led to expanding your
>ancestral search? I'm lost in how the expense of all these X's and Y's can
>translate into specific family discoveries.
In my case, the test indicated that my wife's family was *NOT* related
to the LEEs of Virginia. So I didn't waste any effort following this
line of research.
If I can find the appropriate male BALES descendants, DNA tests might
give credence to my theory regarding a BALES ancestor who might be
linked to another BALES line. It won't "prove" anything, but it will
provide one more piece of supporting evidence.
--
Dennis
Huntersglenn
>
> I'd be interested if some of you folks could offer examples of what
> you've actually learned from this testing that led to expanding your
> ancestral search? I'm lost in how the expense of all these X's and Y's can
> translate into specific family discoveries.
My mother's maiden name was Phelps, and she was from Washington County,
NC. I've gotten back to an ancestor who was born about 1805 in that
county, but cannot get back any further at the moment. The biggest
reason for that is because Washington County suffered three courthouse
fires in the 1800s, destroying a good portion of their records. The
deeds are supposedly all intact, and there are some specific court
records, and a few tax records, but the early marriage, will, probate
and estate records are lost. The main church that my mother's family
belongs to has been around since the 1800s, but it's only been in more
modern times that church records have been kept in a central location.
Prior to that, each minister hauled the records around with him as he
moved from church to church, and there's no telling what became of some
of those records once the ministers died.
So, for me, having one of my uncle's YDNA tested as a way to see if my
mother's family was related to the other Phelps families in the county -
as well as in Tyrrell County, NC, which is the parent county. At the
time, my husband had gotten a bonus at work, so we purchased both YDNA
and mt-DNA tests for my uncle and my father-in-law, and an mt-DNA test
for my mother-in-law. All of the mt-DNA tests were later upgraded to
Full Genome Sequence tests.
My uncle's results showed that he matched 25 out of 25 markers exactly
with 4 other Phelps males and one man who is not a Phelps, but who
already knew that his ancestor was 'born on the wrong side of the
blanket' and the testing revealed to him that his ancestor was a Phelps.
Of the 4 Phelps males that matched at 25 out of 25 markers, my uncle
also matched one of them exactly at 37 out of 37 markers, which was
great news. The other man upgraded to 67 markers, which is what we had
my uncle and father-in-law tested at, and the result was that my uncle
and this other man match exactly at those markers, as well.
With results like that, it was all good news - except that none of them
were from the same county in North Carolina where my mother was from.
The man who matches exactly at 67 markers can trace his ancestor back to
another North Carolina county, and we believe that that man, who was
born about 1810 or so, was the son of a man that we know was in
Washington County, NC. With the match we have, and knowing that our
paper trails are strong, we now know where to center our search on
records in order to find our most recent common ancestor. What we don't
know yet is just how that ancestor fits in - my earlies known ancestor
and this other man's earliest ancestor can be brothers, or uncle and
nephew, or even 1st cousins. But the relationship will be within those
ranges. The other Phelps testees can trace back to North Carolina, and
their ancestors migrated from there prior to 1800, so our most common
ancestor is further back from then. We've since had a testee who is
from Washington County, and his results show that he's related to the
rest of us, but the most recent common ancestor is most likely in the
early 1700s, or possibly even pre-1700, which would fit in with what we
know of the settlement of a Phelps family in that part of North Carolina
in the late 1600s.
I'm also sending another post, about the results for my father-in-law.
Cathy
Huntersglenn
> I'd be interested if some of you folks could offer examples of what
> you've actually learned from this testing that led to expanding your
> ancestral search? I'm lost in how the expense of all these X's and Y's can
> translate into specific family discoveries.
As I mentioned in my previous post, my husband and I also purchased a 67
marker YDNA test for my father-in-law as well as the Full Genome
Sequence mt-DNA test. The mt-DNA test results got us in contact with a
woman who is descended from a several times over great-grandmother,
which helped to prove the lineage we'd seen in published genealogies on
the family.
On the paternal side - we had no idea what the results would reveal. My
father-in-law's family is from Mingo County, WV - one of the sites of
the Hatfield-McCoy feud. Prior to that, they were living in Pike
County, KY, one of the other main sites of the feud. Turns out that
there are both Hatfield and McCoy people in my father-in-law's family,
but we had already known that. What we didn't know was the name of the
father of his grandfather, Richard Roberts. We knew Richard's mother,
Emmeline Roberts, and knew she'd never married, but all we had to go on
was a family story that Richard's father was a McCoy who married
Emmeline and then changed his name to get out of the feud. Since we
found no evidence of her ever marrying, that story was doubtful.
When my father-in-law's results for the YDNA test came in, we found that
he is an exact match at 67 out of 67 markers with a McCoy who traces
back to Pike County, thereby proving that at least one part of the
family story was true - Richard's father was a McCoy. After that, we
were able to obtain a copy of Richard's death certificate, and saw that
the informant had listed 'Jack McCoy' as Richard's father. We haven't
located a Jack McCoy in Pike County at the time Richard would have been
conceived, but it's another piece of the puzzle that might someday fit.
It was also interesting to look at the GedCom for the McCoy match and
find an ancestor set that my father-in-law also has - but on his
mother's side of the family.
A lot of people will lean toward this kind of testing, thinking that the
results will solve their brickwalls, but that's not the case. All the
results can tell you is that you're related to someone else, and that it
might be a close relationship or a distant relationship. The results
cannot give you a name for a common ancestor - or even tell you just how
you're related (for instance, if a father and son were both tested,
they'd receive results that indicate they are closely related, but the
result will not pinpoint that they are father and son). You still have
to do your leg work, and build your paper trail in order to find that
ancestor that you and another have in common - so doing good research is
really important if you're going to use this kind of testing in order to
try to find relatives. And you also have to have an open mind - just in
case you did make a mistake in your research, or great-grandma wasn't as
loyal to her husband as you thought she was.
I do find the YDNA testing results to be more satisfying than the mt-DNA
ones. With the mt-DNA results, you can find close matches that are from
several hundred years ago - or longer. With my family, the mt-DNA shows
close FGS matches with people who trace back to France. This seemed
odd, until I learned that there were some French Huguenot settlers in
that part of North Carolina where my grandmother was from. Still
doesn't get me back any further with names, but it's a step in that
direction.
Cathy
saki
> I'd be interested if some of you folks could offer examples of what
> you've actually learned from this testing that led to expanding your
> ancestral search? I'm lost in how the expense of all these X's and Y's can
> translate into specific family discoveries.
We have one line with an uncommon German surname (Jatho). Our line is
traceable via documentation to a specific series of villages in Hannover
and, after the emigration of one individual, to Charleston, South
Carolina in 1848.
Another immigrant with the same surname settled in Illinois in the
1830s. Documentation on this line leads back into the 1650s in the same
region as our ancestors, but we can't link our clans via paperwork, it
doesn't go back far enough (so far, maybe we'll get luck and find a tax
registry that explains the connection). If records existed earlier than
1650 we might have had some luck.
Using Y-DNA testing for a male descendant of each line resulted in a 98%
likely match within 24 generations. That's a fairly reliable result at
67 markers. We don't know how we match up but the evidence suggests a
connection is extremely likely. Sometimes that's the best DNA testing
can do.
Matches from mtDNA are not, as I understand it, within a genealogical
timeframe but go back tens of thousands of years. It's sort of
interesting to me that my mother's mother's mother's (and so on)
haplogroup mutated around 28,000 years ago somewhere where Kurdistan is
today, but this doesn't contribute to any understanding of this line's
more recent origins in what's now Poland. I knew that going in, but I
was testing one of my sons to establish his Y-DNA and the combo test
(Y-DNA and mtDNA) was on sale. I can't resists a good bargain.
Bruce Remick
"Huntersglenn" <hunter...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RKXUm.67859$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
Thanks for sharing your very interesting results. It appears then that
one's success depends upon finding others in his or her ancestral line who
also have been tested. Do they have to have been tested by the same company
as you in order for you to have access to their data, or is there a master
database or clearing house somewhere with input from folks tested by other
companies?
I can trace my direct line to a Remick who appeared in Maine records in 1651
at about age 20. There is never been any information uncovered as to when
or how he came to America or where he came from. If I ever were to do any
DNA testing, it would only be to determine where this Remick came from (I
suspect England). Would any success here depend upon other living Remick's
in England having been tested and my knowing how to access and compare this
data?
Bruce Remick
"saki" <sa...@ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:7oj08gF...@mid.individual.net...
Two years ago, I was given a gift of Y-Chromosome testing in the
National Geographics' Genographic Project. Not having a clue what to
expect, I followed the instructions and sent my sample. For whatever it
cost, I discovered that I had roots in central Africa, like everyone else,
and ended up among Neolithic farmers in the Mediterranean region some 8,000
years ago. I can't wait to fill in the gaps! I think this experience
soured my interest in further DNA testing, and left me feeling that I got
more out of the old Halbert's family history and coat of arms schemes.
saki
> Two years ago, I was given a gift of Y-Chromosome testing in the
> National Geographics' Genographic Project. Not having a clue what to
> expect, I followed the instructions and sent my sample. For whatever it
> cost, I discovered that I had roots in central Africa, like everyone else,
> and ended up among Neolithic farmers in the Mediterranean region some 8,000
> years ago. I can't wait to fill in the gaps! I think this experience
> soured my interest in further DNA testing, and left me feeling that I got
> more out of the old Halbert's family history and coat of arms schemes.
I know that some people (not you, of course) do go into testing
believing that they'll discover cousins and exactly how they're related.
As you know, Y-DNA testing doesn't work like that. It's a tool in the
overall process. Sometimes it's very useful, most of the time vague.
I tested my father's Y-DNA line with the idea that it might prove useful
down the line in case there are matches at some point. His roots are
Danish and thus patronyms are a part of the mix, true surnames only
having been in use in Denmark from about 1820 onward, and not even then
in all regions.
The surprise was the haplogroup. It's G, a rare one in Denmark, seen in
only 2% of the modern population. It's a young halplogroup too,
originating about 10,000 years ago in the northern Near East.
So if we find any 67 marker matches on this line, the surname is likely
to hold no clues to the connection.
Huntersglenn
> Thanks for sharing your very interesting results. It appears then that
> one's success depends upon finding others in his or her ancestral line who
> also have been tested. Do they have to have been tested by the same company
> as you in order for you to have access to their data, or is there a master
> database or clearing house somewhere with input from folks tested by other
> companies?
>
> I can trace my direct line to a Remick who appeared in Maine records in 1651
> at about age 20. There is never been any information uncovered as to when
> or how he came to America or where he came from. If I ever were to do any
> DNA testing, it would only be to determine where this Remick came from (I
> suspect England). Would any success here depend upon other living Remick's
> in England having been tested and my knowing how to access and compare this
> data?
Results are very much dependent on what other results are in the
database of the company that's doing the testing. Some companies will,
for a small fee, import your tests from another company and then add
those to their database. However, the big snag is that each of the
companies tests different things. While they all test within the strand
of DNA that is ironically called 'junk DNA', they test different
markers. So a 25 marker test at ancestry.com is not testing the same
markers as the 25 marker test at Family Tree DNA (and I'm just using the
numbers as an example as I have no idea if ancestry offers a 25 marker
test, but I do know that they test different markers).
There's also a database called YSearch, where you can import your
results - but I don't know if YSearch can take results from other
companies besides Family Tree DNA. Since that's who we used, I'm more
familiar with their limitations, etc.
Based on what I've read on various forums for surname projects, it does
seem as if Europe is lagging slightly behind the US when it comes to
this kind of genetic genealogical testing. They seem to be more
interested in the heritage aspect as opposed to the genealogical aspect,
although European participation does seem to be picking up for some
surname projects.
For your surname, you should first check to see if there's a surname
project for Remick - if there is, and they have a discussion group, you
might be able to join in the discussion without having to be tested.
Our Phelps Surname Project has discussion groups for the various
lineages that we've uncovered via YDNA testing, and those groups are
more for discussing our lineages as opposed to the test results. There
might be something like that out there for Remick. I suggest going to
ancestry.com and Family Tree DNA and searching to see if either one has
a Remick project that they're hosting. Family Tree DNA's URL is
www.FamilyTreeDNA.com, and the other is ancestry.com (putting that one
in just in case there's a reader who hasn't been there yet). They are
by no means the only testing companies out there doing this kind of
testing, but I think they have the two largest databases for comparisons.
Cathy
Bruce Remick
Thanks. I checked FamilyTreeDNA and Ancestry and found no hits on my
surname. From what I'm reading here, it seems I would need to have myself
tested along with a Remick with roots in Cornwall, England, where I suspect
my Remick immigrant may have originated, to see if there is a genetic
connection. A simplification, no doubt, but I assume that would be the
direction I would have to take to confirm a specific British connection. I
have been researching Remick's for almost 40 years now, and I pretty much
know which Remicks descend from the 17th century immigrant and which ones
descend from later immigrants. Genetic testing among any living Remicks in
the US would likely solve nothing, for me anyway.
Wes Groleau
> Poor choice of phrasing. I know what I wanted to say and, clearly, didn't.
I figured it wasn't a matter of ignorance,
but I was too lazy to type that much.
--
Wes Groleau
Free speech has its limits
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=99
Bob Melson
<snip>
> you've actually learned from this testing that led to expanding your
> ancestral search? I'm lost in how the expense of all these X's and Y's
> can translate into specific family discoveries.
Bruce,
I can speak only for myself, of course, and my experience may well be
different from that of others.
So far DNA testing has been a huge disappointment. Probably because there
are so few Melsons on the ground, I have found NO matches of any
significance on any of the sites to which I have access:
Sorenson/GeneTree, Ancestry, FTDNA/Ysearch or ydna. In point of fact, the
only place I've found Melson surnamed individuals is on Ancestry - all of
three other individuals, one female and two unrelated males. The best
match anywhere is only ~85% on 6 of 7 markers - there are some with more
markers but a lower percentage match - and none with a most common
ancestor in historic times - most are 50 generations or more, a couple
come in at 40 generations to MCRA. So, the expectation of finding
somebody reasonably close, somebody sharing a common ancestor in historic
times, has turned up nothing.
Genetic testing is NOT a substitute for good research. It's a tool that
might be helpful in sorting through possibilities and in giving direction.
How GOOD a tool it is is, I think, a matter of opinion and differing
experiences. Fortunately for me, I didn't mortgage the family farm to do
my testing - I'd really be resentful if I had plunked down a buncha bucks
for the results I've seen so far. Would I do it again if I had to pay
really big bucks? I don't think so, tho' the temptation might be there if
I didn't know what I do now.
Should YOU test? The only person who can answer that is you.
Dunno if this'll help or not, but it's my experience with genetic
genealogy.
Stumped Ol' Bob
Bruce Remick
I appreciate the help. But with no other European Remick's to work with,
it's almost like joining a bag lunch sharing group and I'm the only one who
brought a lunch.
Huntersglenn
Bob,
We have a person in our Project who went 3 years without a match of any
kind - not even 85%. And then when a match was found, it wasn't in the
direction that the paper trail had led - a case of too many men in the
same general geographic area with the same or similar first names. Once
the match was found, the person looked at other records and saw where
their own research had stumbled.
At FTDNA, are you setting your matches against just Melson or against
the entire database? If it's just the Melson name, then you might find
matches somewhere in the database, due to people having an NPE in their
background (or a misspelling of a name).
One of my maternal surnames that's only shown on one death certificate,
can be traced back to one town in England (Satterthwaite) - and testing
has shown that others from that town area with different surnames
(Lancaster, Lancanshire, Satterfield), are matching with people with the
Satterthwait(s) surname. Or perhaps it would be better to reverse that,
and state that Satterthwait(e)s being tested are matching to other
surnames from that town.
Hopefully, you'll get a result of a closer relative before too long.
Cathy
Bob Melson
opined:
<snip>
> Bob,
>
> We have a person in our Project who went 3 years without a match of any
> kind - not even 85%. And then when a match was found, it wasn't in the
> direction that the paper trail had led - a case of too many men in the
> same general geographic area with the same or similar first names. Once
> the match was found, the person looked at other records and saw where
> their own research had stumbled.
>
> At FTDNA, are you setting your matches against just Melson or against
> the entire database? If it's just the Melson name, then you might find
> matches somewhere in the database, due to people having an NPE in their
> background (or a misspelling of a name).
>
> One of my maternal surnames that's only shown on one death certificate,
> can be traced back to one town in England (Satterthwaite) - and testing
> has shown that others from that town area with different surnames
> (Lancaster, Lancanshire, Satterfield), are matching with people with the
> Satterthwait(s) surname. Or perhaps it would be better to reverse that,
> and state that Satterthwait(e)s being tested are matching to other
> surnames from that town.
>
> Hopefully, you'll get a result of a closer relative before too long.
>
> Cathy
Cathy,
Thanks for the word of encouragement. I haven't completely written off DNA
testing, but I do remain skeptical of its utility.
Ysearch is the public/non-member interface to the FTDNA database, and I've
checked both surname and marker results and have turned up nothing
worthwhile to this point. But you're right, it's early days yet, and
tomorrow could be different. I'm optimistic - can you say Pollyanna? - by
nature, so the smart thing for me to do is just to sit back and check the
various databases at intervals.
(It could be true that paternal 4ggpa WAS an immigrant, but the boat he
stepped off of was an alien spaceship, in which case ... ;-) )
Slippery Ol' Bob
Dennis
wrote:
>Thanks for the word of encouragement. I haven't completely written off DNA
>testing, but I do remain skeptical of its utility.
I think its main utility (Y-DNA) lies in proving/disproving certain
lines of research ... in my case, disproving relationships of my wife's
family to the LEEs of Virginia. For rarer surnames, its utility is
problematic. I wouldn't even consider paying for a Y-DNA test for myself
for example.
I would only consider a DNA test in two cases...
1) You have two family lines (male) that you suspect have a common
ancestor. Still you would have to justify the expense.
2) You have a common surname that is part of a well-established DNA
project already. My wife's LEEs for example.
--
Dennis
Bob Melson
Denis,
I don't disagree, but would add yet another possibility - that of a distant
and hitherto unknown relation whose research, when combined with yours,
sheds new light on the family's history. To use my own case as an
example, there's a relatively large Melson tribe descending from John and
Elizabeth Painter Melson, who were brought to British North America as
indentured labor in the 1670s or thereabout (too lazy to look up the date,
and it's not important here). There's a possibility, however remote and
unproven, that my bunch descends from that tribe. Assuming that a male
descendant of those Melsons is tested and there's a high percentage match
between his results and mine, then, without even knowing which of several
candidates was the common ancestor, I will know where to look and have a
link to a larger family history than at present. That male relative has,
at the same time, the history of my bunch HE can add to HIS family's
history.
There's also a possibility that my paternal 4ggpa was an immigrant to North
America from Germany or a German-speaking region of Europe, and that the
surname was not originally Melson but something that sounds similar.
Assuming again a high percentage match with somebody with a similar, or
even a different, surname, that can lead to new evidence that will confirm
that possibility and give direction to further research and, not
coincidentally, remove those Melsons above from further consideration. In
either case, combining both bodies of research can lead to new insights
into the historic family as well as the individual branches.
Now, if that sounds like I'm reneging on my previously stated skepticism, I
guess maybe so. In the absence of any matches thus far, though, I reserve
the right to an occasional fit of gloom and doom WRT the whole genetic
genealogy business.
(oomphalo)Skeptical Ol' Bob
(I'll leave y'all to look up the definition of oomphaloskepsis on your own)
Wes Groleau
> I would only consider a DNA test in two cases...
>
> 1) You have two family lines (male) that you suspect have a common
> ancestor. Still you would have to justify the expense.
>
> 2) You have a common surname that is part of a well-established DNA
> project already. My wife's LEEs for example.
3. You are _DESPERATE_ to get into the D.A.R. and nothing else
has worked so far. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
softnfurry
"Bob Melson" <amia...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:-ZGdnSBq4YOf77vW...@earthlink.com...
Just butting in here with my own experience of DNA testing...
I tested myself 3 years ago when my history searches came upon an
insurmountable wall.
I had spent several years weeding out assumptions and guesswork in our old
family tree and after eliminating all other options it appeared from
documents and letters dating from the 1790's that my earliest proven
ancestor (1740) was simply a stranger to the family name, taken in on
charity.
Without really investigating the usefulness of a DNA test I went for it, and
had a 67 marker done by FTdna. I have had nothing in the way of a match, and
nothing of any use at all from the test except one piece of evidence, that
my DNA does not relate to anyone currently tested and in the database.
Although that was not really surprising, the group testing my surname has
had plenty of matches between them and to several other names in the
database. My test matches nothing anywhere and is the only test from my
(large) surname group with no match at all, not even a sniff.
I believe that, given the number of people with my surname tested so far,
the likelihood is that my documentation regarding my ancestor being
"adopted" into my family name is probably correct.
To sum up, for me DNA testing was of use to eliminate links, rather than
proving a link. Having read a fair bit on the subject now, I don't see any
kind of DNA testing of use to distant genealogy for proof, but it has a
valid use for elimination.
I am ever hopeful of a match one day, but considering the small proportion
of the world population having DNA tests, it would be like winning the
lottery - most unlikely!