2014 Top Genetic Genealogy Happenings – A Baker’s Dozen +1

Posted on December 30, 2014 by Roberta Estes

It’s that time again, to look over the year that has just passed and take stock of what has happened in the genetic genealogy world. I wrote a review in both 2012 and 2013 as well. Looking back, these momentous happenings seem quite “old hat” now. For example, both www.GedMatch.com and www.DNAGedcom.com, once new, have become indispensable tools that we take for granted. Please keep in mind that both of these tools (as well as others in the Tools section, below) depend on contributions, although GedMatch now has a tier 1 subscription offering for $10 per month as well.

So what was the big news in 2014?

Beyond the Tipping Point

Genetic genealogy has gone over the tipping point. Genetic genealogy is now, unquestionably, mainstream and lots of people are taking part. From the best I can figure, there are now approaching or have surpassed three million tests or test records, although certainly some of those are duplicates.

500,000+ at 23andMe
700,000+ at Ancestry
700,000+ at Genographic

The organizations above represent “one-test” companies. Family Tree DNA provides various kinds of genetic genealogy tests to the community and they have over 380,000 individuals with more than 700,000 test records.

In addition to the above mentioned mainstream firms, there are other companies that provide niche testing, often in addition to Family Tree DNA Y results.

In addition, there is what I would refer to as a secondary market for testing as well which certainly attracts people who are not necessarily genetic genealogists but who happen across their corporate information and decide the test looks interesting. There is no way of knowing how many of those tests exist.

Additionally, there is still the Sorenson data base with Y and mtDNA tests which reportedly exceeded their 100,000 goal.

Spencer Wells spoke about the “viral spread threshold” in his talk in Houston at the International Genetic Genealogy Conference in October and terms 2013 as the year of infection. I would certainly agree.

Autosomal Now the New Normal

Another change in the landscape is that now, autosomal DNA has become the “normal” test. The big attraction to autosomal testing is that anyone can play and you get lots of matches. Earlier in the year, one of my cousins was very disappointed in her brother’s Y DNA test because he only had a few matches, and couldn’t understand why anyone would test the Y instead of autosomal where you get lots and lots of matches. Of course, she didn’t understand the difference in the tests or the goals of the tests – but I think as more and more people enter the playground – percentagewise – fewer and fewer do understand the differences.

Case in point is that someone contacted me about DNA and genealogy. I asked them which tests they had taken and where and their answer was “the regular one.” With a little more probing, I discovered that they took Ancestry’s autosomal test and had no clue there were any other types of tests available, what they could tell him about his ancestors or genetic history or that there were other vendors and pools to swim in as well.

A few years ago, we not only had to explain about DNA tests, but why the Y and mtDNA is important. Today, we’ve come full circle in a sense – because now we don’t have to explain about DNA testing for genealogy in general but we still have to explain about those “unknown” tests, the Y and mtDNA. One person recently asked me, “oh, are those new?”

Ancient DNA

This year has seen many ancient DNA specimens analyzed and sequenced at the full genomic level.

The year began with a paper titled, “When Populations Collide” which revealed that contemporary Europeans carry between 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA most often associated with hair and skin color, or keratin. Africans, on the other hand, carry none or very little Neanderthal DNA.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/01/30/neanderthal-genome-further-defined-in-contemporary-eurasians/

A month later, a monumental paper was published that detailed the results of sequencing a 12,500 Clovis child, subsequently named Anzick or referred to as the Anzick Clovis child, in Montana. That child is closely related to Native American people of today.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/02/13/clovis-people-are-native-americans-and-from-asia-not-europe/

In June, another paper emerged where the authors had analyzed 8000 year old bones from the Fertile Crescent that shed light on the Neolithic area before the expansion from the Fertile Crescent into Europe. These would be the farmers that assimilated with or replaced the hunter-gatherers already living in Europe.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/06/09/dna-analysis-of-8000-year-old-bones-allows-peek-into-the-neolithic/

Svante Paabo is the scientist who first sequenced the Neanderthal genome. Here is a great interview and speech. This man is so interesting. If you have not read his book, “Neanderthal Man, In Search of Lost Genomes,” I strongly recommend it.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/07/22/finding-your-inner-neanderthal-with-evolutionary-geneticist-svante-paabo/

In the fall, yet another paper was released that contained extremely interesting information about the peopling and migration of humans across Europe and Asia. This was just before Michael Hammer’s presentation at the Family Tree DNA conference, so I covered the paper along with Michael’s information about European ancestral populations in one article. The take away messages from this are two-fold. First, there was a previously undefined “ghost population” called Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) that is found in the northern portion of Asia that contributed to both Asian populations, including those that would become the Native Americans and European populations as well. Secondarily, the people we thought were in Europe early may not have been, based on the ancient DNA remains we have to date. Of course, that may change when more ancient DNA is fully sequenced which seems to be happening at an ever-increasing rate.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/21/peopling-of-europe-2014-identifying-the-ghost-population/

Ancient DNA Available for Citizen Scientists

If I were to give a Citizen Scientist of the Year award, this year’s award would go unquestionably to Felix Chandrakumar for his work with the ancient genome files and making them accessible to the genetic genealogy world. Felix obtained the full genome files from the scientists involved in full genome analysis of ancient remains, reduced the files to the SNPs utilized by the autosomal testing companies in the genetic genealogy community, and has made them available at GedMatch.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/22/utilizing-ancient-dna-at-gedmatch/

If this topic is of interest to you, I encourage you to visit his blog and read his many posts over the past several months.

https://plus.google.com/+FelixChandrakumar/posts

The availability of these ancient results set off a sea of comparisons. Many people with Native heritage matched Anzick’s file at some level, and many who are heavily Native American, particularly from Central and South America where there is less admixture match Anzick at what would statistically be considered within a genealogical timeframe. Clearly, this isn’t possible, but it does speak to how endogamous populations affect DNA, even across thousands of years.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/23/analyzing-the-native-american-clovis-anzick-ancient-results/

Because Anzick is matching so heavily with the Mexican, Central and South American populations, it gives us the opportunity to extract mitochondrial DNA haplogroups from the matches that either are or may be Native, if they have not been recorded before.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/23/analyzing-the-native-american-clovis-anzick-ancient-results/

Needless to say, the matches of these ancient kits with contemporary people has left many people questioning how to interpret the results. The answer is that we don’t really know yet, but there is a lot of study as well as speculation occurring. In the citizen science community, this is how forward progress is made…eventually.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/25/ancient-dna-matches-what-do-they-mean/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/30/ancient-dna-matching-a-cautionary-tale/

More ancient DNA samples for comparison:

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/04/more-ancient-dna-samples-for-comparison/

A Siberian sample that also matches the Malta Child whose remains were analyzed in late 2013.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/12/kostenki14-a-new-ancient-siberian-dna-sample/

Felix has prepared a list of kits that he has processed, along with their GedMatch numbers and other relevant information, like gender, haplogroup(s), age and location of sample.

http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html

Furthermore, in a collaborative effort with Family Tree DNA, Felix formed an Ancient DNA project and uploaded the ancient autosomal files. This is the first time that consumers can match with Ancient kits within the vendor’s data bases.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ancient_DNA

Recently, GedMatch added a composite Archaic DNA Match comparison tool where your kit number is compared against all of the ancient DNA kits available. The output is a heat map showing which samples you match most closely.

Indeed, it has been a banner year for ancient DNA and making additional discoveries about DNA and our ancestors. Thank you Felix.

Haplogroup Definition

That SNP tsunami that we discussed last year…well, it made landfall this year and it has been storming all year long…in a good way. At least, ultimately, it will be a good thing. If you asked the haplogroup administrators today about that, they would probably be too tired to answer – as they’ve been quite overwhelmed with results.

The Big Y testing has been fantastically successful. This is not from a Family Tree DNA perspective, but from a genetic genealogy perspective. Branches have been being added to and sawed off of the haplotree on a daily basis. This forced the renaming of the haplogroups from the old traditional R1b1a2 to R-M269 in 2012. While there was some whimpering then, it would be nothing like the outright wailing now that would be occurring as haplogroup named reached 20 or so digits.

Alice Fairhurst discussed the SNP tsunami at the DNA Conference in Houston in October and I’m sure that the pace hasn’t slowed any between now and then. According to Alice, in early 2014, there were 4115 individual SNPs on the ISOGG Tree, and as of the conference, there were 14,238 SNPs, with the 2014 addition total at that time standing at 10,213. That is over 1000 per month or about 35 per day, every day.

Yes, indeed, that is the definition of a tsunami. Every one of those additions requires one of a number of volunteers, generally haplogroup project administrators to evaluate the various Big Y results, the SNPs and novel variants included, where they need to be inserted in the tree and if branches need to be rearranged. In some cases, naming request for previously unknown SNPs also need to be submitted. This is all done behind the scenes and it’s not trivial.

The project I’m closest to is the R1b L-21 project because my Estes males fall into that group. We’ve tested several, and I’ll be writing an article as soon as the final test is back.

The tree has grown unbelievably in this past year just within the L21 group. This project includes over 700 individuals who have taken the Big Y test and shared their results which has defined about 440 branches of the L21 tree. Currently there are almost 800 kits available if you count the ones on order and the 20 or so from another vendor.

Here is the L21 tree in January of 2014

Compare this with today’s tree, below.

Michael Walsh, Richard Stevens, David Stedman need to be commended for their incredible work in the R-L21 project. Other administrators are doing equivalent work in other haplogroup projects as well. I big thank you to everyone. We’d be lost without you!

One of the results of this onslaught of information is that there have been fewer and fewer academic papers about haplogroups in the past few years. In essence, by the time a paper can make it through the peer review cycle and into publication, the data in the paper is often already outdated relative to the Y chromosome. Recently a new paper was released about haplogroup C3*. While the data is quite valid, the authors didn’t utilize the new SNP naming nomenclature. Before writing about the topic, I had to translate into SNPese. Fortunately, C3* has been relatively stable.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/12/23/haplogroup-c3-previously-believed-east-asian-haplogroup-is-proven-native-american/

10^th Annual International Conference on Genetic Genealogy

The Family Tree DNA International Conference on Genetic Genealogy for project administrators is always wonderful, but this year was special because it was the 10^th annual. And yes, it was my 10^th year attending as well. In all these years, I had never had a photo with both Max and Bennett. Everyone is always so busy at the conferences. Getting any 3 people, especially those two, in the same place at the same time takes something just short of a miracle.

Ten years ago, it was the first genetic genealogy conference ever held, and was the only place to obtain genetic genealogy education outside of the rootsweb genealogy DNA list, which is still in existence today. Family Tree DNA always has a nice blend of sessions. I always particularly appreciate the scientific sessions because those topics generally aren’t covered elsewhere.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/11/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-opening-reception/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/12/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/13/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-day-3/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/15/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-wrapup/

Jennifer Zinck wrote great recaps of each session and the ISOGG meeting.

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy/

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-isogg-meeting/

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-sunday/

I thank Family Tree DNA for sponsoring all 10 conferences and continuing the tradition. It’s really an amazing feat when you consider that 15 years ago, this industry didn’t exist at all and wouldn’t exist today if not for Max and Bennett.

Education

Two educational venues offered classes for genetic genealogists and have made their presentations available either for free or very reasonably. One of the problems with genetic genealogy is that the field is so fast moving that last year’s session, unless it’s the very basics, is probably out of date today. That’s the good news and the bad news.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/12/genetic-genealogy-ireland-2014-presentations

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/26/educational-videos-from-international-genetic-genealogy-conference-now-available/

In addition, three books have been released in 2014.

In January, Emily Aulicino released Genetic Genealogy, The Basics and Beyond.

In October, Richard Hill released “Guide to DNA Testing: How to Identify Ancestors, Confirm Relationships and Measure Ethnicity through DNA Testing.”

Most recently, David Dowell’s new book, NextGen Genealogy: The DNA Connection was released right after Thanksgiving.

Ancestor Reconstruction – Raising the Dead

This seems to be the year that genetic genealogists are beginning to reconstruct their ancestors (on paper, not in the flesh) based on the DNA that the ancestors passed on to various descendants. Those segments are “gathered up” and reassembled in a virtual ancestor.

I utilized Kitty Cooper’s tool to do just that.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/03/ancestor-reconstruction/

I know it doesn’t look like much yet but this is what I’ve been able to gather of Henry Bolton, my great-great-great-grandfather.

Kitty did it herself too.

http://blog.kittycooper.com/2014/08/mapping-an-ancestral-couple-a-backwards-use-of-my-segment-mapper/

http://blog.kittycooper.com/2014/09/segment-mapper-tool-improvements-another-wold-dna-map/

Ancestry.com wrote a paper about the fact that they have figured out how to do this as well in a research environment.

http://corporate.ancestry.com/press/press-releases/2014/12/ancestrydna-reconstructs-partial-genome-of-person-living-200-years-ago/

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2014/12/16/ancestrydna-recreates-portions-genome-david-speegle-two-wives/

GedMatch has created a tool called, appropriately, Lazarus that does the same thing, gathers up the DNA of your ancestor from their descendants and reassembles it into a DNA kit.

Blaine Bettinger has been working with and writing about his experiences with Lazarus.

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2014/10/20/finally-gedmatch-announces-monetization-strategy-way-raise-dead/

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2014/12/09/recreating-grandmothers-genome-part-1/

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2014/12/14/recreating-grandmothers-genome-part-2/

Tools

Speaking of tools, we have some new tools that have been introduced this year as well.

Genome Mate is a desktop tool used to organize data collected by researching DNA comparsions and aids in identifying common ancestors. I have not used this tool, but there are others who are quite satisfied. It does require Microsoft Silverlight be installed on your desktop.

The Autosomal DNA Segment Analyzer is available through www.dnagedcom.com and is a tool that I have used and found very helpful. It assists you by visually grouping your matches, by chromosome, and who you match in common with.

Charting Companion from Progeny Software, another tool I use, allows you to colorize and print or create pdf files that includes X chromosome groupings. This greatly facilitates seeing how the X is passed through your ancestors to you and your parents.

WikiTree is a free resource for genealogists to be able to sort through relationships involving pedigree charts. In November, they announced Relationship Finder.

Probably the best example I can show of how WikiTree has utilized DNA is using the results of King Richard III.

By clicking on the DNA icon, you see the following:

And then Richard’s Y, mitochondrial and X chromosome paths.

Since Richard had no descendants, to see how descendants work, click on his mother, Cecily of York’s DNA descendants and you’re shown up to 10 generations.

While this isn’t terribly useful for Cecily of York who lived and died in the 1400s, it would be incredibly useful for finding mitochondrial descendants of my ancestor born in 1802 in Virginia. I’d love to prove she is the daughter of a specific set of parents by comparing her DNA with that of a proven daughter of those parents! Maybe I’ll see if I can find her parents at WikiTree.

Kitty Cooper’s blog talks about additional tools. I have used Kitty’s Chromosome mapping tools as discussed in ancestor reconstruction.

Felix Chandrakumar has created a number of fun tools as well. Take a look. I have not used most of these tools, but there are several I’ll be playing with shortly.

Exits and Entrances

With very little fanfare, deCODEme discontinued their consumer testing and reminded people to download their date before year end.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/30/decodeme-consumer-tests-discontinued/

I find this unfortunate because at one time, deCODEme seemed like a company full of promise for genetic genealogy. They failed to take the rope and run.

On a sad note, Lucas Martin who founded DNA Tribes unexpectedly passed away in the fall. DNA Tribes has been a long-time player in the ethnicity field of genetic genealogy. I have often wondered if Lucas Martin was a pseudonym, as very little information about Lucas was available, even from Lucas himself. Neither did I find an obituary. Regardless, it’s sad to see someone with whom the community has worked for years pass away. The website says that they expect to resume offering services in January 2015. I would be cautious about ordering until the structure of the new company is understood.

http://www.dnatribes.com/

In the last month, a new offering has become available that may be trying to piggyback on the name and feel of DNA Tribes, but I’m very hesitant to provide a link until it can be determined if this is legitimate or bogus. If it’s legitimate, I’ll be writing about it in the future.

However, the big news exit was Ancestry’s exit from the Y and mtDNA testing arena. We suspected this would happen when they stopped selling kits, but we NEVER expected that they would destroy the existing data bases, especially since they maintain the Sorenson data base as part of their agreement when they obtained the Sorenson data.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/02/ancestry-destroys-irreplaceable-dna-database/

The community is still hopeful that Ancestry may reverse that decision.

Ancestry – The Chromosome Browser War and DNA Circles

There has been an ongoing battle between Ancestry and the more seasoned or “hard-core” genetic genealogists for some time – actually for a long time.

The current and most long-standing issue is the lack of a chromosome browser, or any similar tools, that will allow genealogists to actually compare and confirm that their DNA match is genuine. Ancestry maintains that we don’t need it, wouldn’t know how to use it, and that they have privacy concerns.

Other than their sessions and presentations, they had remained very quiet about this and not addressed it to the community as a whole, simply saying that they were building something better, a better mousetrap.

In the fall, Ancestry invited a small group of bloggers and educators to visit with them in an all-day meeting, which came to be called DNA Day.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/08/dna-day-with-ancestry/

In retrospect, I think that Ancestry perceived that they were going to have a huge public relations issue on their hands when they introduced their new feature called DNA Circles and in the process, people would lose approximately 80% of their current matches. I think they were hopeful that if they could educate, or convince us, of the utility of their new phasing techniques and resulting DNA Circles feature that it would ease the pain of people’s loss in matches.

I am grateful that they reached out to the community. Some very useful dialogue did occur between all participants. However, to date, nothing more has happened nor have we received any additional updates after the release of Circles.

Time will tell.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/18/in-anticipation-of-ancestrys-better-mousetrap/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/19/ancestrys-better-mousetrap-dna-circles/

DNA Circles, while interesting and somewhat useful, is certainly NOT a replacement for a chromosome browser, nor is it a better mousetrap.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/30/chromosome-browser-war/

In fact, the first thing you have to do when you find a DNA Circle that you have not verified utilizing raw data and/or chromosome browser tools from either 23andMe, Family Tree DNA or Gedmatch, is to talk your matches into transferring their DNA to Family Tree DNA or download to Gedmatch, or both.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/27/sarah-hickerson-c1752-lost-ancestor-found-52-ancestors-48/

I might add that the great irony of finding the Hickerson DNA Circle that led me to confirm that ancestry utilizing both Family Tree DNA and GedMatch is that today, when I checked at Ancestry, the Hickerson DNA Circle is no longer listed. So, I guess I’ve been somehow pruned from the circle. I wonder if that is the same as being voted off of the island. So, word to the wise…check your circles often…they change and not always in the upwards direction.

The Seamy Side – Lies, Snake Oil Salesmen and Bullys

Unfortunately a seamy side, an underbelly that’s rather ugly has developed in and around the genetic genealogy industry. I guess this was to be expected with the rapid acceptance and increasing popularity of DNA testing, but it’s still very unfortunate.

Some of this I expected, but I didn’t expect it to be so…well…blatant.

I don’t watch late night TV, but I’m sure there are now DNA diets and DNA dating and just about anything else that could be sold with the allure of DNA attached to the title.

I googled to see if this was true, and it is, although I’m not about to click on any of those links.

Unfortunately, within the ever-growing genetic genealogy community a rather large rift has developed over the past couple of years. Obviously everyone can’t get along, but this goes beyond that. When someone disagrees, a group actively “stalks” the person, trying to cost them their employment, saying hate filled and untrue things and even going so far as to create a Facebook page titled “Against<personname>.” That page has now been removed, but the fact that a group in the community found it acceptable to create something like that, and their friends joined, is remarkable, to say the least. That was accompanied by death threats.

Bullying behavior like this does not make others feel particularly safe in expressing their opinions either and is not conducive to free and open discussion. As one of the law enforcement officers said, relative to the events, “This is not about genealogy. I don’t know what it is about, yet, probably money, but it’s not about genealogy.”

Another phenomenon is that DNA is now a hot topic and is obviously “selling.” Just this week, this report was published, and it is, as best we can tell, entirely untrue.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/usa-archaeologists-discover-remains-of-first-british-settlers-in-north-america/

There were several tip offs, like the city (Lanford) and county (Laurens County) is not in the state where it is attributed (it’s in SC not NC), and the name of the institution is incorrect (Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkins). Additionally, if you google the name of the magazine, you’ll see that they specialize in tabloid “faux reporting.” It also reads a lot like the King Richard genuine press release.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/Fake-News/tp/A-Guide-to-Fake-News-Websites.01.htm

Earlier this year, there was a bogus institutional site created as well.

On one of the DNA forums that I frequent, people often post links to articles they find that are relevant to DNA. There was an interesting article, which has now been removed, correlating DNA results with latitude and altitude. I thought to myself, I’ve never heard of that…how interesting. Here’s part of what the article said:

Researchers at Aberdeen College’s Havering Centre for Genetic Research have discovered an important connection between our DNA and where our ancestors used to live.

Tiny sequence variations in the human genome sometimes called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) occur with varying frequency in our DNA. These have been studied for decades to understand the major migrations of large human populations. Now Aberdeen College’s Dr. Miko Laerton and a team of scientists have developed pioneering research that shows that these differences in our DNA also reveal a detailed map of where our own ancestors lived going back thousands of years.

Dr. Laerton explains: “Certain DNA sequence variations have always been important signposts in our understanding of human evolution because their ages can be estimated. We’ve known for years that they occur most frequently in certain regions [of DNA], and that some alleles are more common to certain geographic or ethnic groups, but we have never fully understood the underlying reasons. What our team found is that the variations in an individual’s DNA correlate with the latitudes and altitudes where their ancestors were living at the time that those genetic variations occurred. We’re still working towards a complete understanding, but the knowledge that sequence variations are connected to latitude and altitude is a huge breakthrough by itself because those are enough to pinpoint where our ancestors lived at critical moments in history.”

The story goes on, but at the bottom, the traditional link to the publication journal is found.

The full study by Dr. Laerton and her team was published in the September issue of the Journal of Genetic Science.

I thought to myself, that’s odd, I’ve never heard of any of these people or this journal, and then I clicked to find this.

About that time, Debbie Kennett, DNA watchdog of the UK, posted this:

April Fools Day appears to have arrived early! There is no such institution as Aberdeen College founded in 1394. The University of Aberdeen in Scotland was founded in 1495 and is divided into three colleges: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/about/colleges-schools-institutes/colleges-53.php

The picture on the masthead of the “Aberdeen College” website looks very much like a photo of Aberdeen University. This fake news item seems to be the only live page on the Aberdeen College website. If you click on any other links, including the link to the so-called “Journal of Genetic Science”, you get a message that the website is experienced “unusually high traffic”. There appears to be no such journal anyway.

We also realized that Dr. Laerton, reversed, is “not real.”

I still have no idea why someone would invest the time and effort into the fake website emulating the University of Aberdeen, but I’m absolutely positive that their motives were not beneficial to any of us.

What is the take-away of all of this? Be aware, very aware, skeptical and vigilant. Stick with the mainstream vendors unless you realize you’re experimenting.

King Richard

The much anticipated and long-awaited DNA results on the remains of King Richard III became available with a very unexpected twist. While the science team feels that they have positively identified the remains as those of Richard, the Y DNA of Richard and another group of men supposed to have been descended from a common ancestor with Richard carry DNA that does not match.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/12/09/henry-iii-king-of-england-fox-in-the-henhouse-52-ancestors-49/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/12/05/mitochondrial-dna-mutation-rates-and-common-ancestors/

Debbie Kennett wrote a great summary article.

http://cruwys.blogspot.com/2014/12/richard-iii-and-use-of-dna-as-evidence.html

More Alike than Different

One of the life lessons that genetic genealogy has held for me is that we are more closely related that we ever knew, to more people than we ever expected, and we are far more alike than different. A recent paper recently published by 23andMe scientists documents that people’s ethnicity reflect the historic events that took place in the part of the country where their ancestors lived, such as slavery, the Trail of Tears and immigration from various worldwide locations.

From the 23andMe blog:

The study leverages samples of unprecedented size and precise estimates of ancestry to reveal the rate of ancestry mixing among American populations, and where it has occurred geographically:

All three groups – African Americans, European Americans and Latinos – have ancestry from Africa, Europe and the Americas.
Approximately 3.5 percent of European Americans have 1 percent or more African ancestry. Many of these European Americans who describe themselves as “white” may be unaware of their African ancestry since the African ancestor may be 5-10 generations in the past.
European Americans with African ancestry are found at much higher frequencies in southern states than in other parts of the US.

The ancestry proportions point to the different regional impacts of slavery, immigration, migration and colonization within the United States:

The highest levels of African ancestry among self-reported African Americans are found in southern states, especially South Carolina and Georgia.
One in every 20 African Americans carries Native American ancestry.
More than 14 percent of African Americans from Oklahoma carry at least 2 percent Native American ancestry, likely reflecting the Trail of Tears migration following the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
Among self-reported Latinos in the US, those from states in the southwest, especially from states bordering Mexico, have the highest levels of Native American ancestry.

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans?utm_campaign=email-news-weekly&utm_source=eloqua

23andMe provides a very nice summary of the graphics in the article at this link:

http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Bryc_ASHG2014_textboxes.pdf

The academic article can be found here:

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/home

2015

So what does 2015 hold? I don’t know, but I can’t wait to find out. Hopefully, it holds more ancestors, whether discovered through plain old paper research, cousin DNA testing or virtually raised from the dead!

What would my wish list look like?

More ancient genomes sequenced, including ones from North and South America.
Ancestor reconstruction on a large scale.
The haplotree becoming fleshed out and stable.
Big Y sequencing combined with STR panels for enhanced genealogical research.
Improved ethnicity reporting.
Mitochondrial DNA search by ancestor for descendants who have tested.
More tools, always more tools….
More time to use the tools!

Here’s wishing you an ancestor filled 2015!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

The Fur Family – 52 Ancestors #51

Posted on December 25, 2014 by Roberta Estes

I’ve been behind all week long. My 52 Ancestors article for this week isn’t written and it’s Sunday, the day I always post my article. It’s not even started, and here is why….

Her name is Ellie and she is about 11 weeks old. I never intended to have Ellie, and truth told, I’m “only” babysitting.

My daughter rescued Ellie on Wednesday evening and brought her straight to my house so we could assess the situation. My kids grew up rescuing animals. For years we were volunteers for the local Humane Society and a foster home for literally hundreds of animals, one or two (or a litter) at a time. And yes, it goes without saying that a few of the most needy stayed. We had quite the group of misfits that we loved dearly.

When my former husband had a massive stroke in the 1990s, my volunteer and foster days ended. By then, my kids had already spent their childhood on countless rescue runs and endless days and nights of bottle feeding orphaned animals. So, the “damage” was done and, I’m proud to say, my daughter seems to be a chip off of the old block!

Then why doesn’t said daughter have the puppy? Great question. Said daughter and her husband had plans to visit husband’s family, out of town, for Christmas. Said daughter could not board this puppy who had never seen a vet in her life, and therefore had no shots, and therefore, the puppy got to come and stay with Grandma.

Suffice it to say that babysitting an 11 or 12 week old puppy who has had no structure to her life is much like babysitting an 18 month old child. They are fully mobile and into everything, except the child wears diapers and, hopefully, doesn’t chew the furniture. Still, as puppies go, Ellie is pretty good and smart as a whip.

Case in point – she already has Grandma and Grandpa pretty well trained.

Grandpa bought her several toys and treats and Grandma made her a puppy quilt. She loves to lay on things and thankfully, doesn’t chew those…only furniture.

Now, Ellie had never had a toy before so she is an EXTREMELY happy puppy and is very quickly learning what is hers and what is not.

What kind of dog is Ellie? We don’t know.

When we adopted our animals in the past, we never knew what they were – just mutts or “looked like” a Beagle.

Today, however, you can DNA test your dog to find out what kind they are. Ellie is supposed to be a boxer mix – and she loved, and I mean LOVED her bath, so maybe some water dog like lab too. She also has the webbed feet.

I checked into the dog DNA testing by Wisdom, and I discovered that the reviews of doggie DNA testing are pretty much all over the map, just like the ethnicity testing of people. In fact, surprisingly similar. I would only have done this out of curiosity anyway, because truthfully, it doesn’t matter what Ellie is…she is a puppy who was in need and that was all that mattered.

And given how many dog chew toys she has enjoyed these past several days, I’m thinking that $79 is better spent on chew toys than on a DNA test!

Those Who Came Before

The last of our herd of misfit dogs crossed over the rainbow bridge just over a year ago now. While I certainly miss having a dog (or two or three) on one hand, on the other, I certainly don’t miss certain aspects…like accompanying the dog outside. It’s winter and there is snow.

And, I might add, the cats….oh, the cats….they are requesting an attorney. They aren’t frightened, just very very VERY unhappy right now.

Ellie, on the other hand, keeps taking her toys and offering them to the cats and play bowing, inviting them in dog language to play. The cats are having NONE of that and are insulted at the very idea.

Having Ellie here for a few days has brought back such bittersweet memories.

In many cases, we are actually closer to our fur family than to our human family. I mean, think about it, your dog loves you unconditionally. You are their life.

I slept with my dogs and now, the cats – at least the ones who deign to grace us with their presence. I don’t sleep with most of my family.

But then, our fur family leaves us, all too soon. Even if they come to us as puppies or kittens, their life expectancy is much shorter than ours. And they leave huge, HUGE, holes in our heart. I’ve long said that if there aren’t pets in Heaven, I simply don’t want to go.

My first official pet wasn’t even mine. My brother had a dog named Rex. He was a mutt of sorts, a reverse looking Dalmation that was black with white spots. Being a toddler, I just loved Rex, and let’s just say that Rex did not share the same level of enthusiasm for me. Rex would immobilize me by sitting on me.

Then there was Timmy.

Timmy was a Chihuahua that my father had rescued someplace. Timmy went just about everyplace with him. I loved Timmy and claimed him for my own of course. My parents were no longer married by this time, as my father was a bit of a “womanizer,” to put it mildly.

One time, I remember, in the middle of the night, the phone rang, followed by a short conversation. Mom got me out of bed and told me to get dressed. Now this was a GREAT adventure – on a secret mission – in the middle of the night.

Off we went. I’m sure my mother was trying to figure out what to say to me and how.

It seems that my father had gotten himself arrested for driving under the influence. He had fallen off the wagon, again, and gotten caught. My Mom was not enamored with my father at this point in her life, especially after she found out about his “other family”…so why…you’re wondering…did she get up in the middle of the night?

Timmy…she went to get Timmy. Timmy, you see, was in jail too and the jail he was about to go too would likely have been a death sentence.

So, much to my father’s chagrin, Mom bailed Timmy out and left my Dad sitting there in all of his much-deserved misery. And rest assured, my mother was NOT a happy camper.

My first official pet, when I was about 10 or so, was Freckles. Freckles was a fantail goldfish with freckles. I begged and begged my mother to allow me to have a pet, but she said it was unfair to leave a pet in the house all day by themselves when she worked and I was in school. So, a goldfish it was. I loved Freckles and changed his water in his bowl faithfully every Saturday morning. Freckles even let me pet him with my finger when I fed him.

When Freckles died, I had a funeral and buried Freckles in the garden. I’m sure the neighbors thought surely I had lost my mind, on my knees in the garden, digging a hole and crying. They probably “had a word” with my mother.

My mother had a boyfriend, or a “friend” as they were called then, whose mother died in about 1968 or 1969, in the fall. By then I was 12 or 13. After his mother passed away, the three of us went to her house in the country to begin going through her things. When we arrived, a small white kitten appeared out of noplace, obviously thin and in need. It was late fall, and very cold – near Christmas.

We found something in his mother’s house to feed the famished kitten. I knew, we all knew, that if we drove away, it was a death sentence for this creature. I picked her up, held her frail shivering body close for warmth, and looked at mother. There were no words of request, but in my heart, I was ready to take my first stand against my mother if I had to. I was not leaving without that kitten. I simply couldn’t. My mother looked at me and Snowball, sighed, and said, “I can’t fight both of you.” I didn’t realize until later that my mother’s real concern was money – vet bills and such. Mother certainly didn’t want to leave Snowball either.

Snowball, shortened to Snowy, was a cherished part of our family for the next 18 years or so. Well we cherished her. She was pretty disdainful of us – unless she needed someone to escape to when taken to the vet. Then she suddenly knew us.

She survived being an indoor-outdoor cat, a move to the farm when my Mom married (a different friend) a few years later and being integrated into a family with a dog.

I was fully an adult when Snowy passed over the rainbow bridge. I don’t think she ever liked me as much as she did that day when she was rescued. Cats are like that! But she was my special friend and I surely loved her.

In 1970, I lived overseas for awhile. When I came home, I ran into the house to see Snowball. She ran right over to me, rubbed around my legs three times, chirped hello…and then stalked off, mad that I had been gone in the first place. And that was as good as it ever got!

Living on the farm, there was always a dog or cat that needed help of some sort. In addition, Dad was always bringing some other kind of creature in need to the house too. A pig, something. We helped them all as best we could.

After I began my own family, I rescued another dog who had been dumped. This one had been hit, either before or after. I opened my car door to her on the side of the road and she jumped in. She was one of the best friends one could ever have. She was extremely close to me. I don’t think dogs ever forget a kindness.

And tolerant, unbelievable what that dog tolerated. The night she unexpectedly died, I was crying so hard when I called my mother that she thought either my son or my husband had died and she was trying to figure out where she needed to go – hospital, house, morgue, etc.

Thanks to my step-Dad, I began rescuing creatures in need as a part of life. I really didn’t think anything about it.

One time, I had somehow obtained a litter of kittens without a mother that had to be bottle fed. I worked in town which was a half hour drive each way, so I couldn’t come home to feed them mid-day. Dad did the best he could. One day, for some reason, I came home early to walk into the kitchen to see my father’s huge gnarly hands holding a so-fragile kitten with its tiny bottle. It would have been so much easier for him just to dispose of the kittens, but the man had a heart of gold and would never have done that unless they were suffering. That scene is forever burned in my mind when I think of why I love that man.

Time moved on and so did I. College years and grad school and moving across the country. Cats move easily, thankfully, and adapt pretty well to just about anyplace where they have food and a litter box. They might not be happy, but then cats would never admit they were happy anyway!

After grad school, I became involved with the local Humane Society as part of their rescue group and as a foster home as well for orphaned and injured animals.

We were blessed with so many creatures that graced our lives – some for a short while as we found them their forever home and some, forever. We surely made a difference in their lives, but they made a difference in ours too.

I’d be remiss here if I didn’t mention two incredible Siamese cats that graced our lives, each living about 20 years and spanning about 40 years between them, and both taking care of all of the other creatures in need that we drug in over the years. The older cat even took care of an orphan goat and puppies, although she thought they were FILTHY and needed constant cat scrubbing.

Casey Jones would capture and hide the orphans when they cried, as it upset her. And they all cried. We had to go and find where she had hidden them. She would be frantically washing them and trying to feed them. We simply were deficient surrogate cat mothers. Casey helped quilt too. Casey, rescued from the pound because she refused to use a filthy litter box, took care of the older cat when she was too old and feeble to take care of herself. She won my heart right there. Casey tried to comfort me when the older cat passed within days of my sister’s death. I still miss Casey.

In the 1990s, we wound up with 4 misfit dogs, 3 Beagles and a Dalmatian who thought she was a Beagle. Each of these dogs came from a terrible situation and all of them were not adoptable for various reasons, so they became ours. All 4 were obedience trained to both voice and hand signals, and believe it or not, I could take all 4 of them out in the yard, at once, off leash, and they were perfectly well behaved. I know that is particularly difficult to believe, especially with Beagles.

Missy, the Dalmatian, went deaf with age but we never knew it until we realized that she was only responding to the hand signals.

While we think of these dogs as rescue dogs, they also contributed greatly to the family in so many ways.

I was home alone with the kids one time, and a man I didn’t know knocked on the front screen door. It was summertime, and that door wasn’t locked. I was right inside in the kitchen. I heard Missy growl in the living room. She was watching him intently. She had never growled at anyone. Then he tried to open the door. I say tried, because that dog was up and at the door in split second, all teeth and fangs. Suddenly, he was trying to push the door closed to protect himself from 50 pounds of snarling dog. Not to be defeated, Missy then tried to go through the screen. I yelled at him….”You’d better run because I don’t know how long I can hold this dog and she’ll kill you.” He ran like the wind and we never saw him again. The police told us that there was a “gang” of people doing “kitchen robberies” although I shudder to think what he would have done if he was willing to walk right in with me standing there. My door was forever locked after that. Missy certainly earned her home. Missy would also smile on command and loved corn on the cob. She was also the local volunteer Fire Department mascot in parades, riding in the fire truck.

In the 1990s, I unexpectedly became single again and never expected to remarry, or even date, for that matter. Let’s just say it would take a special person to understand that no, I cannot drive by anything and not help it, among other things. I had known Jim for years in a professional and then a friendship setting, but I never really expected anything more. Jim became a regular visitor and then, one day I walked in to find this. I knew this relationship had possibilities.

Of course, I couldn’t believe he just let Bagel the Beagle lay ON the coffee table….and we had to have a chat about that. Bagel ruled whatever part of the house you let her rule.

Which of course, brings us to Bagel the Beagle. Some of the fur family leaves their pawprints indelibly on our hearts and Bagel was one of my very special friends. She was a stray at the pound and her days were up, literally. The gal who worked at the pound called me, at work, and told me that she had a pregnant Beagle and either she was to be sold to the research buyer that day, or euthanized – both a death sentence. She begged me to take her, telling me how sweet this dog was and that if she were to take her home herself, “my ole man will beat me.” How could I say no?

I made her a deal. I would take the dog, but I couldn’t leave work and she would have to drop her at the vet for me and pick up the adoption money at the vet. Then I called my vet and asked them to give her the money for the dog. It goes without saying I knew the vet very well. I think there is a wing of their building named after me.

By the time I got to the vet, after work, I had a pregnant beagle who my daughter named Bagel because she was so very pregnant that she looked like a Beagle in a bagel. Her name didn’t matter, because she was only a foster dog and would get a forever home after the puppies were born and weaned. Right????

Wrong.

Bagel the Beagle became ours. She gave birth that night, cuddled up with my daughter in her sleeping bag on the floor. My daughter was “camping” by the dog’s bed so she could come and get me if the dog had her puppies. By morning, it was all over. Bagel crawled in my daughter’s sleeping bag, had half a dozen puppies and my daughter slept through the entire thing.

By the time Bagel’s puppies were weaned and adopted, she had woven herself into our family and our hearts. Plus, she had bitten me over a disagreement over a piece of meat she pushed a chair to the counter to steal. That made her unplaceable. Extremely smart, but the Humane Society could not place a dog known to have bitten. So, Bagel became ours. Maybe she was even smarter than I gave her credit for. She never bit me again or even tried to.

Bagel lived for nearly 20 years. She outlived all of the dogs who joined the family after she did. She was irascible and stubborn to a fault and chewed whatever she could get away with chewing – including a piece of needlework I was working on. I told her she used one of her lives that day.

Bagel was my special friend who would honk the horn in the car if I went into the convenience store and was gone for more than 2 minutes. She would go on vacation with us and would “point” to other creatures in need. Solely because of Bagel, we rescued orphan baby birds, a seagull and yes, a skunk.

For a long time, she was terrified of men and of rough dirt roads, telling me she had probably been an ill-used and abused hunting dog.

If you were “hers,” she would defend you to the death. She did not want unknown men to approach me or my daughter, ever. And she “explained” that to two different men with bad judgment.

Bagel survived cancer, twice. Bagel comforted me upon the loss of my father, husband and sister. She was my constant companion.

She was a master of stealing the hamburger patty out of the hamburger without touching the bun at all – especially in a moving car. I can’t tell you how many meatless sandwiches I ate. Bagel claimed she had NO idea what happened to that hamburger.

Bagel camped and hiked with us and loved to go to the ice cream store. One time she managed to shut herself in the pantry for the day and ate bites of almost everything – and all of some things. We found her in a food coma when we got home that day – and she still didn’t want to come out of the pantry. She hid under the shelf. She spent the rest of her life trying to get shut in the pantry again.

Most of all, she loved to go to see my mother on the farm. The farm has SO MANY good smells and nasty rotten smelly things to roll in.

After my former husband’s stroke, he was in a rehab facility for about 6 months. With proper permissions and vet paperwork, dogs were allowed to visit family members. Bagel went along most everyday and she went room to room, visiting every person in his wing of the building. She was the hit of the day and everyone looked forward to her daily rounds. One day, she disappeared from my husband’s room, and she was taking herself on her rounds. When someone was dismissed, she would sit in their room and cry. If someone was having a bad day, she would crawl up with them to comfort them. One time I found her in bed with a patient.

Bagel slept with me every night for 20 years, sometimes after a bath, if we had been visiting the farm, which is more than I can say for any human, at least so far.

Bagel lived to be old, quite old, more than 20, but still left us all too soon.

But you know, I think Bagel has a hand in this Ellie thing. You see, Ellie reminds me a little of Bagel. She came to us in a world of hurt, but is loving and irascible, chews everything, doesn’t listen worth a darn and makes a loving pain of herself. Yep – I think Bagel’s pawprints are all over this.

You know, they may need us, but we need them too. Our lives are so greatly enriched by our fur family. The gaping holes in our heart when they leave us reflect the great depth of our love for them.

Yep, I can’t wait till Ellie gets here to visit today. Merry Christmas!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Peopling of Europe 2014 – Identifying the Ghost Population

Posted on October 21, 2014 by Roberta Estes

Beginning with the full sequencing of the Neanderthal genome, first published in May 2010 by the Max Planck Institute with Svante Paabo at the helm, and followed shortly thereafter with a Denisovan specimen, we began to unravel our ancient history.

Neanderthal man, reconstructed at the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo

The photo below shows a step in the process of extracting DNA from ancient bones at Max Planck.

Our Y and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups take us back thousands of years in time, but at some point, where and how people were settling and intermixing becomes fuzzy. Ancient DNA can put the people of that time and place in context. We have discovered that current populations do not necessarily represent the ancient populations of a particular locale.

Recent information discovered from ancient burials tells us that the people of Europe descend from a 3 pronged model. Until recently, it was believed that Europeans descended from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers, a two-pronged model.

Previously, it was believed that Europe was peopled by the ancient hunter-gatherers, the Paleolithic, who originally settled in Europe beginning about 45,000 years ago. At this time, the Neanderthal were already settled in Europe but weren’t considered to be anatomically modern humans, and it was believed, incorrectly, that the two groups did not interbreed. These hunter-gatherers were the people who settled in Europe before the last major ice age, the Younger Dryas, taking refuge in the southern portions of Europe and Eurasia, and repeopling the continent after the ice receded, about 12,000 years ago. By that time, the Neanderthals were gone, or as we now know, at least partially assimilated.

This graphic shows Europe during the last ice age.

The second settlement wave, the agriculturalist farmers from the Near East either overran or integrated with the hunter-gatherers in the Neolithic period, depending on which theory you subscribe to, about 8000-10,000 years ago.

2012 – Ancient Northern European (ANE) Hints

Beginning in 2012, we began to see hints of a third lineage that contributed to the peopling of Europe as well, from the north. Buried in the 2012 paper, Estimating admixture proportions and dates with ADMIXTOOLS by Patterson et al, was a very interesting tidbit. This new technique showed a third population, referred to by many as a “ghost population”, because no one knew who they were, that contributed to the European population.

The new population was termed Ancient North Eurasian, or ANE.

Dienekes covered this paper in his blog, but without additional information, in the community in general, there wasn’t much more than a yawn.

2013 – Mal’ta Child Stirs Excitement

The first real hint of meat on the bones of ANE came in the form of ancient DNA analysis of a 24,000 year old Siberian boy that has come to be named Mal’ta (Malta) Child. In the original paper, by Raghaven et al, Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans, he was referred to as MA-1. I wrote about this in my article titled Native American Gene Flow – Europe?, Asia and the Americas. Dienekes wrote about this paper as well.

This revelation caused quite a stir, because it was reported that the Ancestor of Native Americans in Asia was 30% Western Eurasian. Unfortunately, in some cases, this was immediately interpreted to mean that Native Americans had come directly from Europe which is not what this paper said, nor inferred. It was also inferred that the haplogroups of this child, R* (Y) and U (mtDNA) were Native American, which is also incorrect. To date, there is no evidence for migration to the New World from Europe in ancient times, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t still looking for that evidence in early burials.

What this paper did show was that Europeans and Native Americans shared a common ancestor, and that the Siberian population had contributed to the European population as well as the Native American population. In other words, descendants settled in both directions, east and west.

The most fascinating aspect of this paper was the match distribution map, below, showing which populations Malta child matched most closely.

As you can see, MA-1, Malta Child, matches the Native American population most closely, followed by the northern European and Greenland populations. The further south in Europe and Asia, the more distant the matches and the darker the blue.

2013 – Michael Hammer and Haplogroup R

Last fall at the Family Tree DNA conference, Dr. Michael Hammer, from the Hammer Lab at the University of Arizona discussed new findings relative to ancient burials, specifically in relation to haplogroup R, or more specifically, the absence of haplogroup R in those early burials.

Based on the various theories and questions, ancient burials were enlightening.

In 2013, there were a total of 32 burials from the Neolithic period, after farmers arrived from the Near East, and haplogroup R did not appear. Instead, haplogroups G, I and E were found.

What this tells us is that haplogroup R, as well as other haplogroup, weren’t present in Europe at this time. Having said this, these burials were in only 4 locations and, although unlikely, R could be found in other locations.

Last year, Dr. Hammer concluded that haplogroup R was not found in the Paleolithic and likely arrived with the Neolithic farmers. That shook the community, as it had been widely believed that haplogroup R was one of the founding European haplogroups.

While this provided tantalizing information, we still needed additional evidence. No paper has yet been published that addresses these findings. The mass full sequencing of the Y chromosome over this past year with the introduction of the Big Y will provide extremely valuable information about the Y chromosome and eventually, the migration path into and across Europe.

2014 – Europe’s Three Ancient Tribes

In September 2014, another paper was published by Lazaridis et al that more fully defined this new ANE branch of the European human family tree. An article in BBC News titled Europeans drawn from three ancient ‘tribes’ describes it well for the non-scientist. Of particular interest in this article is the artistic rendering of the ancient individual, based on their genetic markers. You’ll note that they had dark skin, dark hair and blue eyes, a rather unexpected finding.

In discussing the paper, David Reich from Harvard, one of the co-authors, said, “Prior to this paper, the models we had for European ancestry were two-way mixtures. We show that there are three groups. This also explains the recently discovered genetic connection between Europeans and Native Americans. The same Ancient North Eurasian group contributed to both of them.”

The paper, Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans, appeared as a letter in Nature and is behind a paywall, but the supplemental information is free.

The article summary states the following:

We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000-year-old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000-year-old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analysed these and other ancient genomes1, 2, 3, 4 with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present-day Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: west European hunter-gatherers, who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; ancient north Eurasians related to Upper Palaeolithic Siberians3, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and early European farmers, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harboured west European hunter-gatherer related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that early European farmers had ~44% ancestry from a ‘basal Eurasian’ population that split before the diversification of other non-African lineages.

This paper utilized ancient DNA from several sites and composed the following genetic contribution diagram that models the relationship of European to non-European populations.

Present day samples are colored purple, ancient in red and reconstructed ancestral populations in green. Solid lines represent descent without admixture and dashed lines represent admixture. WHG=western European hunter-gatherer, EEF=early European farmer and ANE=ancient north Eurasian

2014 – Michael Hammer on Europe’s Ancestral Population

For anyone interested in ancient DNA, 2014 has been a banner years. At the Family Tree DNA conference in Houston, Texas, Dr. Michael Hammer brought the audience up to date on Europe’s ancestral population, including the newly sequenced ancient burials and the information they are providing.

Dr. Hammer said that ancient DNA is the key to understanding the historical processes that led up to the modern. He stressed that we need to be careful inferring that the current DNA pattern is reflective of the past because so many layers of culture have occurred between then and now.

Until recently, it was assumed that the genes of the Neolithic farmers replaced those of the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers. Ancient DNA is suggesting that this is not true, at least not on a wholesale level.

The theory, of course, is that we should be able to see them today if they still exist. The migration and settlement pattern in the slide below was from the theory set forth in the 1990s.

In 2013, Dr. Hammer discussed the theory that haplogroup R1b spread into Europe with the farmers from the Near East in the Neolithic. This year, he expanded upon that topic that based on the new findings from ancient burials.

Last year, Dr. Hammer discussed 32 burials from 4 sites. Today, we have information from 15 ancient DNA sites and many of those remains have been full genome sequenced.

Information from papers and recent research suggests that Europeans also have genes from a third source lineage, nicknamed the “ghost population of North Eurasia.”

Scientists are finding a signal of northeast Asian related admixture in northern Europeans, first suggested in 2012. This was confirmed with the sequencing of Malta child and then in a second sequencing of Afontova Gora2 in south central Siberia.

We have complete genomes from nine ancient Europeans – Mesolithic hunter gatherers and Neothilic farmers. Hammer refers to the Mesolithic here, which is a time period between the Paleolithic (hunter gatherers with stone tools) and the Neolithic (farmers).

In the PCA charts, shown above, you can see that Europeans and people from the Near East cluster separately, except for a bridge formed by a few Mediterranean and Jewish populations. On the slide below, the hunter-gatherers (WHG) and early farmers (EEF) have been overlayed onto the contemporary populations along with the MA-1 (Malta Child) and AG2 (Afontova Gora2) representing the ANE.

When sequenced, separate groups formed including western hunter gathers and early european farmers include Otzi, the iceman. A third group is the north south clinal variation with ANE contributing to northern European ancestry. The groups are represented by the circles, above.

Dr. Hammer said that the team who wrote the “Ancient Human Genomes” paper just recently published used an F3 test, results shown above, which shows whether populations are an admixture of a reference population based on their entire genome. He mentioned that this technique goes well beyond PCA.

Mapped onto populations today, most European populations are a combination of the three early groups. However, the ANE is not found in the ancient Paleolithic or Neolithic burials. It doesn’t arrive until later.

This tells us that there was a migration event 45,000 years ago from the Levant, followed about 7000 years ago by farmers from the Near East, and that ANE entered the population some time after that. All Europeans today carry some amount of ANE, but ancient burials do not.

These burials also show that southern Europe has more Neolithic farmer genes and northern Europe has more Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherer genes.

Pigmentation for light skin came with farmers – blue eyes existed in hunter gatherers even though their skin was dark.

Dr. Hammer created these pie charts of the Y and mitochondrial haplogroups found in the ancient burials as compared to contemporary European haplogroups.

The pie chart on the left shows the haplogroups of the Mesolithic burials, all haplogroup I2 and subclades. Note that in the current German population today, no I2a1b and no I1 was found. The chart on the right shows current Germans where haplogroup I is a minority.

Therefore, we can conclude that haplogroup I is a good candidate to be identified as a Paleolithic/Mesolithic haplogroup.

This information shows that the past is very different from today.

In 2014 we have many more burials that have been sequenced than last year, as shown on the map above.

Green represents Neolithic farmers, red are Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, brown at bottom right represents more recent samples from the Metallic age.

There are a total of 48 Neolithic burials where haplogroup G dominates. In the Mesolithic, there are a total of six haplogroup I.

This suggests that haplogroup I is a good candidate to be the father of the Paleolithic/Mesolithic and haplogroup G, the founding father of the Neolithic.

In addition to haplogroup G in the Neolithic, one sample of both E1b1b1 (M35) and C were also found in Spain. E1b1b1 isn’t surprising given it’s north African genesis, but C was quite interesting.

The Metal ages, which according to wiki begin about 3300BC in Europe, is where haplogroup R, along with I1, first appear.

Please note that the diffusion of melallurgy map above is not part of Dr. Hammer’s presentation. I have added it for clarification.

Nothing is constant in Europe. The Y DNA was very upheaved, as indicated on the graphic above. Mitochondrial DNA shifted from pre-Neolithic to Neolithic which isn’t terribly different from the present day.

Dr. Hammer did not say this, but looking at the Y versus the mtDNA haplogroups, I wonder if this suggests that indeed there was more of a replacement of the males in the population, but that the females were more widely assimilated. This would certainly make sense, especially if the invaders were warriors and didn’t have females with them. They would have taken partners from the invaded population.

Haplogroup G represents the spread of farming into Europe.

The most surprising revelation is that haplogroup R1b appears to have emerged after the Neolithic agriculture transition. Given that just three years ago we thought that haplogroup R1b was one of the original European settlers thousands of years ago, based on the prevalence of haplogroup R in Europe today, at about 50%, this is a surprising turn of events. Last year’s revelation that R was maybe only 7000-8000 years old in Europe was a bit of a whammy, but the age of R in Europe in essence just got halved again and the source of R1b changed from the Near East to the Asian steppes.

Obviously, something conferred an advantage to these R1b men. Given that they arrived in the early Metalic age, was it weapons and chariots that enabled the R1b men who arrived to quickly become more than half of the population?

The Bronze Age saw the first use of metal to create weapons. Warrior identity became a standard part of daily life. Celts ranged over Europe and were the most dominant iron age warriors. Indo-European languages and chariots arrived from Asia about this time.

The map above shows the Hallstadt and LaTene Celtic cultures in Europe, about 600BC. This was not a slide presented by Dr. Hammer.

Haplogroup R1b was not found in an ancient European context prior to a Bell Beaker period burial in Germany 4.8-4.0 kya (thousand years ago, i.e. 4,800-4,000 years ago). R1b arrives about 4.6 kya and is also found in a Corded Ware culture burial in Germany. A late introduction of these lineages which now predominate in Europe corresponds to the autosomal signal of the entry of Asian and Eastern European steppe invaders into western Europe.

Local expansion occurred in Europe of R1b subgroups U106, L21 and U152.

A current haplogroup R distribution map that reflects the findings of this past year is shown above.

Haplogroup I is interesting for another reason. It looks like haplogroup I2a1b (M423) may have been replaced by I1 which expanded after the Mesolithic.

On the slide above, the Loschbour sample from Luxembourg was mapped onto a current haplogroup I SNP map where his closest match is a current day Russian.

One of the benefits of ancient DNA genome processing is that we will be able to map current trees into maps of old SNPs and be able to tell who we match most closely.

Autosomal DNA can also be mapped to see how much of our DNA is from which ancient population.

Dr. Hammer mapped the percentages of European Mesolithic/Paleolithic hunter-gatherers in blue, Neolithic Farmers from the Near East in magenta and Asian Steppe Invaders representing ANE in yellow, over current populations. Note the ancient DNA samples at the top of the list. None of the burials except for Malta Child carry any yellow, indicating that the ANE entered the European population with the steppe invaders; the same group that brought us haplogroup R and possibly I1.

Dr. Hammer says that ANE was introduced to and assimilated into the European population by one or more incursions. We don’t know today if ANE in Europeans is a result of a single blast event or multiple events. He would like to do some model simulations and see if it is related to timing and arrival of swords and chariots.

We know too that there are more recent incursions, because we’re still missing major haplogroups like J.

The further east you go, meaning the closer to the steppes and Volga region, the less well this fits the known models. In other words, we still don’t have the whole story.

At the end of the presentation, Michael was asked if the whole genomes sequenced are also obtaining Y STR data, which would allow us to compare our results on an individual versus a haplogroup level. He said he didn’t know, but he would check.

Family Tree DNA was asked if they could show a personal ancient DNA map in myOrigins, perhaps as an alternate view. Bennett took a vote and that seemed pretty popular, which he interpreted as a yes, we’d like to see that.

In Summary

The advent of and subsequent drop in the price of whole genome sequencing combined with the ability to extract ancient DNA and piece it back together have provided us with wonderful opportunities. I think this is jut the proverbial tip of the iceberg, and I can’t wait to learn more.

If you are interested in other articles I’ve written about ancient DNA, check out these links:

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Anzick (12,707-12,556), Ancient One, 52 Ancestors #42

Posted on October 18, 2014 by Roberta Estes

His name is Anzick, named for the family land, above, where his remains were found, and he is 12,500 years old, or more precisely, born between 12,707 and 12,556 years before the present. Unfortunately, my genealogy software is not prepared for a birth year with that many digits. That’s because, until just recently, we had no way to know that we were related to anyone of that age….but now….everything has changed ….thanks to DNA.

Actually, Anzick himself is not my direct ancestor. We know that definitively, because Anzick was a child when he died, in present day Montana.

Anzick was loved and cherished, because he was smeared with red ochre before he was buried in a cave, where he would be found more than 12,000 years later, in 1968, just beneath a layer of approximately 100 Clovis stone tools, shown below. I’m sure his parents then, just as parents today, stood and cried as the laid their son to rest….never suspecting just how important their son would be some 12,500 years later.

From 1968 until 2013, the Anzick family looked after Anzick’s bones, and in 2013, Anzick’s DNA was analyzed.

DNA analysis of Anzick provided us with his mitochondrial haplogroup, D4h3a, a known Native American grouping, and his Y haplogroup was Q-L54, another known Native American haplogroup. Haplogroup Q-L54 itself is estimated to be about 16,900 years old, so this finding is certainly within the expected range. I’m not related to Anzick through Y or mitochondrial DNA.

Utilizing the admixture tools at GedMatch, we can see that Anzick shows most closely with Native American and Arctic with a bit of east Siberian. This all makes sense.

Full genome sequencing was performed on Anzick, and from that data, it was discovered that Anzick was related to Native Americans, closely related to Mexican, Central and South Americans, and not closely related to Europeans or Africans. This was an important discovery, because it in essence disproves the Solutrean hypothesis that Clovis predecessors emigrated from Southwest Europe during the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago.

The distribution of these matches was a bit surprising, in that I would have expected the closest matches to be from North America, in particular, near to where Anzick was found, but his closest matches are south of the US border. Although, in all fairness, few people in Native tribes in the US have DNA tested and many are admixed.

This match distribution tells us a lot about population migration and distribution of the Native people after they left Asia, crossed Beringia on the land bridge, now submerged, into present day Alaska.

This map of Beriginia, from the 2008 paper by Tamm et all, shows the migration of Native people into (and back from) the new world.

Anzick’s ancestors crossed Beringia during this time, and over the next several thousand years, found their way to Montana. Some of Anzick’s relatives found their way to Mexico, Central and South America. The two groups may have split when Anzick’s family group headed east instead of south, possibly following the edges of glaciers, while the south-moving group followed the coastline.

Recently, from Anzick’s full genome data, another citizen scientist extracted the DNA locations that the testing companies use for autosomal DNA results, created an Anzick file, and uploaded the file to the public autosomal matching site, GedMatch. This allowed everyone to see if they matched Anzick. We expected no, or few, matches, because after all, Anzick was more than 12,000 years old and all of his DNA would have washed out long ago due to the 50% replacement in every generation….right? Wrong!!!

What a surprise to discover fairly large segments of DNA matching Anzick in living people, and we’ve spent the past couple of weeks analyzing and discussing just how this has happened and why. In spite of some technical glitches in terms of just how much individual people carry of the same DNA Anzick carried, one thing is for sure, the GedMatch matches confirm, in spades, the findings of the scientists who wrote the recent paper that describes the Anzick burial and excavation, the subsequent DNA processing and results.

For people who carry known Native heritage, matches, especially relatively large matches to Anzick, confirm not only their Native heritage, but his too.

For people who suspect Native heritage, but can’t yet prove it, an Anzick match provides what amounts to a clue – and it may be a very important clue.

In my case, I have proven Native heritage through the Micmac who intermarried with the Acadians in the 1600s in Nova Scotia. Given that Anzick’s people were clearly on a west to east movement, from Beringia to wherever they eventually wound up, one might wonder if the Micmac were descended from or otherwise related to Anzick’s people. Clearly, based on the genetic affinity map, the answer is yes, but not as closely related to Anzick as Mexican, Central and South Americans.

After several attempts utilizing various files, thresholds and factors that produced varying levels of matching to Anzick, one thing is clear – there is a match on several chromosomes. Someplace, sometime in the past, Anzick and I shared a common ancestor – and it was likely on this continent, or Beringia, since the current school of thought is that all Native people entered the New World through this avenue. The school of thought is not united in an opinion about whether there was a single migration event, or multiple migrations to the new word. Regardless, the people came from the same base population in far northeast Asia and intermingled after arriving here if they were in the same location with other immigrants.

In other words, there probably wasn’t much DNA to pass around. In addition, it’s unlikely that the founding population was a large group – probably just a few people – so in very short order their DNA would be all the same, being passed around and around until they met a new population, which wouldn’t happen until the Europeans arrived on the east side of the continent in the 1400s. The tribes least admixed today are found south of the US border, not in the US. So it makes sense that today the least admixed people would match Anzick the most closely – because they carry the most common DNA, which is still the same DNA that was being passed around and around back then.

Many of us with Native ancestors do carry bits and pieces of the same DNA as Anzick. Anzick can’t be our ancestor, but he is certainly our cousin, about 500 generations ago, using a 25 year generation, so roughly our 500^th cousin. I had to laugh at someone this week, an adoptee who said, “Great, I can’t find my parents but now I have a 12,500 year old cousin.” Yep, you do! The ironies of life, and of genealogy, never fail to amaze me.

Utilizing the most conservative matching routine possible, on a phased kit, meaning one that combines the DNA shared by my mother and myself, and only that DNA, we show the following segment matches with Anzick.

Chr	Start Location	End Location	Centimorgans (cM)	SNPs
2	218855489	220351363	2.4	253
4	1957991	3571907	2.5	209
17	53111755	56643678	3.4	293
19	46226843	48568731	2.2	250
21	35367409	36761280	3.7	215

Being less conservative produces many more matches, some of which are questionable as to whether they are simply convergence, so I haven’t utilized the less restrictive match thresholds.

Of those matches above, the one on chromosomes 17 matches to a known Micmac segment from my Acadian lines and the match on chromosome 2 also matches an Acadian line, but I share so many common ancestors with this person that I can’t tell which family line the DNA comes from.

There are also Anzick autosomal matches on my father’s side. My Native ancestry on his side reaches back to colonial America, in either Virginia or North Carolina, or both, and is unproven as to the precise ancestor and/or tribe, so I can’t correlate the Anzick DNA with proven Native DNA on that side. Neither can I associate it with a particular family, as most of the Anzick matches aren’t to areas on my chromosome that I’ve mapped positively to a specific ancestor.

Running a special utility at GedMatch that compared Anzick’s X chromosome to mine, I find that we share a startlingly large X segment. Sometimes, the X chromosome is passed for generations intact.

Interestingly enough, the segment 100,479,869-103,154,989 matches a segment from my mother exactly, but the large 6cM segment does not match my mother, so I’ve inherited that piece of my X from my father’s line.

Chr	Start Location	End Location	Centimorgans (cM)	SNPs
X	100479869	103154989	1.4	114
X	109322285	113215103	6.0	123

This tells me immediately that this segment comes from one of the pink or blue lines on the fan chart below that my father inherited from his mother, Ollie Bolton, since men don’t inherit an X chromosome from their father. Utilizing the X pedigree chart reduces the possible lines of inheritance quite a bit, and is very suggestive of some of those unknown wives.

It’s rather amazing, if you think about it, that anyone today matches Anzick, or that we can map any of our ancestral DNA that both we and Anzick carry to a specific ancestor.

Indeed, we do live in exciting times.

Honoring Anzick

On a rainy Saturday in June, 2014, on a sagebrush hillside in Montana, in Native parlance, our “grandfather,” Anzick was reburied, bringing his journey full circle. Sarah Anzick, a molecular biologist, the daughter of the family that owns the land where the bones were found, and who did part of the genetic discovery work on Anzick, returns the box with his bones for reburial.

More than 50 people, including scientists, members of the Anzick family and representatives of six Native American tribes, gathered for the nearly two-hour reburial ceremony. Tribe members said prayers, sang songs, played drums and rang bells to honor the ancient child. The bones were placed in the grave and sprinkled with red ocher, just like when his parents buried him some 12,500 years before.

Participants at the reburial ceremony filled in the grave with handfuls, then shovelfuls of dirt and covered it with stones. A stick tied with feathers marks Anzick’s final resting place.

Sarah Anzick tells us that, “At that point, it stopped raining. The clouds opened up and the sun came out. It was an amazing day.”

I wish I could have been there. I would have, had I known. After all, he is part of me, and I of him.

Welcome to the family, Anzick, and thank you, thank you oh so much, for your priceless, unparalleled gift!!!

If you want to read about the Anzick matching journey of DNA discovery, here are the articles I’ve written in the past two weeks. It has been quite a roller coaster ride, but I’m honored and privileged to be doing this research. And it’s all thanks to an ancient child named Anzick.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Ancient DNA Matching – A Cautionary Tale

Posted on September 30, 2014 by Roberta Estes

I hope that all of my readers realize that you are literally watching science hatch. We are on the leading, and sometimes bleeding edge, of this new science of genetic genealogy. Because many of these things have never been done before, we have to learn by doing and experimenting. Because I blog about this, these experiments are “in public,” so there is no option of a private “oops.” Fortunately, I’m not sensitive about these kinds of things. Plus, I think people really enjoy coming along for the ride of discovery. I mean, where else can you do that? It’s really difficult to get a ride-along on the space shuttle!

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was from someone who was taken from my life far too early. I had made a mistake of some sort…don’t even remember what…and he gave me a card that said, “The only people who don’t make mistakes are the people who don’t try.”

This isn’t an “oops” moment. More like an “aha” moment. Or more precisely, a “huh” moment. It falls in the “Houston, we’ve got a problem” category.

So, this week’s new discovery is that there seems to be some inconsistency in the matching to the Anzick kit at GedMatch. Before I go any further, I want to say very clearly that this is in no way a criticism of anyone or any tool. Every person involved is a volunteer and we would not be making any of these steps forward, including a few backwards, without these wonderful volunteers and tools.

I have reached out to the people involved and asked for their help to unravel this mystery, and I’m sharing the story with you, partly so you can understand what is involved, and the process, partly so that you don’t inadvertently encounter the same kinds of issues and draw unrealistic or incorrect conclusions, and partly so you can help. If there has been any common theme in all of my articles in the past week or so about the ancient DNA articles, it has been that we really don’t understand what conclusions to draw yet…and we still don’t. So don’t.

Let’s introduce the players here.

The Players

Felix Chandrakumar has very graciously prepared the various ancient DNA files and uploaded them to GedMatch. Felix has written a number of DNA analysis tools as well.

John Olson is one of the two volunteers who created and does everything at Gedmatch, plus works a full time job. By the way, in case you’re not aware, this is a contribution site, meaning they depend on your financial contributions to function, purchase hardware, servers, etc. If you use this site, periodically scroll down and click on the donate button. We, as a community, would be lost without John and his partner.

David Pike is a long time genetic genealogist who I have had the pleasure of working with on a number of Native American and related topics over the years. He also has created several genetic genealogy tools to deal with autosomal DNA. David prepared the Anzick files for some private work we were doing several months ago, so he has experience with this DNA as well. Dr. Pike has a great deal of experience analyzing the endogamous population of Newfoundland, which is also admixed with Native Americans.

Marie Rundquist, also a long time genetic genealogist who specializes in both technology and Acadian history along with genetic genealogy. Acadians are proven to be admixed with Native Americans. Marie shares my deep interest and commitment to Native American study and genetics. Furthermore, Marie and I also share ancestors and co-administer several related projects. As you might imagine, Marie and I took this opportunity immediately to see if she and her mother share any of Anzick’s segments with me and my mother.

So, a big thank you to all of these people.

The Mystery

When Felix originally e-mailed me about the Anzick kit being uploaded to GedMatch, as you might imagine, I stopped doing whatever I was doing and immediately went to study Anzick and the other ancient DNA kits.

I wrote about this experience in the article, “Utilizing Ancient DNA at GedMatch.”

As part of that process, I not only ran Anzick’s kit utilizing the “one to many” option, I also compared my own kit to Anzick’s. My proven Native lines descend through my mother, so I ran her kit against Anzick’s as well, at the same thresholds, and I combined the two results to see where mother and I overlapped.

I showed these overlaps in the article, along with which genealogy lines they matched by utilizing my ancestor matching spreadsheet.

Everything was hunky dory…for then.

Day 2

The next day, I received a note from Felix that the Anzick kit may not have been fully tokenized at GedMatch previously, so I reran the Anzick “one to all” comparison and wrote about those results in the second article, “Analyzing the Native American Clovis Ancient Results.” Because it wasn’t yet fully processed originally, the second results produced more matches, not fewer.

I wasn’t worried about the one to one comparison of Anzick to my own kit, because one to one comparisons are available immediately, while one to many comparisons are not, per the GedMatch instructions.

“Once you have loaded your data, you will be able to use some features of the site within a minute or so. Additional batch processing, which usually takes a couple of days, must complete before you can use some of the tools comparing you to everyone in the data pool.”

So, everything was stlll hunky dory.

Day 3

The next day, Marie and I had a few minutes, sometime between 2 and 3AM, and no, I’m not kidding. We decided to compare results. I decided it would be quicker to run the match again at GedMatch than to sort through my Master spreadsheet, into which I had copied the results and added other information. So, I did a second download of the Anzick comparison, utilizing the exact same thresholds (200 SNPs, 2cM, and the rest left at the default,) and added them to a spreadsheet that Marie and I were passing back and forth, and sent them to Marie. I noticed that there seemed to be fewer matches, but by then it was after 3AM and I decided to follow up on that later.

Not so hunky dory…but I didn’t know it yet.

Day 4

The following day, Dr. Ann Turner (MD), also a long-time genetic genealogist, posted the following comment on the article.

“These results, finding “what appear to be contemporary matches for the Anzick child”, seemed very counter-intuitive to me, so I asked John Olson of GEDMatch to look under the hood a bit more. It turns out the ancient DNA sequence has many no-calls, which are treated as universal matches for segment analysis. Another factor which should be examined is whether some of the matching alleles are simply the variants with the highest frequency in all populations. If so, that would also lead to spurious matching segments. It may not be appropriate to apply tools developed for genetic genealogy to ancient DNA sequences like this without a more thorough examination of the underlying data.”

I had been aware of the no-calls due to the work that Dr. David Pike did back in March with the Anzick raw data files, but according to David, that shouldn’t affect the results.

Here’s what Dr. Pike, a Professor of Mathematics, had to say:

“Yes, these forensic samples have very high No-Call rates, which may give rise to more false matches than we would normally experience. Also, be aware that false matches are more prone to occur when using reduced thresholds (such as 100 SNPs and 1 cM) and unphased data. In this case I don’t think there’s any way around using low thresholds, simply because we’re looking for very small blocks of DNA (probably nobody alive today will have any large matching blocks with the Anzick child).

On the assumption that there will be a nearly constant noise ratio, meaning that most people will have about the same number of false matches with the Anzick child, those who are from the same gene pool should have an increased number of real matches. So by comparing the total amount of matching DNA, it ought to be possible to gauge people’s affinity with Anzick’s gene pool.”

Here are Felix’s comments about no-calls as well:

“Personally, no calls are fine as long as there are more SNPs matching above the threshold level because the possibility of errors occurring exactly on no-call positions for all the matches in all their matching segments is impossible.”

Courtesy of Felix, we’ll see an example of how no calls intersperse in a few minutes.

If no-calls were causing spurious matches in the Anzick kit, you’d expect to see the same for the other ancient DNA kits. I know that the Denisovan and Neanderthal kits also have many no-calls, and based on the nature of ancient DNA, I’m sure all of them do. So, if no calls are the culprit, they should be affecting matches to the other kits in the same way, and they aren’t.

Hunky-doryness is being replaced by a nonspecific nagging feeling…same one I used to get when my teenagers were up to something.

Day 5

A day or so later, Felix uploaded file F999913 to replace F999912 with the complete SNPs from all of the companies. The original 999912 kit only included the SNP locations utilized by Family Tree DNA. Felix added the SNPs utilized by 23and Me not utilized at Family Tree DNA, and the ones from Ancestry as well. This is great news for anyone who tested at those two companies, but I had utilized my kit from Family Tree DNA, so for me, there should be no difference at all.

I later asked Felix if he had changed anything else in the file, and he said that he had not. He provided extensive documentation about what he had done.

I waited until kit F999912 was deleted to be sure tokenizing was complete for F999913 and re-compared the data again. As expected, Anzick’s one to all had more matches than before, because additional people were included due to the added SNPs from 23andMe and Ancestry.

Some of Anzick’s matches are in the contemporary range, at 3.1 estimated generations, with the largest cM segment of 22.8 and total cMs of 202.8.

These relatively large matches cause Felix to question whether the sample is actually ancient, based on these relatively large segments. I addressed my feelings on this in the article, Ancient DNA Matches – What Do They Mean?

Marie and Dr. Pike, both with extensive experience with admixed populations addressed this as well. Marie commented,

“Native DNA found in the Anzick sample hasn’t changed all of that much and may still be found in modern, Native American populations, and that if people have Native American ancestry, they’ll match to it.”

Dr. Pike says:

“I agree with Marie on this… within endogamous populations, there is an increased likelihood of blocks of DNA being preserved over lengthy time frames. Moreover, even if a block of DNA gets cut up via recombination, within an endogamous population the odds of some parts of the block later reuniting in a person’s DNA are higher than otherwise. And it exaggerates the closeness of [the] relationship that gets predicted when comparing people.

I have seen something similar within the Newfoundland & Labrador Family Finder Project, whereby lots of people are sharing small blocks of DNA, likely as a result of DNA from the early colonists still circulating among the modern gene pool.

As an anecdotal example, I have a semi-distant relative (with ancestry from Newfoundland) at 23andMe who shares 3 blocks of DNA with my father, 2 with my mother and 5 five me. As you can imagine, the relative is predicted to be a closer cousin to me than she is to either of my parents!

It doesn’t take an endogamous or isolated population to see this effect.

It can also happen in families involving cousin marriages too, although that would be more pronounced and not quite the same thing as we’re discussing with respect to ancient DNA.”

This addition of other companies SNPs should not affect my matches with Anzick because my kits are both from FTDNA and won’t utilize the added SNPs.

However, I ran my and my mother’s matches again, and we had a significantly different outcome than either of the previous times.

I utilized the same threshold for all downloads and those are the only values I changed – 200 SNPs and 2cM, leaving the other values at default, for all Anzick comparisons to my mother and my kits.

I am not hunky-dory anymore.

The Heartburn

These matches, which should be the same in all three downloads, produced significantly different results.

Here are the number of matches at the same threshold comparing me and Mom to the Anzick file:

Me and Anzick

original download 999912 – 47 matches
second download 999912 – 21 matches
999913 – 35 matches

Mom and Anzick

original download 999912 – 63
second download 999912 – 37
999913 – 36

And no, the 36 /35 that mom and I have for 999913 are not all the same.

Kit Number	Matches Between Me, Mother and Anzick
#1-F999912 original download	19
#2-F999912 second download	6
#3-F999913	11

Of those various downloads, the following grid shows which ones matched each other.

	#1 to #2	#2 to #3	#1 to #3	All 3
# of Matches	6	2	3	2

So, comparing the first download to the last download, of the 19 original matches, we lost 16 matches. In the third download, we gained 8 matches and only 3 remained as common matches. So of 30 total matches between my mother, myself and Anzick, in two downloads that should have been exactly the same, only 3 matches held, or 10%.

Obviously, something is wrong, but what, and where? At that point, I asked Marie to download her and her mother’s results again too, and she experienced the same issue.

Clearly a problem exists someplace. That’s the question I asked Felix, John and David to help answer.

I realize that this spreadsheet it very long, and I apologize, but I think this issue is much easier to see visually. I’ve compiled the matches by color and shade to make looking at them relatively easy.

My matches to the Anzick kit are in shades of pink – the first match download being the lightest and the last one to kit F999913 being the darkest. Mother is green, same shading scheme.

The three columns to the right show the matching segments for each download – shaded in green. You can easily see which ones line up, meaning which ones match consistently across all three downloads. There aren’t many. They should all match.

Obviously this led to many questions that I asked of the various players involved.

My first thought was that perhaps a matching algorithm change occurred in GedMatch, but John assured me that he had made no changes.

Next question was whether or not Felix changed something other than adding the 23andMe and Ancestry SNPs. He had not.

Felix was kind enough to explain about bunching and to do some analysis on the files.

“When you have low thresholds, make sure you don’t allow errors. For example, at 200 SNPs, the default ‘Mismatch Evaluation window’ and in GEDMatch is same as SNP threshold and ‘Mismatch-Bunching limit’ is half of mismatch evaluation window. So, at 200 cM, you are allowing 1 error every 100 SNPs apart from no-calls.

I did some analysis on your phased mother’s kit, PF6656M1 so that at least we know that it is an IBD for one generation. The spreadsheet (below) are segments I found at 2 cM/200 SNPs threshold without allowing any errors.”

Kit PF6656M1 is one single kit created by phasing my data against my mother’s so that we don’t have to run both kits. I had not utilized the phased kit previously, so I was interested in his results.

The results above confirm chromosome matches, 2, 17, 19 and 21, but introduce a new match on chromosome 4. This match was present in the original download, but not in the second or third download, so once again, we have disparate data, except the thresholds Felix used were at a different level.

One of the more interesting things that Felix included is the no-call match information, the three columns to the right. I want to show what the no-calls look like. There are not huge segments that are blank and are being called as matches because they are no-calls, when they shouldn’t be. No calls are scattered like salt and pepper. In fact, no calls happen in every kit and they are called as matches so they don’t in fact disrupt a valid match string, potentially making it too small to be considered a match. Of course, ancient DNA has more no-calls that contemporary DNA kits.

Below are the first few match positions from chromosome 2 where mother, Anzick and I have a confirmed match across all downloads. The genotype shows you that both kits match.

For consistency, I ran the same kits that Felix ran, PF6656M1 and F999913, with the original thresholds I had used, and found the following:

Chr	Start Location	End Location	Centimorgans (cM)	SNPs
1	31358221	33567640	2.0	261
2	218855489	220351363	2.4	253
4	1957991	3571907	2.5	209
5	2340730	2982499	2.3	200
17	53111755	56643678	3.4	293
19	46226843	48568731	2.2	250
21	35367409	36761280	3.7	215

This introduces chromosomes 1 and 5, not shown above. The chromosome 1 match was shown in the first and second download, but not the third, and the chromosome 5 match was shown in the first download only, but not the second or third.

Can you see me beating my head against the wall yet??

In a fit of apparent insanity, I decided to try, once again, an individual download of Anzick compared to my mother and to me, but not utilizing the phased kit – the original F6656 and F9141, and at the original thresholds, for consistency. I wanted to see if the matches were the same now as they were a day or so ago. They should be exact. This first one is mine.

What you should see are two identical downloads. I have color coded the rows so you can see easily – and what you should see are candy-cane stripes – one red and one white for every match location.

That’s not what we’re seeing. The kits are the same, the match parameters are the same, but the results are not. Once again, the downloads don’t match.

I did another match on mother and Anzick, and her results were consistent between the first and second match to kit F999913.

The begs the next question. Have mother’s results always been consistent, suggesting a problem with my kit?

I sorted all of her downloads, and no, they are not consistent, except for the first and second download matches to kit F999913, shown above. The inconsistencies show up in both mother and my kits, although not in the same locations. Recall also that Marie had the same issue.

In Summary

Something is wrong, someplace. I know that sounds intuitively obvious – NOW. But it wasn’t initially and I wouldn’t even have suspected a problem without running the second and third downloads, quite unintentionally. Most people never do that, because once you’ve done the match, you have no reason to ever match to that particular person again. Given that, you’ll never know if a problem exists.

So, the only Anzick GedMatch matches I have any confidence in at all, at this point, are the few that are consistent between all of the downloads, and I didn’t add the fourth download into the mix. I don’t’ see any point because I’ve pretty much concluded that until we determine where the issue resides, that I won’t have confidence in the results.

The next question that comes to mind, and that I can’t answer, is whether or not this issue is present in contemporary matching kits – or if this is somehow an ancient DNA problem – although I don’t know quite how that could be – since matching is matching.

I haven’t saved any matches that I’ve run to other people in spreadsheets, so I can’t go back and see if a GedMatch match today produces the exact same results as a previous match.

Clearly there is no diagnosis or solution in this summary. We are not yet hunky dory.

What You Can Do

Run your Anzick and ancient DNA matches multiple times, at the same exact thresholds, on different days, to see if your results are consistent or inconsistent. Same kit, same thresholds, the results should be identical.
If you have some saved GedMatch matches with contemporary people, and you are positive of the match thresholds used, please run them again to see if the results are identical. They should be.
No drawing of or jumping to conclusions, please, especially about ancient DNA:) It’s a journey and we are fellow pilgrims!

If your results are not consistent, please document the problem and let the appropriate person know. I don’t want to overwhelm John at GedMatch but I’m concerned at this point that the problem may not be isolated to ancient DNA matching since the issue seems to extend to Marie’s results as well.

If your results, especially to Anzick, from previous matches to now are consistent, that’s worth knowing too. Please add a comment to that effect.

Thoughts and ideas are welcome.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

10 Things to Do With Your DNAPrint, renamed AncestrybyDNA, Test

Posted on June 19, 2014 by Roberta Estes

Please note, AncestrybyDNA is NOT the same as the AncestryDNA test sold by Ancestry.com. Both CeCe Moore and David Dowell have written about this in their respective blogs.

Back in 2002 (no, that is not a typo,) a new product called DNAPrint was introduced by a company then called DNAPrint Genomics. It provided you, in percentages, your percentages of 4 ethnic groups: Indo-European, East-Asian, Native American and African. Family Tree DNA remarketed this test for just over a year but ceased when they realized there were issues.

It was the first of its kind of test ever to be offered commercially, and version 2.0 utilized a whopping 71 ancestrally informative markers, according to the user’s guide delivered with the product. The next version of the test, 2.5, titled AncestrybyDNA included 175 markers, and a third version, which I don’t believe was ever released, was to include just over 300 markers.

In 2002, this was a baby step in a brand new world. We, as a community, were thrilled to be able to obtain this type of information. And of course, we believed it was accurate, or relatively so. However, the questions and ensuing debate started almost immediately and became very heated.

The company’s representatives indicated that East-Asian and Native American could be combined for those without a “Chinese grandpa” and that would have given me a whopping 25% Native American. Even then, before pedigree analysis, I thought this was a little high. My East Asian was shown as 15%, Native American at 10% and Indo-European at 75%. For reference, my real Native results are probably in the 1-3% range. Keep in mind that we were all babes in the woods, kind of stumbling around, learning, in 2002 and 2003.

Interestingly enough, I found the answer recently, quite by accident, to one of the burning questions about Native American ancestry that was asked repeatedly of Tony Frudakis during that timeframe, then a corporate officer of DNAPrint, and left unanswered. In Carolyn Abraham’s book, The Juggler’s Children, which is a wonderful read, on page 55, the answer to the forever-hanging question was answered:

“When I finally reached Frudakis, that’s how he explained the confusion over our Native ancestry result – semantics. The Florida company had pegged its markers as being Native American to appeal to the American market, he told me. But it was accurate to consider them Central Asian markers, he said, that had been carried to different regions by those who migrated from that part of the globe long ago – into the Americas, into East Asia, South Asia and even southern Europe – finding their way into today’s Greeks, Italians and Turks. ‘We may do ourselves a favour and change the name of this ancestry [component] in the test,’ he said, since apparently I wasn’t the only one baffled by it.”

So, now we know, straight from the horses mouth, via Carolyn.

Of course, since that time, many advances have occurred in this field. Today, Family Tree DNA, 23andMe, Ancestry.com and the Genographic Project utilize chip based technology and utilize over half a million markers to achieve ethnicity predictions. If DNAPrint, renamed AncestybyDNA was the first baby step, today we are teenagers – trying to refine our identity. Today’s tests, although not totally accurate, are, by far, more accurate than this first baby step. Give us another dozen years in this industry, and they’ll be spot on!

For 2003, when I ordered mine, DNAPrint was an adventure – it was exciting – it was a first step – and we learned a lot. Unfortunately, DNAPrint under the name AncestrybyDNA is still being sold today, currently owned by the DNA Diagnostics Center. If you are even thinking about ordering this product, take a look first at the Yelp reviews and the Better Business Bureau complaints.

I don’t regret spending the money in 2003. Spending money on this outdated test today would be another story entirely – a total waste. The results are entirely irrelevant today in light of the newer and more refined technology. Unfortunately, seldom a week goes by that I don’t receive an e-mail from someone who bought this test and are quite confused and unhappy. The test has been marketed and remarketed by a number of companies over the years.

So, here are some suggestions about what might be appropriate to do with your DNAPrint or AncestybyDNA results if you don’t want to just throw them away:

Line the bottom of the birdcage.
Use to light the BBQ grill or camp fire.
Use under boots in the hallway in the winter.
Shred, then use as confetti.
Cut into strips and use as bookmarks.
Use as scratch paper.
Use in the garden between rows to minimize weeds.
Make into a paper airplane.
Roll, along with other excess paper, into logs for the fireplace.
Frame, and display along with your other antiques.

Yes, it’s really that old and outdated!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Finding Native American Ethnic Results in Germanic People

Posted on May 21, 2014 by Roberta Estes

I’m often asked about the significance of small percentages of autosomal DNA in results. Specifically, the small percentages are often of Native American or results that would suggest Native admixture. One of the first questions I always ask is whether or not the individual has Germanic or eastern European admixture.

Why?

Take a look at this map of the Invasion of the Roman Empire. See the Huns and their path?

It’s no wonder we’re so admixed.

Here’s a map of the Hunnic empire at its peak under Attila between the years 420-469.

But that wasn’t the end of the Asian invasions. The Magyars, who settled in Hungary arrived from Asia as well, in the 800s and 900s, as shown on this map from LaSalle University.

Since both the Hungarians and some Germanic people descend from Asian populations, as do Native Americans, albeit thousands of years apart, it’s not unrealistic to expect that, as populations, they share a genetic connection.

Therefore, when people who carry heritage from this region of the world show small amounts of Native or Asian origin, I’m not surprised. However, for Americans, trying to sort out their Native ethnic heritage, this is most unhelpful.

Let’s take a look at the perfect example candidate. This man is exactly half Hungarian and half German. Let’s see what his DNA results say, relative to any Asian or Native heritage, utilizing the testing companies and the free admixture tools at www.gedmatch.com.

He has not tested at Ancestry, but at Family Tree DNA, his myOrigins report 96% European, 4% Middle Eastern. At 23andMe in speculative view, he shows 99.7 European and .2 sub-saharan African.

Moving to the admixture tools at GedMatch, MDLP is not recommended for Asian or Native ancestry, so I have excluded that tool.

Eurogenes K13 is the most recently updated admixture tool, so let’s take a look at that one first.

Eurogenes K13

Eurogenes K13 showed 7% West Asian, which makes perfect sense considering his heritage, but it might be counted as “Native” in other circumstances, although I would certainly be very skeptical about counting it as such.

However, East Asian, Siberian and Amerindian would all be amalgamated into the Native American category, for a combined percentage of 1.31.

However, selecting the “admixture proportions by chromosome” view shows something a bit different. The cumulative percentages, by chromosome equate to 10.10%. Some researchers mistakenly add this amount and use that as their percentage of Native ancestry. This is not the case, because those are the portions of 100% of each individual chromosome, and the total would need to be divided by 22 to obtain the average value across all chromosomes. The total is irrelevant, and the average may not reflect how the developer determines the amount of admixture because chromosomes are not the same size nor carry the same number of SNPs. Questions relative to the functional underpinnings of each tool should be addressed to the developers.

Dodecad

I understand that there is a newer version of Dodecad, but that it has not been submitted to GedMatch for inclusion, per a discussion with GedMatch. I can’t tell which of the Dodecad versions on GedMatch is the most current, so I ran the results utilizing both v3 and 12b.

I hope v3 is not the most current, because it does not include any Native American category or pseudocategory – although there is a smattering of Northeast Asian at .27% and Southwest Asian at 1%.

Dodecad 12b below

The 12b version does show .52% Siberian and 2.6% Southwest Asian, although I’m not at all sure the Southwest Asian should be included.

HarappaWorld

Harappaworld shows .09 Siberian, .27% American (Native American), .23% Beringian and 1.8% Southwest Asian, although I would not include Southwest Asian in the Native calculation.

In Summary

Neither Family Tree DNA nor 23andMe find Native ancestry in our German/Hungarian tester, but all 3 of the admixture tools at Gedmatch find either small amounts of Native or Asian ancestry that could certainly be interpreted as Native, such as Siberian or Beringian.

Does this mean this German/Hungarian man has Native American ancestry? Of course not, but it does probably mean that the Native population and his ancestral populations did share some genes from the same gene pool thousands of years ago.

While you might think this is improbable, or impossible, consider for a minute that every person outside of Africa today carries some percentage of Neanderthal DNA, and all Europeans also carry Denisovan DNA. Our DNA does indeed have staying power over the millennia, especially once an entire population or group of people is involved. We’ve recently seen this same type of scenarios in the full genome sequencing of a 24,000 year old Siberian male skeleton.

Our German/Hungarian man carries 2.4% Neanderthal DNA according to 23andMe and 2.7% according to the Genographic Project, which also reports that he carries 3.9% Denisovan. The European average is about 2% for Neanderthal.

The net-net of this is that minority admixture is not always what it seems to be, especially when utilizing autosomal DNA to detect small amounts of Native American admixture. The big picture needs to be taken into consideration. Caution is advised.

When searching for Native admixture, when possible, both Y DNA and mitochondrial DNA give specific answers for specific pedigree lines relative to ancestry. Of course, to utilize Y or mtDNA, the tester must descend from the Native ancestor either directly paternally to test the male Y chromosome, or directly matrilineally to test the mitochondrial line. You can read about this type of testing, and how it works, in my article, Proving Native American Ancestry Using DNA. You can also read about other ways to prove Native ancestry using autosomal DNA, including how to unravel which pedigree line the Native ancestry descends from, utilizing admixture tools, in the article, “The Autosomal Me.”

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Ethnicity Percentages – Second Generation Report Card

Posted on May 19, 2014 by Roberta Estes

Recently, Family Tree DNA introduced their new ethnicity tool, myOrigins as part of their autosomal Family Finder product. This means that all of the major players in this arena using chip based technology (except for the Genographic project) have now updated their tools. Both 23andMe and Ancestry introduced updated versions of their tools in the fall of 2013. In essence, this is the second generation of these biogeographical or ethnicity products. So lets take a look and see how the vendors are doing.

In a recent article, I discussed the process for determining ethnicity percentages using biogeographical ancestry, or BGA, tools. The process is pretty much the same, regardless of which vendor’s results you are looking at. The variant is, of course, the underlying population data base, it’s quality and quantity, and the way the vendors choose to construct and name their regions.

I’ve been comparing my own known and proven genealogy pedigree breakdown to the vendors results for some time now. Let’s see how the new versions stack up to a known pedigree.

The paper, Revealing American Indian and Minority Heritage Using Y-line, Mitochondrial, Autosomal and X Chromosomal Testing Data Combined with Pedigree Analysis was published in the Fall 2010 issue of JoGG, Vol. 6 issue 1.

The pedigree analysis portion of this document begins about page 8. My ancestral breakdown is as follows:

Geography	Pedigree Percent
Germany	23.8041
British Isles	22.6104
Holland	14.5511
European by DNA	6.8362
France	6.6113
Switzerland	0.7813
Native American	0.2933
Turkish	0.0031

This leaves about 25% unknown.

Let’s look at each vendor’s results one by one.

23andMe

My results using the speculative comparison mode at 23andMe are shown in a chart, below.

23andMe Category	23andMe Percentage
British and Irish	39.2
French/German	15.6
Scandinavian	7.9
Nonspecific North European	27.9
Italian	0.5
Nonspecific South European	1.6
Eastern European	1.8
Nonspecific European	4.9
Native American	0.3
Nonspecific East Asian/Native American	0.1
Middle East/North Africa	0.1

At 23andMe, if you have questions about what exact population makes up each category, just click on the arrow beside the category when you hover over it.

For example, I wasn’t sure exactly what comprises Eastern European, so I clicked.

The first thing I see is sample size and where the samples come from, public data bases or the 23andMe data base. Their samples, across all categories, are most prevalently from their own data base. A rough add shows about 14,000 samples in total.

Clicking on “show details” provides me with the following information about the specific locations of included populations.

Using this information, and reorganizing my results a bit, the chart below shows the comparison between my pedigree chart and the 23andMe results. In cases where the vendor’s categories spanned several of mine, I have added mine together to match the vendor category. A perfect example is shown in row 1, below, where I added France, Holland, Germany and Switzerland together to equal the 23andMe French and German category. Checking their reference populations shows that all 4 of these countries are included in their French and German group.

Geography	Pedigree Percent	23andMe %
Germany, Holland, Switzerland & France	45.7451	15.6
France	6.6113 (above)	Combined
Germany	23.8014 (above)	Combined
Holland	14.5511 (above)	Combined
Switzerland	0.7813 (above)	Combined
British Isles	22.6104	39.2
Native American	0.2933	0.4 (Native/East Asian)
Turkish	0.0031	0.1 (Middle East/North Africa)
Scandinavian		7.9
Italian		0.5
South European		1.6
East European		1.8
European by DNA	6.8362	4.9 (nonspecific European)
Unknown	25	27.9 (North European)

I can also change to the Chromosome view to see the results mapped onto my chromosomes.

The 23andMe Reference Population

According to the 23andMe customer care pages, “Ancestry Composition uses 31 reference populations, based on public reference datasets as well as a significant number of 23andMe members with known ancestry. The public reference datasets we’ve drawn from include the Human Genome Diversity Project, HapMap, and the 1000 Genomes project. For these datasets as well as the data from 23andMe, we perform filtering to ensure accuracy.

Populations are selected for Ancestry Composition by studying the cluster plots of the reference individuals, choosing candidate populations that appear to cluster together, and then evaluating whether we can distinguish the groups in practice. The population labels refer to genetically similar groups, rather than nationalities.”

Additional detailed information about Ancestry Composition is available here.

Ancestry.com

Ancestry is a bit more difficult to categorize, because their map regions are vastly overlapping. For example, the west Europe category is shown above, and the Scandinavian is shown below.

Both categories cover the Netherlands, Germany and part of the UK.

My Ancestry percentages are:

Ancestry Category	Ancestry Percentage
North Africa	1
America	<1
East Asia	<1
West Europe	79
Scandinavia	10
Great Britain	4
Ireland	2
Italy/Greece	2

Below, my pedigree percentages as compared to Ancestry’s categories, with category adjustments.

Geography	Pedigree Percent	Ancestry %
West European	52.584 (combined from below)	79
Germany	23.8041	Combined
Holland	14.5511	Combined
European by DNA	6.8362	Combined
France	6.6113	Combined
Switzerland	0.7813	Combined
British Isles	22.6104	6
Native American	0.2933	~1 incl East Asian
Turkish	0.0031	1 (North Africa)
Unknown	25
Italy/Greece		2
Scandinavian		10

Ancestry’s European populations and regions are so broadly overlapping that almost any interpretation is possible. For example, the Netherlands could be included in several categories – and based up on the history of the country, that’s probably legitimate.

At Ancestry, clicking on a region, then scrolling down will provide additional information about that region of the world, both their population and history.

The Ancestry Reference Population

Just below your ethnicity map is a section titled “Get the Most Out of Your Ethnicity Estimate.” It’s worth clicking, reading and watching the video. Ancestry states that they utilized about 3000 reference samples, pared from 4245 samples taken from people whose ethnicity seems to be entirely from that specific location in the world.

You can read more in their white paper about ethnicity prediction.

Family Tree DNA’s myOrigins

I wrote about the release of my Origins recently, so I won’t repeat the information about reference populations and such found in that article.

Family Tree DNA shows matches by region. Clicking on the major regions, European and Middle Eastern, shown above, display the clusters within regions. In addition, your Family Finder matches that match your ethnicity are shown in highest match order in the bottom left corner of your match page.

Clicking on a particular cluster, such as Trans-Ural Peneplain, highlights that cluster on the map and then shows a description in the lower left hand corner of the page.

Family Tree DNA shows my ethnicity results as follows.

Family Tree DNA Category	Family Tree DNA Percentage
European Coastal Plain	68
European Northlands	12
Trans-Ural Peneplain	11
European Coastal Islands	7
Anatolia and Caucus	3

Below, my pedigree results reorganized a bit and compared to Family Tree DNA’s categories.

Geography	Pedigree Percent	Family Tree DNA %
European Coastal Plain	45.7478	68
Germany	23.8041	Combined above
Holland	14.5511	Combined above
France	6.6113	Combined above
Switzerland	0.7813	Combined above
British Isles	22.6104	7 (Coastal Islands)
Turkish	0.0031	3 (Anatolia and Caucus)
European by DNA	6.8362
Native American	0.2933
Unknown	25
Trans-Ural Peneplain		11
European Northlands		12

Third Party Admixture Tools

www.GedMatch.com is kind enough to include 4 different admixture utilities, contributed by different developers, in their toolbox. Remember, GedMatch is a free, meaning a contribution site – so if you utilize and enjoy their tools – please contribute.

On their main page, after signing in and transferring your raw data files from either 23andMe, Family Tree DNA or Ancestry, you will see your list of options. Among them is “admixture.” Click there.

Of the 4 tools shown, MDLP is not recommended for populations outside of Europe, such as Asian, African or Native American, so I’ve skipped that one entirely.

I selected Admixture Proportions for the part of this exercise that includes the pie chart.

The next option is Eurogenes K13 Admixture Proportions. My results are shown below.

Eurogenes K13

Of course, there is no guide in terms of label definition, so we’re guessing a bit.

Geography	Pedigree Percent	Eurogenes K13%
North Atlantic	75.19	44.16
Germany	23.8041	Combined above
British Isles	22.6104	Combined above
Holland	14.5511	Combined above
European by DNA	6.8362	Combined above
France	6.6113	Combined above
Switzerland	0.7813	Combined above
Native American	0.2933	2.74 combined East Asian, Siberian, Amerindian and South Asian
Turkish	0.0031	1.78 Red Sea
Unknown	25
Baltic		24.36
West Med		14.78
West Asian		6.85
Oceanian		0.86

Dodecad K12b

Next is Dodecad K12b

According to John at GedMatch, there is a more current version of Dodecad, but the developer has opted not to contribute the current or future versions.

By the way, in case you’re wondering, Gedrosia is an area along the Indian Ocean – I had to look it up!

Geography	Pedigree Percent	Dodecad K12b
North European	75.19	43.50
Germany	23.8041	Combined above
British Isles	22.6104	Combined above
Holland	14.5511	Combined above
European by DNA	6.8362	Combined above
France	6.6113	Combined above
Switzerland	0.7813	Combined above
Native American	0.2933	3.02 Siberian, South Asia, SW Asia, East Asia
Turkish	0.0031	10.93 Caucus
Gedrosia		7.75
Northwest African		1.22
Atlantic Med		33.56
Unknown	25

Third is Harappaworld.

Harappaworld

Baloch is an area in the Iranian plateau.

Geography	Pedigree Percent	Harappaworld %
Northeast Euro	75.19	46.58
Germany	23.8041	Combined above
British Isles	22.6104	Combined above
Holland	14.5511	Combined above
European by DNA	6.8362	Combined above
France	6.6113	Combined above
Switzerland	0.7813	Combined above
Native American	0.2933	2.81 SE Asia, Siberia, NE Asian, American, Beringian
Turkish	0.0031	10.27
Unknown	25
S Indian		0.21
Baloch		9.05
Papuan		0.38
Mediterranean		28.71

The wide variety found in these results makes me curious about how my European results would be categorized using the MDLP tool, understanding that it will not pick up Native, Asian or African.

MDLP K12

The Celto-Germanic category is very close to my mainland European total – but of course, many Germanic people settled in the British Isles.

Second Generation Report Card

Many of these tools picked up my Native American heritage, along with the African. Yes, these are very small amounts, but I do have several proven lines. By proven, I mean both by paper trail (Acadian church and other records) and genetics, meaning Yline and mtDNA. There is no arguing with that combination. I also have other Native lines that are less well proven. So I’m very glad to see the improvements in that area.

Recent developments in historical research and my mitochondrial DNA matches show that my most distant maternal ancestral line in Germany have some type of a Scandinavian connection. How did this happen, and when? I just don’t know yet – but looking at the map below, which are my mtDNA full sequence matches, the pattern is clear.

Could the gene flow have potentially gone the other direction – from Germany to Scandinavia? Yes, it’s possible. But my relatively consistent Scandinavian ethnicity at around 10% seems unlikely if that were the case.

Actually, there is a second possibility for additional Scandinavian heritage and that’s my heavy Frisian heritage. In fact, most of my Dutch ancestors in Frisia were either on or very near the coast on the northernmost part of Holland and many were merchants.

I also have additional autosomal matches with people from Scandinavia – not huge matches – but matches just the same – all unexplained. The most notable of which, and the first I might add, is with my friend, Marja.

It’s extremely difficult to determine how distant the ancestry is that these tests are picking up. It could be anyplace from a generation ago to hundreds of generations ago. It all depends on how the DNA was passed, how isolated the population was, who tested today and which data bases are being utilized for comparison purposes along with their size and accuracy. In most cases, even though the vendors are being quite transparent, we still don’t know exactly who the population is that we match, or how representative it is of the entire population of that region. In some cases, when contributed data is being used, like testers at 23andMe, we don’t know if they understood or answered the questions about their ancestry correctly – and 23andMe is basing ethnicity results on their cumulative answers. In other words, we can’t see beneath the blanket – and even if we could – I don’t know that we’d understand how to interpret the components.

So Where Am I With This?

I knew already, through confirmed paper sources that most of my ancestry is in the European heartland – Germany, Holland, France as well as in the British Isles. Most of the companies and tools confirm this one way or another. That’s not a surprise. My 35 years of genealogical research has given me an extremely strong pedigree baseline that is invaluable for comparing vendor ethnicity results.

The Scandinavian results were somewhat of a surprise – especially at the level in which they are found. If this is accurate, and I tend to believe it is present at some level, then it must be a combined effect of many ancestors, because I have no missing or unknown ancestors in the first 5 generations and only 11 of 64 missing or without a surname in generation 6. Those missing ancestors in generation 6 only contribute about 1.5% of my DNA each, assuming they contribute an average of 50% of their DNA to offspring in each subsequent generation.

Clearly, to reach 10%, nearly all of my missing ancestors, in the US and Germany, England and the Netherlands would have to be 100% Scandinavian – or, alternately, I have quite a bit scattered around in many ancestors, which is a more likely scenario. Still, I’m having a difficult time with that 10% number in any scenario, but I will accept that there is some Scandinavian heritage one way or another. Finding it, however, genealogically is quite another matter.

However, I’m at a total loss as to the genesis of the South European and Mediterranean. This must be quite ancient. There are only two known possible ancestors from these regions and they are many generations back in time – and both are only inferred with clearly enough room to be disproven. One is a possible Jewish family who went to France from Spain in 1492 and the other is possibly a Roman soldier whose descendants are found within a few miles of a Roman fort site today in Lancashire. Neither of these ancestors could have contributed enough DNA to influence the outcome to the levels shown, so the South European/Mediterranean is either incorrect, or very deep ancestry.

The Eastern European makes more sense, given my amount of German heritage. The Germans are well known to be admixed with the Magyars and Huns, so while I can’t track it or prove it, it also doesn’t surprise me one bit given the history of the people and regions where my ancestors are found.

What’s the Net-Net of This?

This is interesting, very interesting. There are tips and clues buried here, especially when all of the various tools, including autosomal matching, Y and mtDNA, are utilized together for a larger picture. Alone, none of these tools are as powerful as they are combined.

I look forward to the day when the reference populations are in the tens of thousands, not hundreds. All of the tools will be far more accurate as the data base is built, refined and utilized.

Until then, I’ll continue to follow each release and watch for more tips and clues – and will compare the various tools. For example, I’m very pleased to see Family Tree DNA’s new ethnicity matching tool incorporated into myOrigins.

I’ve taken the basic approach that my proven pedigree chart is the most accurate, by far, followed by the general consensus of the combined results of all of the vendors. It’s particularly relevant when vendors who don’t use the same reference populations arrive at the same or similar results. For example, 23andMe uses primarily their own clients and Nat Geo of course, although I did not include them above because they haven’t released a new tool recently, uses their own population sample results.

National Geographic’s Geno2

Nat Geo took a bit of a different approach and it’s more difficult to compare to the others. They showed my ethnicity as 43% North European, 36% Mediterranean and 18% Southwest Asian.

While this initially looks very skewed, they then compared me to my two closest populations, genetically, which were the British and the Germans, which is absolutely correct, according to my pedigree chart. Both of these populations are within a few percent of my exact same ethnicity profile, shown below.

The description makes a lot of sense too. “The dominant 49% European component likely reflects the earliest settlers in Europe, hunter-gatherers who arrived there more than 35,000 years ago. The 44% Mediterranean and the 17% Southwest Asian percentages arrived later, with the spread of agriculture from the Fertile Crescent in the middle East, over the past 10,000 years. As these early farmers moved into Europe, they spread their genetic patterns as well.”

So while individually, and compared to my pedigree chart, these results appear questionable, especially the Mediterranean and Southwest Asian portions, in the context of the populations I know I descend from and most resemble, the results make perfect sense when compared to my closest matching populations. Those populations themselves include a significant amount of both Mediterranean and Southwest Asian. Looking at this, I feel a lot better about the accuracy of my results. Sometimes, perspective makes a world of difference.

It’s A Wrap

Just because we can’t exactly map the ethnicity results to our pedigree charts today doesn’t mean the results are entirely incorrect. It doesn’t mean they are entirely correct, either. The results may, in some cases, be showing where population groups descend from, not where our specific ancestors are found more recently. The more ancestors we have from a particular region, the more that region’s profile will show up in our own personal results. This explains why Mediterranean shows up, for example, from long ago but our one Native ancestor from 7 or 8 generations ago doesn’t. In my case, it would be because I have many British/German/Dutch lines that combine to show the ancient Mediterranean ancestry of these groups – where I have many fewer Native ancestors.

Vendors may be picking up deep ancestry that we can’t possible know about today – population migration. It’s not like our ancestors left a guidebook of their travels for us – at least – not outside of our DNA – and we, as a community, are still learning exactly how to read that! We are, after all, participants on the pioneering, leading edge of science.

Having said that, I’ll personally feel a lot better about these kinds of results when the underlying technology, data bases and different vendors’ tools mature to the point where there the differences between their results are minor.

For today, these are extremely interesting tools, just don’t try to overanalyze the results, especially if you’re looking for minority admixture. And if you don’t like your results, try a different vendor or tool, you’ll get an entirely new set to ponder!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Family Tree DNA Releases myOrigins

Posted on May 11, 2014 by Roberta Estes

On May 6th, Family Tree DNA released myOrigins as a free feature of their Family Finder autosomal DNA test. This autosomal biogeographic feature was previously called Population Finder. It has not just been renamed, but entirely reworked.

Currently, 22 population clusters in 7 major geographic groups are utilized to evaluate your biogeographic ethnicity or ancestry as compared to these groups, many of which are quite ancient.

Primary Population Clusters

Anatolia & Caucasus
Asian Northeast
Bering Expansion
East Africa Pastoralist
East Asian Coastal Islands
Eastern Afroasiatic
Eurasian Heartland
European Coastal Islands
European Coastal Plain
European Northlands
Indian Tectonic
Jewish Diaspora
Kalahari Basin
Niger-Congo Genesis
North African Coastlands
North Circumpolar
North Mediterranean
Trans-Ural Peneplain

Blended Population Clusters

Coastal Islands & Central Plain
Northlands & Coastal Plain
North Mediterranean & Coastal Plain
Trans-Euro Peneplain & Coastal Plain

Each of these groups has an explanation which can be found here.

Matching

Prior to release, Family Tree DNA sent out a notification about new matching options. One of the new features is that you will be able to see the matching regions of the people you match – meaning your populations in common. This powerful feature lets you see matches who are similar which can be extremely useful when searching for minority admixture, for example. However, some participants don’t want their matches to be able to see their ethnicity, so everyone was given an ‘opt out’ option. Fortunately, few people have opted out, less than 1%.

Be aware that only your primary matches are shown. This means that your 4-5^th cousins or more distant are not shown as ethnicity matches.

Here’s what the FTDNA notification said:

With myOrigins, you’ll be able compare your ethnicity with your Family Finder matches. If you want to share your ethnic origins with your matches, you don’t need to take any action. You’ll automatically be able to compare your ethnicity with your matches when myOrigins becomes available. This is the recommended option. However, we do understand that sharing your ethnicity with your matches is your choice so we’re sending you this reminder in case you want to not take part (opt-out). To opt-out, please follow the instructions below. *

Click this link.
If you are not logged in, do so.
Select the “Do not share my ethnic breakdown with my matches. This will not let me compare my ethnicity with my matches.” radio button.
Click the Save button.

You can get more details about what will be shared here. You may also join our forums for discussion. * You can change your privacy settings at any time. Thus, you may opt-out of or opt back into ethnic sharing at a later date if you change your mind.

What’s New?

Let’s take a look at the My Origins results. You can see your results by clicking on “My Origins” on the Family Finder tab on your personal page at Family Tree DNA.

Ethnicity and Matches

Your population ethnicity is shown on the main page, as well as up to three shared regions that you share with your matches. This means that if you share more than 3 regions with these people, the 4^th one (or 5^th or 6^th, etc.) won’t show. This also means that if your match has an ethnicity you don’t have, that won’t show either.

Above, you see my main results page. Please note that this map is what is known as a heat map. This means that the darkest, or hottest, areas are where my highest percentages are found.

Each region has a breakdown that can be seen by clicking on the region bar. My European region bar population cluster breakdown is shown below along with my ethnicity match to my mother.

And my Middle Eastern breakdown is shown below.

Ethnicity Mapping

A great new feature is the mapping of the maternal and paternal ethnicity of your Family Finder matches, when known. How does Family Tree DNA know? The location data entered in the “Matches Map” location field. Can’t remember if you completed these fields? It’s easy to take a look and see. On either the Y DNA or the mtDNA tabs, click on Matches Map and you’ll see your white balloon. If the white balloon is in the location of your most distant ancestor in your paternal line (for Y) or your matrilineal line for mtDNA (your mother’s mother’s mother’s line on up the tree until you run out of mothers), then you’ve entered the location data and you’re good to go. If your white balloon is on the equator, click on the tab at the bottom of the map that says “update ancestor’s location” and step through the questions.

If you haven’t completed this information, please do. It makes the experience much more robust for everyone.

How Does This Tool Work?

The buttons to the far right of the page show the mapped locations of the oldest paternal lines and the oldest matrilineal (mtDNA) lines of your matches. Direct paternal matches would of course be surname matches, but only to their direct paternal lines. This does not take into account all of their “most distant ancestors,” just the direct paternal ones. This is the yellow button.

The green button provides the direct maternal matches.

Do not confuse this with your Matches Map for your own paternal (if you’re a male) or mitochondrial matches. Just to illustrate the difference, here is my own direct maternal full sequence matches map, available on my mtDNA tab. As you can see, they are very different and convey very different information for you.

Comparisons

By way of comparison, here are my mother’s myOrigins results.

Let’s say I want to see who else matches her from Germany where our most distant mitochondrial DNA ancestor is located.

I can expand the map by scrolling or using the + and – keys, and click on any of the balloons.

Indeed, here is my balloon, right where it should be, and the 97% European match to my mother pops up right beside my balloon. The matches are not broken down beyond region.

This is full screen, so just hit the back button or the link in the upper right hand corner that says “back to FTDNA” to return to your personal page.

Walk Through

Family Tree DNA has provided a walk-through of the new features.

Methodology

How did Family Tree DNA come up with these new regional and population cluster matches?

As we know, all of humanity came originally from Africa, and all of humanity that settled outside of Africa came through the Middle East. People left the Middle East in groups, it would appear, and lived as isolated populations for some time in different parts of the world. As they did, they developed mutations that are found only in that region, or are found much more frequently in that region as opposed to elsewhere. Patterns of mutations like this are established, and when one of us matches those patterns, it’s determined that we have ancestry, either recent or perhaps ancient, from that region of the world.

The key to this puzzle is to find enough differentiation to be able to isolate or identify one group from another. Of course, the groups eventually interbred, at least most of them did, which makes this even more challenging.

Family Tree DNA says in their paper describing the population clusters:

MyOrigins attempts to reduce the wild complexity of your genealogy to the major historical-genetic themes which arc through the life of our species since its emergence 100,000 years ago on the plains of Africa. Each of our 22 clusters describe a vivid and critical color on the palette from which history has drawn the brushstrokes which form the complexity that is your own genome. Though we are all different and distinct, we are also drawn from the same fundamental elements.

The explanatory narratives in myOrigins attempt to shed some detailed light upon each of the threads which we have highlighted in your genetic code. Though the discrete elements are common to all humans, the weight you give to each element is unique to you. Each individual therefore receives a narrative fabric tailored to their own personal history, a story stitched together from bits of DNA.

They have also provided a white paper about their methodology that provides more information.

After reading both of these documents, I much prefer the explanations provided for each cluster in the white paper over the shorter population cluster paper. The longer version breaks the history down into relevant pieces and describes the earliest history and migrations of the various groups.

I was pleased to see the methodology that they used and that four different reference data bases were utilized.

GeneByGene DNA customer database
Human Genome Diversity Project
International HapMap Project
Estonian Biocentre

Given this wealth of resources, I was very surprised to see how few members of some references populations were utilized.

Population	N	Population	N
Armenian	46	Lithuanian	6
Ashkenazi	60	Masai	140
British	39	Mbuti	15
Burmese	8	Moroccan	7
Cambodian	26	Mozabite	24
Danish	13	Norwegian	17
Filipino	20	Pashtun	33
Finnish	49	Polish	35
French	17	Portuguese	25
German	17	Russian	41
Gujarati	31	Saudi	19
Iraqi	12	Scottish	43
Irish	45	Slovakian	12
Italian	30	Spanish	124
Japanese	147	Surui	21
Karitiana	23	Swedish	33
Korean	15	Ukrainian	10
Kuwaiti	14	Yoruba	136

In particular, the areas of France, Germany, Norway, Slovakia, Denmark and the Ukraine appear to be very under-represented, especially given Family Tree DNA’s very heavy European-origin customer base . I would hope that one of the priorities would be to expand this reference data base substantially. Furthermore, I don’t see any New World references included here which calls into question Native American ancestry.

Webinar

Family Tree DNA typically provides a webinar for new products as well as general education. The myOrigins webinar can be found in the archives at this link. It can be viewed any time. https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/ftdna/webinars/

Accuracy

How did they do? Certainly, Family Tree DNA has a great new interface with wonderful new maps and comparison features. Let’s take a look at accuracy and see if everything makes sense.

I am fortunate to have the DNA of one of my parents, my mother. In the chart below, I’m comparing that result and inferring my father’s results by subtracting mine from my mother’s. This may not be entirely accurate, because this presumes I received the full amount of that ethnicity from my mother, and that is probably not accurate – but – it’s the best I can do under the circumstances. It’s safe to say that my father has a minimum of this amount of that particular population category and may have more.

Region	Me	Mom	Dad Inferred Minimum
European Coastal Plain	68	17	51
European Northlands	12	7	5
Trans Ural Peneplain	11	10	1
European Coastal Islands	7	34	0
Anatolia and Caucus	3	0	3
North Mediterranean	0	34	0
Circumpolar	0	1	0
Undetermined*	0	0	40

*The Undetermined category is not from Family Tree DNA, but is the percentage of my father not accounted for by inference. This 40% is DNA that I did not inherit if it falls into a different category.

Based on these results alone, I have the following observations.

1. I find it odd that my mother has 34% North Mediterranean and I have none. We have no known ancestry from this region.
2. My mother does have one distant line of Turkish DNA via France. I have presumed that my Middle Eastern (now Anatolia and Caucus) was through that line, but these results suggest otherwise.
3. My mother’s Circumpolar may be Native American. She does have proven Native lines (Micmac) through the Acadian families.
4. These results have missed both my Native lines (through both parents) and my African admixture although both are small percentages.
5. The European Coastal Plain is one of the groups that covers nearly all of Europe. Given that my mother is 3/4^th Dutch/German, with the balance being Acadian, Native and English, one would expect her to have significantly more, especially given my high percentage.
6. The European Coastal Island percentages are very different for me and my mother, with me carrying much less than my mother. This is curious, because she is 3/4th German/Dutch with between 1/8th and 3/16th English while my father’s lines are heavily UK. My father’s ancestry may well be reflected in European Coastal Plain which covers a great deal of territory.

What We Need to Remember

All of the biogeographic tools, from Family Tree DNA, 23andMe and Ancestry, are “estimates” and each of the tools from the three major vendors rend different results. Each one is using different combinations of reference populations, so this really isn’t surprising. Hopefully, as the various companies increase their population references and the size of their reference data bases, the results will increasingly mesh from company to company. These results are only as good as the back end tools and the DNA that you randomly inherited from your ancestors.

Furthermore, we all carry far more similar DNA than different DNA, so it’s extremely difficult to make judgment calls based on ranges. Europe, for example, is extremely admixed and the US is moreso. The British Isles were a destination location for many groups over thousands of years. Some of the DNA being picked up by these tests may indeed be very ancient and may cause us to wonder where it came from. In future test versions, this may be more perfectly refined.

There is no way to gauge “ancient” DNA, like from the Middle East Diaspora, from more contemporary DNA, only a thousand years or so old, once it’s in very small segments. In other words, it’s all very individual and personal and pretty much cast in warm jello. We’ve come a long way, but we aren’t “there” yet. However, without these tools and the vendors working to make them better, we’ll never get “there,” so keep that in mind.

While this makes great conversation today, and there is no question about accuracy in terms of majority ancestry/ethnicity, no one should make any sweeping conclusions based on this information. This is not “cast in concrete” in the same way as Y DNA and mitochondrial haplogroups and STR markers. Those are irrefutable – while biogeographical ethnicity remains a bit ethereal.

In summary, I would simply say that this tool can provide great hints and tips, especially the matching, which is unique, but it can’t disprove anything. The absence of minority admixture, which is what so many people are hunting for, may be the result of the various data bases and the infancy of the science itself, and not the absence of admixture.

My recommendation would be to utilize all three biogeographic admixture products as well as the free tools in the Admixture category at GedMatch. Look for consistency in results between the tools. I discussed this methodology in “The Autosomal Me” series.

What Next?

I asked Dr. David Mittelman, Chief Scientific Officer, at Family Tree DNA about the reference populations. He indicated that he agreed that some of their reference populations are small and they are actively working to increase them. He also stated that it is important to note that Family Tree DNA prioritized accuracy over false positives so they definitely took a conservative approach.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Clovis People Are Native Americans, and from Asia, not Europe

Posted on February 13, 2014 by Roberta Estes

In a paper published in Nature today, titled “The genome of a Late Pleistocene human from a Clovis burial site in western Montana,” by Rasmussen et al, the authors conclude that the DNA of a Clovis child is ancestral to Native Americans. Said another way, this Clovis child was a descendant, along with Native people today, of the original migrants from Asia who crossed the Bering Strait.

This paper, over 50 pages including supplemental material, is behind a paywall but it is very worthwhile for anyone who is specifically interested in either Native American or ancient burials. This paper is full of graphics and extremely interesting for a number of reasons.

First, it marks what I hope is perhaps a spirit of cooperation between genetic research and several Native tribes.

Second, it utilized new techniques to provide details about the individual and who in world populations today they most resemble.

Third, it utilized full genome sequencing and the analysis is extremely thorough.

Let’s talk about these findings in more detail, concentrating on information provided within the paper.

The Clovis are defined as the oldest widespread complex in North America dating from about 13,000 to 12,600 calendar years before present. The Clovis culture is often characterized by the distinctive Clovis style projectile point. Until this paper, the origins and genetic legacy of the Clovis people have been debated.

These remains were recovered from the only known Clovis site that is both archaeological and funerary, the Anzick site, on private land in western Montana. Therefore, the NAGPRA Act does not apply to these remains, but the authors of the paper were very careful to work with a number of Native American tribes in the region in the process of the scientific research. Sarah L. Anzick, a geneticist and one of the authors of the paper, is a member of the Anzick family whose land the remains were found upon. The tribes did not object to the research but have requested to rebury the bones.

The bones found were those of a male infant child and were located directly below the Clovis materials and covered in red ochre. They have been dated to about 12,707-12,556 years of age and are the oldest North or South American remains to be genetically sequenced.

All 4 types of DNA were recovered from bone fragment shavings: mitochondrial, Y chromosome, autosomal and X chromosome.

Mitochondrial DNA

The mitochondrial haplogroup of the child was D4h3a, a rather rare Native American haplogroup. Today, subgroups exist, but this D4h3a sample has none of those mutations so has been placed at the base of the D4h3a tree branch, as shown below in a grapic from the paper. Therefore, D4h3a itself must be older than this skeleton, and they estimate the age of D4h3a to be 13,000 plus or minus 2,600 years, or older.

Today D4h3a is found along the Pacific coast in both North and South America (Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil) and has been found in ancient populations. The highest percentage of D4h3a is found at 22% of the Cayapa population in Equador. An ancient sample has been found in British Columbia, along with current members of the Metlakatla First Nation Community near Prince Rupert, BC.

Much younger remains have been found in Tierra del Fuego in South America, dating from 100-400 years ago and from the Klunk Mound cemetery site in West-Central Illinois dating from 1800 years ago.

It’s sister branch, D4h3b consists of only one D4h3 lineage found in Eastern China.

Y Chromosomal DNA

The Y chromosome was determined to be haplogroup Q-L54. Haplogroup Q and subgroup Q-L54 originated in Asia and two Q-L54 descendants predominate in the Americas: Q-M3 which has been observed exclusively in Native-Americans and Northeastern Siberians and Q-L54.

The tree researchers constructed is shown below.

They estimate the divergence between haplogroups Q-L54 and Q-M3, the two major haplogroup Q Native lines, to be about 16,900 years ago, or from between 13,000 – 19,700.

The researchers shared with us the methodology they used to determine when their most common recent ancestor (MCRA) lived.

“The modern samples have accumulated an average of 48.7 transversions [basic mutations] since their MCRA lived and we observed 12 in Anzick. We infer an average of approximately 36.7 (48.7-12) transversions to have accumulated in the past 12.6 thousands years and therefore estimate the divergence time of Q-M3 and Q-L54 to be approximately 16.8 thousands years (12.6ky x 48.7/36.7).”

Autosomal

They termed their autosomal analysis “genome-wide genetic affinity.” They compared the Anzick individual with 52 Native populations for which known European and African genetic segments have been “masked,” or excluded. This analysis showed that the Anzick individual showed a closer affinity to all 52 Native American populations than to any extant or ancient Eurasian population using several different, and some innovative and new, analysis techniques.

Surprisingly, the Anzick infant showed less shared genetic history with 7 northern Native American tribes from Canada and the Artic including 3 Northern Amerind-speaking groups. Those 7 most distant groups are: Aleutians, East Greenlanders, West Greenlanders, Chipewyan, Algonquin, Cree and Ojibwa.

They were closer to 44 Native populations from Central and South America, shown on the map below by the red dots. In fact, South American populations all share a closer genetic affinity with the Anzick individual than they do with modern day North American Native American individuals.

The researchers proposed three migration models that might be plausible to support these findings, and utilized different types of analysis to eliminate two of the three. The resulting analysis suggests that the split between the North and South American lines happened either before or at the time the Anzick individual lived, and the Anzick individual falls into the South American group, not the North American group. In other words, the structural split pre-dates the Anzick child. They conclude on this matter that “the North American and South American groups became isolated with little or no gene flow between the two groups following the death of the Anzick individual.” This model also implies an early divergence between these two groups.

In Eurasia, genetic affinity with the Anzick individual decreases with distance from the Bering Strait.

The researchers then utilized the genetic sequence of the 24,000 year old MA-1 individual from Mal’ta, Siberia, a 40,000 year old individual “Tianyuan” from China and the 4000 year old Saqqaq Palaeo-Eskimo from Greenland.

Again, the Anzick child showed a closer genetic affinity to all Native groups than to either MA-1 or the Saqqaq individual. The Saqqaq individual is closest to the Greenland Inuit populations and the Siberian populations close to the Bering Strait. Compared to MA-1, Anzick is closer to both East Asian and Native American populations, while MA-1 is closer to European populations. This is consistent with earlier conclusions stating that “the Native American lineage absorbed gene flow from an East Asian lineage as well as a lineage related to the MA-1 individual.” They also found that Anzick is closer to the Native population and the East Asian population than to the Tianyuan individual who seems equally related to a geographically wide range of Eurasian populations. For additional information, you can see their charts in figure 5 in their supplementary data file.

I have constructed the table below to summarize who matches who, generally speaking.

In addition, a French population was compared and only showed an affiliation with the Mal’ta individual and generically, Tianyuan who matches all Eurasians at some level.

Conclusions

The researchers concluded that the Clovis infant belonged to a meta-population from which many contemporary Native Americans are descended and is closely related to all indigenous American populations. In essence, contemporary Native Americans are “effectively direct descendants of the people who made and used Clovis tools and buried this child,” covering it with red ochre.

Furthermore, the data refutes the possibility that Clovis originated via a European, Solutrean, migration to the Americas.

I would certainly be interested to see this same type of analysis performed on remains from the eastern Canadian or eastern seaboard United States on the earliest burials. Pre-contact European admixture has been a hotly contested question, especially in the Hudson Bay region, for a very long time, but we have yet to see any pre-Columbus era contact burials that produce any genetic evidence of such.

Additionally, the Ohio burial suggests that perhaps the mitochondrial DNA haplogroup is or was more widespread geographically in North American than is known today. A wider comparison to Native American DNA would be beneficial, were it possible. A quick look at various Native DNA and haplogroup projects at Family Tree DNA doesn’t show this haplogroup in locations outside of the ones discussed here. Haplogroup Q, of course, is ubiquitous in the Native population.

National Geographic article about this revelation including photos of where the remains were found. They can make a tuft of grass look great!

Another article can be found at Voice of America News.

Science has a bit more.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers