Category: DNA General

Posted on

Whitson and Butler YDNA and Signature STRs

Two Types of YDNA: SNPs and STRs

As many know, YDNA is the DNA of the male line.

SNPs can be seen as the trunk and branches of the tree and the STRs can be seen as the twigs and leaves. Before we analyze the twigs and leaves, it is good to know if we are in the right tree. However, even when looking at the leaves, it is sometimes possible to guess the type of tree.

maple-leaf

For example, in the Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) Whitson project, there are officially nine people listed. There are more that have tested, but not with FTDNA. In the list below, there are three broad groups represented by the colors orange, teal, and yellow. These are the SNP groups, or the tree types. These three groups are I1, I2 and R1b.  These SNPs break down into finer and finer distinctions. However, there is no connection between I and R in the range of 10,000’s of years. There are also a huge amount of years between the I1 and I2 SNP Haplogroups.

Whitson FTDNA Project Results
Whitson FTDNA Project Results

Once people are grouped in the SNPs, then it is possible to compare the STRs. These are the numbers to the right. These are what I was referring to as the twigs and leaves. However, these are only compared within the other major groupings of SNPs.

Why Are There Three SNP Types for the Whitsons?

There are various reasons:

  1. When surnames were being developed, this name could have developed independently at different locations.
  2. An adoption could have taken place at some point. This is under the category of Non-Paternal Event (or NPE) as are #3 and #4 below.
  3. An unwed mother could have had a child that had her name. However, as the father has the YDNA, his YDNA would be carried on to the male child in the line.
  4. A relationship outside a marriage would tend to break the YDNA line also.

The SNP Types or Haplogroups

SNP groupings are called Haplogroups. Here are some of the Whitson Haplogroups:

I1>I-M253

The first Haplogroup above are the I1>M253 Whitsons. There are 2 Whitsons in that Haplogroup. FTDNA has a group just for I1’s. There are currently about 6000 people in this group. Not much analysis can be done with these 2 right now as they match by STRs exactly. If these 2 Whitson join the FTDNA I1 Project, it may be possible to find a signature STR for these 2 (see below).

I1 people have sometimes been associated with the Vikings. This group of people did seem to take a Northern route in their distant ancestry, so that is where the association comes from. However, there may be finer distinctions once we learn more about this I1 Whitson Group.

I2>I-M223

FTDNA has an I-M223 YDNA Project. The Whitsons and Butlers in our project are in a section of that projects called:

1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1- M223>…>L701>P78>S25733>A427 (Cont3a1 Group 2)

One of the Butlers in the group has tested positive for the SNP called A427. The other 4 were put in that group due to their similar STRs. This is like saying what tree you are by your leaves. A427 is quite a way down on the SNP tree. Using my tree analogy, this would be a very specific type of tree.  Below are all the people in the A427 SNP Group. I only included up to the 36th STR (small numbers) as the image was all ready small enough. There were actually more STRs tested to the right of this image.

Whtson Butler STRs

Now the A427 SNP is like the specific tree and the STRs which are the numbers listed are like the different branches, twigs and leaves. I would like to point out here a specific fingerprint for our Whitsons and Butlers. Here are our 5 Whitson/Butlers outlined in red:

Whtson Butler STRs Highlight

The first 3 rows of numbers are the minimum, maximum and mode of this A427 Group for each STR. The purple colors are the STRs that are less than the mode and the pink colors are the values that are more than the mode. Our 5 Whitson/Butlers will have a unique STR signature among all those who are in this A427 Group. Here is the same shot, with just the most important numbers outlined in yellow:

STR Heards

Whtson Butler STRs Signature

And the I2 Whitson/Butler signature is:

DYS389II=31 or higher, DYS454=12, DYS448=21 or higher, DYS449=26

Note that for all those in the A427 Group, only our group of Whitson/Butlers has this signature. This signature is just in the 1st 21 markers (or STRs). In this Whitson/Butler Group, 2 have tested 37 STRs, 1 has tested 67 and 2 have tested 111 STRs. Now above the 37 STRs, there are likely more Whitson/Butler signature STRs for those that have tested to that level. The marker (STR) names are listed above. The markers that have a reddish background are those that are faster moving markers. They change more often than the blue background markers.

This Group of YDNA have sometimes been associated with the ancient Goths. So far we have Vikings and Goths with our Whitson or Whitson/Butler Groups.

R1b-R-U106 group

This Group has been associated with the Anglo-Saxons. Although this group is sometimes associated with the modern English, they likely began in an area of current Germany or Belgium and invaded “England” some time after the Romans left the Island.

Right now there are only 2 Whitsons that have tested with FTDNA in this group. There is an additional Whitson who has done the old Ancestry test that is no longer available. The Ancestry test doesn’t match perfectly, but for the STRs that were tested, all the STRs match.

Both these R-U106’s have joined FTDNA’s R-U106 Project. The first person descends from Henry Whitson who lived on Long Island in the 1600’s. He has tested for 67 STRs and has this designation from the U106 Project:

Z381>Z156>Z306>Z304> DF98 ??? Need to order Big Y or R1b-Z156 SNP Pack

These are the SNPs that the U106 Project specialist thinks this person would test positive for if he had tested SNPs. Perhaps the specialist was not so sure about DF98. That is followed by what the U106 specialist recommends for those that are in the group. The Big Y is quite an expensive test but very definitive and actually finds new SNPs. The SNP Pack tests for several SNPs, in this case below Z156. [However, see my own recommendation below.]

The second person in this group matches all STRs at 67 STRs with the previous person. However, he has tested 111 STRs and has tested his SNP to be R-S23139. He is in a different section of the U106 Project:

Z381>Z156>Z306>Z304> DF98>S18823>S22069>S11739>S23139

Note that the U106 Project specialist doesn’t have any more recommendations for this person, because he has done all the testing down to R-S23139. My guess is that if the first person were to test for R-S23139, he would be positive for that SNP also. That would get these 2 Whitsons together for the U106 Project. That would also cost less many than taking the SNP Pack.

Here is a snapshot of the R-S23139 Group:

U106 Peter

Here our lone Whitson is with some others that appear to be from Germany. In looking for a unique STR for our 2 U106’s, first I see a value of 12 in the last column above for DYS531. If I counted this right, it is the 38th marker, so this signature Whitson U106 STR would not have shown up on a 37 STR test. In our previous Whitson/Butler Group there were many signature STRs in the first 37 markers.

Let’s look for some more signature Whitson STRs in the R-S23139 Group:

U106 67 STRs Header

U106 67 STRs

I am starting where I left off at the signature 12 in the first column. Then I see a unique 16, 12 and 11. This means our R-S23139 signature (assuming our 1st Whitson is positive for R-S23139) is:

DYS531=12, DYS594=16, DYS568=12, DYS487=11

After that, there is a 36 and 28 that are unique, but they are in the 111 STR group. The 111 STR group is also indicated in the header where the STR names have a lighter blue background. There are many other STRs after that that are likely unique in the 111 STR test also.

Any Other Whitsons?

Yes. The Whitson Family Group contacted another person and found out that he was R1b, but a different brand of R1b. This R1b was associated with the people who were in the British Isles before the time when the Romans, Vikings, Danes, and Anglo-Saxon entered the area.

Summary and Recommendations

  • So far, for a small group of Whitsons and a few Butlers, there are many types of DNA groups. These represent people that are distantly related to each other genetically.
  • There are some Whitsons that had taken the old Ancestry test. They could benefit by also taking the FTNDA test. I know of one Whitson who has already gone that route and is awaiting results.
  • Some Whitsons may benefit by taking an additional SNP test, to make sure they are in the right tree -so to speak.
  • Those Whitsons in the I1 YDNA group could benefit by joining the FTDNA I1 Project.
  • With the close matches in the I1 Group and the R-U106 Group, it seems like it should be possible to find some common ancestors.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

My Hartley Big Y Results: Part One

Back before I got my Big Y results, I wrote an article called My Hartley YDNA. This covered issues relating to Hartley SNPs and STRs. As many know, the Big Y is the ultimate Family Tree DNA product for testing the YDNA that is passed down from father to son since the beginning of such passing down of YDNA. While other YDNA tests identify existing STR and SNP markers, it is the purpose of the Big Y to look at one’s DNA and discover new SNPs.

Hartley Big Y Testees

As far as I know there are a total of 3 Hartley Big Y testees – including me. I am correctly but awkwardly saying testees as the testers are those in the lab testing the DNA. I may slip back to the more comfortable ‘tester’ at some point.

William on the I Line

The first Hartley to have the Big Y is William who is the Hartley DNA administrator. He is in the I Haplogroup. In the old nomenclature, he would be along the line of I1a2a1a2. I1 and I2 are the main I branches and are extremely distantly related to other known Hartleys – at least by YDNA. Other Hartleys so far tested have been R1b.  I agree with what William says about his connection to other Hartleys:

My last common [I1] ancestor was about 1,800 years ago and also likely an Angle [Anglo-Swedish Angle]. So that commonality may be why we both later adopted the Hartley surname and both our ancestries are found around Yorkshire and Lancashire.

I added the I1 in brackets for clarification.

The second Hartley Testee: James Hartley ancestor – R1b-S1051

The second Hartley testee was more closely related than the I1 Haplogroup. We are both in the R1b group.  Further, we are both in the L21 group. This group has sometimes been associated with the Celts. L21 is also associated with the older peoples that lived in the British Isles prior to the arrival of Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Normans. However, our common ancestor was likely 1,000’s of years ago.  The second Hartley testee is in a tiny branch called S1051 which I have pointed out with a red arrow. I am in the gold regions of L513 a few steps up from S1051

L21 Tree S1051

This chart is from July 2015. I believe that it is no longer updated as it has gotten so crowded due to Big Y testing. There are 151 people in the R-S1051 Project. According to the R-S1051 Project web page:

Recently many new SNP’s have been discovered for this unique haplogroup which is located below DF13. 

The majority of this family group have 5 main Patriarch SNP’s (S1051, FGC9655, FGC9661, FGC9658 and FGC9657). The current age estimate for these Patriarch SNP’s is approximately 3,200 to 4,500 years old and likely originated within what is known as the Bell Beaker culture. When examining other haplogroups of a similar age the S1051 people are very few by comparison.

Evidence suggests that the geographic origin of this family group could have been from what is now modern Scotland.

Our fellow Hartley Big Y testee #2 is on the FGC9655 Line. Here is my attempt to spray paint out the IDs below on the Alex Williamson Big Tree:

Alex S1051 tree

It looks like our Hartley has the most Big Y company in the R-S1051 Group. The belief is also that the Hartleys came from the North of England originally. This theory that this S1051 group was from Scotland originally would tend to support the Northern UK origins of the Hartleys. Brewer in the reddish color has not been analyzed yet, so things are still developing in the FGC9655 SNP Group.

That is a good segue into my results. I called this blog Part One because, like Mr. Brewer, my results have not been analyzed yet either. Due to all the Big Y testing recently, there has been a bit of a backlog in analyzing the results.

The Third Testee (Me) – R-L513

I already knew where I was on the L513 Chart. Now, due to the fact that I have taken the Big Y test, I am listed on the top part of the tree. This is like being elevated to YDNA Heaven.

L513 Tree June 2016

Here is a closer up shot:

L513 Blowup

I am hoping that other Hartleys will test and find to be positive for Z17911. Like Hartley Big Y Tester #2, I am in the Big Tree. Unlike Tester #2, my data has not been analyzed by Alex Williamson, so I am still shown in a reddish color. This time I’ll erase the kit numbers for privacy:

Hartley on Big Tree

Way at the top, there is Smith. He is positive for a SNP named Z16357. All the other names share the Z16357 SNP with Smith. Smith does not share Z16343 and the block of other SNPs listed below with Hay(e)s, Pillsbury, Merrick, Thomas and Hartley. The tree portion above shows that Hay(e)s is down from the Pillsbury Line. Merrick, Thomas and Hartley have only 2 named SNPs: Z17911 and Z17912. A few other observations:

  • If one is positive for Z16343, then they are likely positive for most or all of the other SNPs listed in the Z16343 block
  • There is no one currently that is positive for Z16343 that isn’t also either Z17911 or Z16855
  • If we maintain the 150 years per SNP, then the block of about 25 SNPs in the Z16343 block could represent 3,750 years. There are some detailed reasons why that number of years could be less. However, it is still a long amount of time.

Public SNPs, Private SNPs, Terminal SNPs

But wait, there’s more. There are different categories of SNPs with different names. The terminology can get confusing. A terminal SNP means the last SNP on your line that you could be based on current knowledge. For me, that is Z17911. However, what was terminal in the past, what is terminal now and what may be a terminal SNP in the future are different things.

Public SNPs are those SNPs with listed names such as Z17911 or those in the block under Z16343. These are also a moving target. At one time, these SNPs were just position numbers.

Private SNPs are those that are not yet public SNPs or may be family SNPs. Family SNPs are those that just belong to a single family name – probably within a genealogical time frame. So, if your genealogy goes back 350 years, there could be on average 3 SNPs during that time. Those would be considered family SNPs.

Novel Variants and unique SNPs

FTDNA reports Novel Variants. In my Big Y test, I have 30 Novel Variants listed. Those that are not shared by anyone else would be considered my unique or private SNPs. Note that this definition of Private SNPs bumps up against the Private SNP definition that I had above which was a family SNP. This means that either I have it wrong or there are 2 different ways of looking at Private SNPs.

Here is a screen shot from an excellent video called,

Building a Family Tree with SNPs, STRs, & Named People (Maurice Gleeson)

Maurice SNP Types

Hopefully the above diagram simplifies my complicated explanation.

The Mike Walsh L513 Discovery Spreadsheet

I am fortunate to be in the R-L513 Haplogroup with Mike Walsh as an administrator. He is very active in that group looking for new people to further test and for people who aren’t in the group already but perhaps should be due to the signature of their STR tests. He has developed a Discovery spreadsheet based on the Big Y results – specifically from the VCF files. VCF stands for Variant Call Format. Here is part of his file for my little piece of the YDNA world which includes Hay(e)s, Pillsbury, Thomas, Merrick and Hartley.

Walsh Discovery

Here we have the SNP position number. The H is the YDNA group based on STRs. The status looks to be Public consistent, public semi-consistent, multi-family surname or single family surname. These statuses are analogous to the public and private SNPs that I was mentioning above. Grade is how good the SNP is. Frequency is how many times it occurs – in this case out of the 6 people in the test group. Then the results are colored according to the grade and other factors for Hayes, Pillsbury, Hartley, Merrick and Thomas. Note that the SNPs with poor grades were never named. They are just position numbers.

Z17911

Here is the second page of the Discovery Spreadsheet:

Discovery p2

The blanks are no-reads. These would be inconclusive. Red means that there was a read, but the SNP was not present. This shows that for the Z17911 and Z17912 SNPs, Hayes and Pillsbury were negative and Hartley, Merrick and Thomas were positive. That is how these two groups separated ways and are on different branches of the L513 SNP Tree.

Does the Spreadsheet tell us anything new?

When Mike first added me to his spreadsheet, he noted the following:

This isn’t on the Big Tree but Merrick and Thomas have this which you do not have:
19581481-G-A

Here is the unnamed SNP Mike mentioned that I don’t have:

Discovery part3

Note that Hayes, Pillsbury and Hartley are negative for 19581481 and Thomas and Merrick are positive for it. This was a little different than the Z17911 above. It appears that 1951481 at the bottom of my screen capture may become a named SNP for Merrick and Thomas and put  them in a branch below me. So perhaps my Big Y has helped someone else after all. Perhaps the next Big Y tester will in this region will help me out.

The YFull Analysis

While I am waiting for Alex Williamson’s analysis, I am also waiting for a YFull analysis. This is a company in Russia that will look at the BAM file from the Big Y test. They will add my results to their YFull tree. They also give estimated dates to my SNPs. Finally, they will, as a lesser priority, find STRs that they can extract from the Big Y test. The only downside is a small fee and that I will only be compared to others that are in the YFull system.

YFull

 

Posted on

My Hartley YDNA

After writing over 50 Blogs on genetic genealogy, I realized that I hadn’t written a blog on my Hartley YDNA. I have written on Frazer YDNA and my wife’s family YDNA (Butler), but not one just on Hartley YDNA. This will not be on all Hartley YDNA as I know the most about mine. There are other Hartley Lines that aren’t closely related to mine.

Many reading this blog will know already that the YDNA is used often in Surname studies. This is because YDNA is passed mostly unchanged from father to son. I say mostly because there are slow changes that occur. These slow changes are what make the differences in the different STRs and SNPs.  STRs and SNPs are the 2 major types of YDNA of importance in genetic genealogy. In this Blog, I’ll write about my own STRs and SNPs and how they relate to each other. I’ll also look at a few ways of analyzing YDNA results. There is a lot to cover here.

SNPs – Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

SNPs are formed due to genetic mutations and are very specific and unambiguous. They can be used to trace one’s line back to a genetic Adam and place one into a specific group of people. Here is the broad difference between SNPs. They are listed between the letters A and T below.

All SNPs

My Hartley Line is broadly R1b. My Frazer line is R1a. They split off at some point and appear to have taken a more northerly route through Europe. R1b is the most common YDNA in Western Europe. Further, there are 2 branches that are common within R1b. These 2 types are listed by their test names. They are R-U106 and R-P312. In England, the R-U106 represents the Anglo Saxons. They came from the areas around Germany.  It turns out that I am R-P312 and further L21. See the bottom left of the tree below.

Tree to L21

L21 is known for the Irish and Scots. But there are also English L21. Actually, I would like to think of myself as British. The British represents the older stock in England whereas the Anglo (hence English) Saxon are the late comers. More of the U106 are found in the Southeast England where the Anglo Saxons entered. The L21’s are found more in the North and West of England and in Ireland.

L21 Map

For some reason, I was relieved to find out that I was R-L21. I guess I liked the idea of being associated with the old timers vs. the invaders. Also, even though the Celts are not a genetic group per se, they have been associated with R-L21. Here is a map of England in 600 A.D showing the British/Anglo Saxon split.

Briton 600

More on L21

It took me quite a while testing my YDNA to find out that I was L21. There are many levels of subdivisions below L21. Here is an L21 Tree that is almost 2 years out of date. On it, I tried to place some of the Hartleys that had tested up to that point. Some that I wasn’t sure of I put in the upper left of the chart.

L21 2014 Map

At that time, I had put my ancestor, Robert Hartley in the L513  Group (dark yellow) and one step under that at S5668. Due to in a large part, people doing a Big Y test, many new SNPs have been discovered and placed  in the tree. Now R-L513 has it’s own Tree.

L513 map

Finally, I have tested positive for Z17911 and Z17912. These are equivalent SNPs.  The people listed on the main tree are ones that have taken the Big Y or equivalent tests. Once I get my results, my name will show above with Merrick and Thomas – or perhaps in my own group.

L513 Tree Section

As far as I know, Z17911 is the end of the line or what has been referred to as a terminal SNP. However, Big Y testing may reveal more. There are also SNPs which are called private or family SNPs. One or more of these may be found in my BigY results for the Hartley family.

STRs – Short Tandem Repeats

The STR was the first type of YDNA to be used for genetic genealogy. I think of these as a stutter in the DNA. These are extra copies that happen in specific areas of the YDNA that are noted and used for comparison purposes. Standard tests range from 12 STRs to 111 STRs or more. The more you test, the more you pay. Each of these STR locations have their own rates of change. There are the fast changing STRs and the slower ones.

My Hartley STRs

Here are some of my Hartley STRs. First I’ll explain the headings below. Dark blue is the first panel of 12 SNPs. Maroon represents the faster changing STRs. The next set of lighter blue is up to 25 STRs. The next lighter blue is up to the 37 level. The  lightest blue on the right is STR 38 to 67. I didn’t include all my 67 in the image below.

STR Locations JoelJoel's Z Strs

This image is small, and it is taken from the Z17911 group. These people have tested positive for Z17911 and are listed in the FTDNA R1b-L513 Project. The rows of numbers are the STR values (or numbers of repeats). The rows are:

  • Minimum value (in this case of those that have tested positive for Z17911)
  • Maximum value
  • Mode – this has also been used to approximate an ancestral value for the group
  • Hartley (me)
  • Thomas
  • Goff
  • Merrick
Genetic distance (GD)

There are a few ways STRs are used. One is GD or Genetic Distance. When I compare my STR test to another Hartley, for example, it counts the number of differences between the two tests. Some of the numbers in the rows above are highlighted in either purple or pink. The purple values for the 4th line (Hartley) are less than the mode. The pink values are more than the mode. So in the first 37 STRs for my results there are 6 highlighted values. That would be a GD of either 5 or 6. There are 2 ways of counting. For the 5th maroon named marker there are 4 values. There is a method called Infinite Alleles Model which would only count any changes within that named maroon region as one.

Note that of these 6 differences or GD’s in my results, 4 are in the slower moving areas and 2 are in the faster moving areas. I note that at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) I am not shown as related to any within my Z17911 Group. However, that is OK. For 37 STRs my highest GD is 4. I don’t think FTDNA shows higher than that. For 67 STRs, FTDNA’s highest GD is 7.  This is because, when more STRs are compared, more GDs are allowed to make a match.  I further note that at 37 STRs, I match 3 Hartleys, one believed to be descended from a Hartley and 2 non-Hartleys. At the 67 YDNA match level at FTDNA, I have the same person believed to be descended from a Hartley and 3 other with the Hartley surname. So it seems like the FTDNA system is working. However, to get the matches that are further away, one must look at a SNP project or surname project.

where is the common ancestor for STR matches?

FTDNA uses a TIP Report to guess how closely related I am to my YDNA matches. My closest match at the 67 STR level is at a GD of 4. That isn’t very close. However, close is relative.

The first one on my YDNA match list is Sanchez – believed to be of Hartley descent. The TIP Report tells me this:

Sanchez TIP

The second on my 67 STR YDNA match list has a Hartley surname. We also have a GD of 4 and the TIP Report looks like this:

Hartley TIP

Notice that the TIP Report shows a better likelihood that I’m related to Hartley than Sanchez. This is because the TIP Report considers the speed of change of the markers. The markers that are different between Hartley and myself are faster moving ones than the ones that are different between Sanchez and myself. As there are only averages of how often these markers change, this is not an exact science. The tables just show likelihood of when we may have had a common ancestor.

strs used to predict the r-L513 SNP

Here I should mention the difference between a haplogroup and a haplotype. I mention it partially, because I forget which is which. A haplogroup has to do with a SNP. Examples of a haplogroup are R1b, L21, etc. Sometimes the smaller groups are called subclades or subgroups. According to Wikipedia, “Subclades are defined by a terminal SNP…”. So my Z17911 would be a subclade.

Apparently there is more than one definition of haplotype. The one I am thinking of refers to a specific grouping of STRs that stands out. One such grouping of STRs (haplotype) defines the R-L513 Haplogroup. Before the L513 SNP was discovered, people analyzed the STRs and noticed certain patterns. Based on those patterns, the STR results were put into different groups. One such pattern was (and is) DYS406s1>=11 and DYS617=13. When people testing their STRs found these 2 values, they were almost always L513 as confirmed by their SNP testing. So for the longest time, the group was called the 11-13 Combo group rather than the L513 group. Let’s look at the top of the L513 YDNA results page to see if this pattern is true:

406S1 617

Notice that there are a few here that are different, but these may represent rare mutations.  In my Z17911, we all meet the criteria.

Strs predicting Z17911 SNPs

I noticed in the L513 Yahoo Mail Group that I belong to, there were some predictions based on STRs that there could be more Z17911’s. Here is part of a post from March 2016 on the Yahoo L513 Group from the administrator,

“Below is a list of the people I’ve added in the last three weeks, the project I found them in and their predicted variety. This is sorted by variety label.
293533 William Hartley b. 1745 d. after 1807 Hartley 513-5668-16357-16343-17911-JM
372104 Sanchez, b. Spain L513 513-5668-16357-16343-17911-JM”

Sanchez believes he has a Hartley ancestor. So it is interesting that I will likely have more company at the Z17911 SNP. Here is another interesting post from the administrator of the L513 Yahoo Mail Group in October 2015 to Jared who felt he was mis-grouped:

Hi Jared, I mis-grouped you. I will fix. I intended to put you in the “J” STR variety/cluster.  I’m not positive you are in “J” and could be in “H” or a little different yet. It’s hard to make judgements on this, particularly at only 37 STRs.

Here are all the people that I’m aware that off modal values for STRs 390=25 389i=14 458>=18 449>=31 464c=16 and high CDY numbers. You might actually fit in better with the Phillips and Vaughan side of “J” than the Merrick or Thomas.

We think this group is all Z17911+ but I’m not sure. I would say you are Z16343+ at he very least. Z16343 also marks the “H” variety people (Hayes/Pillsbury). No guarantees.

f307773    Smith    R1b-L21>DF13>L513
fN56253    Gilroy    R1b-L21>DF13>L513
fN114296    Gilroy    R1b-L21>DF13>L513
f275990    Hartley    R1b-L21>DF13>L513>S5668>Z16343>Z17911
f280251    Hartley    zzL21suspect
f117349    Hartley    zzL21suspect
f200669    Head    zzL21suspect
f160646    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f271571    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f158089    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f160637    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f113390    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f306961    Phillips    zzL21suspect
f116935    Vaughan    zzL21suspect
f160729    Vaughan    zzL21suspect
f271772    Vaughn    zzL21suspect
f105064    zzzUnk(Phillips)    zzL21suspect

I am the first Hartley mentioned above. Then there are 2 others that may be Z17911. So that means that rather than me being all alone at Z17911, there may be 4 other Hartleys joining me. That is progress. Based on the L513 Administrator’s (Mike’s) STR analysis those 4 would be Z17911. Here are my STR values highlighted in blue with Mike’s Z17911 signature STRs.

Z17911 STRs

I meet all the Z17911 signature STRs which makes sense as I have tested positive for Z17911. These predictions can save a lot of money for people testing SNPs. Rather than testing a series of 4 or 5 SNPs to see where they are on the SNP Tree, they can just test for Z17911 to see if they are positive for that.

Using STRs to Create New SNPs

ISOGG is the International Society of Genetic Genealogists. They have a guidelines for naming new SNPs:

The objective of the ISOGG Tree at this time is to include all SNPs that arose prior to about the year 1500 C.E. This guideline may be measured through STR diversity or alternative evidence.

Where a new terminal subgroup is being added, STR marker results or other evidence described below for two men with the new SNP are needed.

STR Diversity
To be accepted the SNP must be observed in at least two individuals and must meet the STR diversity requirement. A SNP that does not meet this requirement will be classified as a Private SNP (see definition above).

The STR diversity requirement is met if the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. If the SNP is a Non-Terminal Branch SNP, no further proof of diversity is required.
  2. Genetic distance is calculated using the Infinite Alleles Model (IAM). A marker for which there is a null value in one sample must be discarded from the calculations. Otherwise, most laboratories use the IAM.
  3. All markers tested by both individuals must be compared.
  4. If 74 markers (or fewer) are compared, the minimum genetic distance to meet the diversity requirement is 5.
  5. If 75 (or more) markers are compared, the diversity requirement is a minimum of 7%, computed by dividing the genetic distance by the number of markers compared, and rounding to the nearest integer value.

This is what happened when my Terminal SNP was accepted. Usually, one would be looking for a low GD for a match, say. Here, for the addition of new SNPs a higher GD is needed to show that the SNP is not a private SNP. Here is another message written June 2015 by a fellow Z17911 from the Yahoo L513 Mail Group that I’m in:

Hi Mike,

I tried to figure the Infinite allele GD for the three current SNP-tested members of Z17911 (if I understood DYS464 and CDY correctly):

Hartley/Merrick = GD 14
Hartley/Thomas = GD 12
Merrick/Thomas = GD 10

I hope this is helpful.
Charles Thomas 8633 

Mike followed up with:

Yes, Charles. It looks like Z17911 and Z16855 are clearly public making upstream Z16343 public too.

And the rest is history – at least for my little branch of the YDNA tree.

Analysis of STRs Using the RCC Method

The RCC method may be somewhat obscure to some, but I find it very interesting. This method uses STRs to create trees of descent, like the SNP trees I showed above. As it uses STRs and not SNPs, it is helpful as a check to the validity of the SNP trees. The RCC method was developed by Bill Howard. In November 2014, Bill came up with the tree below based on 67 STR results. I was at the top of the list in that study of a relatively small group of people.

RCC 67

Note how this method mirrors today’s SNP tree:

L513 Tree Section

The RCC method show that Z16855 branched from Z17911 out of Z16343 at over 60 RCCs. For this 67-marker analysis, 1 RCC = 38.05 yrs. So that would be over 2300 years ago. The present year is considered as 1945-1950. Hartley shows as splitting from Merrick and Thomas at about 30 RCCs. That is over 1140 years from 1945 or around the year 800 A.D. As there were no surnames at that point, this would explain why Hartley, Thomas and Merrick could be in the same grouping. The closest RCC to Hartley at the time of this study was Gilroy. An RCC of 18 translates to 685 years. This brings us up to about the year 1265 A.D. Surnames in England were being sorted out around the 1400’s.

Here is my interpretation of the RCC 67 STR Tree with SNPs and dates added:

RCC 67

Assuming that the vertical line at RCC 30 represents Z17911, it appears that there is room for at least one other SNP on the Hartley Branch that includes Gilroy, Phillips, Vaugh[a]n and Griffin.

Comparing two Rcc studies (67 Vs. 111 Strs)

More recently, at the end of March 2016, Bill Howard ran the data for 555 L513 testees that had 111 STR markers or more. I have only tested for 67 markers, so I was not included, but there was one Hartley in that group. He does not show up on my match list as I count that I have a GD of 10 with him at the 67 STR level. This is beyond the match limit of 7 for FTDNA.

Here is the small section of the 555 that included the Hartley I mentioned above.

RCC 111

Now the vertical dashed lines happen every 20 RCCs. For this study, the RCC = 44.8 years. Mike Walsh, the Administrator of the L513 Project looked at this and felt that, based on his experience with SNPs, that the 44.8 may be a bit high and mentioned a factor of 34.65 years that he thought may work better.

Here is my interpretation of the 111 STR RCC Tree with dates and SNPs. One RCC = 44.8 years.

RCC 111

First, because there are fewer results at 111 STRs, this spreads out the branching. I don’t know who Pitt is. In the previous study Z17911 and Z16855 branched at about 490 B.C. Here, it appears to be in a similar location, I guess about 440 B.C. In the 111 Tree ZS849 branches off in the 1400’s Vs. the 1600’s in the 67 STR Tree. I would assume that the previous study could be slightly more accurate due more available results at the 67 STR level. However, the results are quite close to each other.

Historical 37 STR RCC Tree from September 2014

All these RCC Studies reminded me of a study done in the old days – back in 2014. At the time, I was amazed at how close Bill Howard got to the SNP tree with just using 37 STRs. At the time, I had recommended that the results of 21 L21’s be included in the study, but Charles was too quick in sending 14 L513 results to Bill Howard and Bill gave us this tree:

37 STR RCC Tree

Charles said that 1 RCC should equal 43 years. I’ll put what we know now onto the 2014 RCC tree.

37 STR RCC Tree

The main difference in the older study is that the Z17911/Z16855 branching is shown at a later date (A.D. Vs. the newer studies’ B.C. dates). Also there is an Evans in my group here. I’m not sure who he is.

So Which is Better, SNPs or STRs?

Most people tend to like SNPs over STRs. SNPs may be considered UEPs or Unique Event Polymorphisms. It is the unique part that makes them better. I like the way my L513 Administrator, Mike Walsh says it,

Some people say have used the words that SNPs trump STRs. That’s probably the correct general perspective. Assuming the specific SNPs considered are actually very stable Unique Event Polymorphisms (EUP), any SNPs that differentiate are most important and therefore provide fencing for which do additional evaluation using surnames, genealogy, geographies, etc. AND STRs.

STRs may back mutate, which is a hidden weakness in a way. Say that you have a perfect match with someone based on STRs. One of those STRs may have mutated and back mutated. This would mean that you are not a perfect match, but a GD of 2. There is not an easy way to know if that has happened or not. So that introduces some uncertainty. However, that is not to say that STRs are not important. I feel as they are underrated by many and should still be considered for the reasons I mention in this Blog and in the section below.

Summary, Conclusions and Comments

  • I’m looking forward to my BigY results to see what they may include
  • I am currently classified as Z17911 – a relatively recently discovered terminal SNP
  • By STR signatures, there appear to be 4 other Hartleys who would test positive for Z17911. These Hartleys should be encouraged to take the Z17911 SNP test.
  • I have used a similar method to analyze STRs and predict my own SNPs before I tested positive for them.
  • STRs are useful for determining relatedness to other STR matches using GD and FTDNA’s TIP Report
  • The TIP Report also gives an estimate to the Most Recent Common Ancestor for YDNA matches.
  • STRs are also useful in determining whether a new SNP is private or public using ISOGG guidelines
  • The RCC analysis is useful in creating STR trees and for confirming SNP trees
  • The RCC analysis can also give a time period for the branching of different SNPs and families.
  • STRs and SNPs complement each other

 

 

 

 

Posted on

My Father In Law’s Grandparents’ DNA

In this Blog I will use a technique described by Kathy Johnston to look at some of my father in law Richard’s DNA. I will map out his 4 grandparents on Chromosome 15. These would be 4 of my wife’s great grandparents. Then I will try to figure out which grandparent goes with each segment of the mapped Chromosome.

My Father In Law and His Two Sisters

The mapping technique requires 3 siblings. My father in law tested at FTDNA and his two sisters tested at AncestryDNA. I have those results and have uploaded them to gedmatch.com.

fully identical and half identical

In the first step, I compare the 3 siblings to each other using gedmatch.com using their chromosome browser. Here is how Lorraine and his brother Richard (my father in law) match each other at gedmatch.com on Chromosome 15. I chose this chromosome because it is one of the smaller chromosomes, hence easier to map. Also I already knew there were some other cousins on Richard’s maternal side that had tested and had fairly good results with Richard on this Chromosome.

Lorraine V Richard
Lorraine V Richard

As shown in the above, Lorraine and Richard have one long match on Chromosome 15. I will use locations in millions, so I’ll say the match was from 18 to 94. This is represented by a sold blue line. According to FTDNA, the area before 18 is a SNP poor area not used for comparisons. The solid green sections are where Lorraine and Richard share the same DNA from 2 of their grandparents. These would be one maternal grandparent and one paternal grandparent. The green is also called a Fully Identical Region or FIR. The yellow area is called a half identical region. This means that Richard and Lorraine share the DNA from one maternal or paternal grandparent. The red area with no blue line below it is the area where Richard and Lorraine don’t share any DNA. However, this information is actually quite helpful. This would mean that if Richard got his DNA in this segment from his Paternal Grandfather and Maternal Grandmother, that Lorraine’s DNA would have to be from her Paternal Grandmother and Maternal Grandfather, for example. There are only 4 choices, so process of elimination can be used.

Comparing three siblings at a time

Next I line up the results of the three siblings.

Chr 15 3 siblings

I am now looking for crossovers. This is where Richard’s DNA, for example, switched from being inherited from one grandparent to being inherited from another grandparent.

Chr 15 with crossovers

Next I look down every line to see who owns each crossover. Let’s just look at the first vertical crossover line. In comparing Lorraine V Richard, nothing is changing there as there is green on either side of the line. At Lorraine V Virginia, and at Richard V Virginia, there is a change from no match to an HIR. The one in common in those 2 changes is Virginia. So she is the one that owns the first crossover point. That means at that point (to give a number would be 27) she received her DNA from one grandparent to the left of that point and she received her DNA from another grandparent to the right of that point. We don’t know which grandparent, or whether it was on her maternal or paternal side. We do know that both grandparents on either side of the crossover are either maternal or paternal grandparents. That fact will help me as I try to figure out which grandparent Virginia got her DNA from.

Assigning crossover points

Here we will give a name to each crossover point. We are building a DNA skeleton or frame for each person so to speak. These are assigned by each persons’ initial at the bottom of each vertical crossover line below.

Assign Names to Crossovers

This tells us that there are 7 crossovers for the 3 siblings. Virginia has 3 and Lorraine and Richard have 2 each.

The chromosome map

Next I will build a Chromosome Map based on the above information. This map will be for the 3 siblings and have a maternal and paternal side with 2 grandparents on each side. [That should make sense as you think about your own family situation.] To begin with, these grandparents will be represented by 4 different colors as we won’t know which grandparent is which. Here is the bare bones skeleton:

Skeleton

I kept the crossover designations on each of the vertical lines. I’ll add the 3 chromosome maps to the right of the L, R, and V on the left side for Lorraine, Richard, and Virginia. On the bottom, I have the locations on the chromosome for each crossover point. I am missing a location for the next to the last crossover line. This could be guessed or estimated based on where Virginia’s actual crossovers are later. By eye it would be about 90.

Let’s map it

Assign Names to Crossovers

I could start with any area, but I’ll start with the top left. This is the green FIR match between Lorraine and Richard. Fully identical means they both received the same DNA from the same 2 grandparents. Those 2 grandparents were one from the mother’s side and one from the father’s side. Those will be represented by green and blue.

Chr 15 First FIR

Lorraine will have one crossover preventing one of her lines (colors) from extending beyond her crossover further to the right. Richard has no crossover at this point, so his two grandparents’ DNA can extend to his ‘R’ crossover line. Meanwhile Virginia doesn’t match at either grandparent in this area, so we need to give her 2 different colors representing the DNA she got from her 2 other grandparents.

Chr 15 part 2

Due to the place I started, I’m stuck already – at least on the FIRs and no matches (green and red sections of the chromosome map).

Assign Names to Crossovers

The next step is to map an HIR. As HIRs are more ambiguous (one matches and one doesn’t) I only get one shot at guessing. Once I make one guess, then this locks in the grandparents and no further HIR guessing is allowed. Our choices for HIRs are between 27 and 35. I’ll choose Lorraine V Virginia. They are HIR between 27 and 31.

Chr 15 part 3

Now comparing L and V from 27-31, I see that their 2 green segments match and their blue and purple segments do not match. This was my one chance at guessing. I could have guessed the other way around and it wouldn’t have mattered, but at this point the colors are locked in and no more guessing is allowed. Next, Virginia has no crossovers for a while, so I’ll extend the DNA she got from her green and purple grandparents to the right to her next crossover point.

Chr 15 part 4

Next I notice that Virginia has no match with Lorraine from 31-46 and no match with Richard from 35-60. That means that Lorraine and Richard got their DNA from the opposite grandparent on their maternal or paternal side. So far, everything is relative, so the top orange and green may be maternal or paternal. We don’t know yet.

Chr 15 part 5

Scanning up from Virginia’s Chromosome 15 map from location 35 to the right, we see that Richard and Lorraine have the opposite colors. That corresponds with the no match comparisons we had in the gedmatch comparisons. We would be stuck here except for the fact that on Richard’s bar, he has no crossover at location 60. [That crossover at 60 belongs to his sister Virginia.] That means that the DNA that he got from his orange and blue grandparents can extend to his next crossover at 95.

Chr 15 part 6

Assign Names to Crossovers

Now we again are almost stuck, except that Richard and Virginia have a green FIR from 90 to 95.

Chr 15 part 7

We can then extend Virginia’s grandparents’ DNA to the right.

Chr 15 part 8

Assign Names to Crossovers

Now we truly are stuck. We only have HIRs left and I already used my one guess for those. There is a no match between Lorraine and Richard on the right hand side, as we have no DNA to go against after 95 for those 2.

Cousins to the Rescue

There is one more way to fill in these segments. That is with the matches from actual cousins. We will want to figure out which grandparents these segments go to if we can anyway by using cousin matches. First, let’s look a little at the genealogy of the cousins that have tested.

Pouliot LeFevre Diagram

In the bottom box is Richard, but I should have included his sisters Lorraine and Virginia there also. These siblings have 4 cousins that have tested on the maternal LeFevre side. Here I got a snapshot of Estelle LeFevre (b. 1905) while getting DNA from Virginia:

0306161846

There are 2 testers descended from the Pouliot Grandfather. The other 2 testers are descended from Pouliot and LeFevre. I discussed the issues in separating the DNA from those two ancestors in my previous Blog.

Pouliot LeFevre Diagram rev

Here are the 3 siblings as they match their reference cousins. The more important cousin, in a way, is Fred as he descends from the Pouliots and not the LeFevres. Note that there is no overlap between Fred versus Patricia and her brother Joseph in each comparison. That is where the crossover is occurring between the Pouliot grandparent and the LeFevre grandparent. Now for each sibling (Lorraine, Richard and Virginia) that crossover is at a different location. For Lorraine, it is at 31. For Richard, it is at 35. For Virginia, it is at 28. Now refer to the second image below. The place where all those maternal crossovers occur is on the top row of each bar between the orange and green segments.

3 sibs on Chromosome Browser to All

Chr 15 part 8

So for this try, the green represents the DNA that the siblings Lorraine, Richard and Virginia got from their Pouliot grandmother and the orange represents the DNA that each sibling got from their LeFevre grandfather.

Just to confuse things – a completed chromosome 15 map

Here is a completed Chromosome 15 that I did previously. In the version below, I started more on the right and worked my way to the left. That left blanks on the left that I was able to fill in by the actual cousins. Note that the colors are relative and are reversed for the Pouliot and LeFevre grandparents which I have labelled on this Chromosome Map:

Completed Chromosome 15 Map for 3 Siblings
Completed Chromosome 15 Map for 3 Siblings
what about the paternal side of the map?

The paternal side is mapped out, but I have no reference testers. These testers would ideally be 2nd cousins that are related on only one paternal line. I only need one of these 2nd cousins to identify one grandparent. Then the leftover grandparent belongs to the other side due to process of elimination. There are already likely people that have tested at AncestryDNA, but due to lack of a chromosome browser there, I don’t have where the matches are. For now I will leave them as colors or I can call them paternal grandparents 1 and 2. The actual paternal grandparents are Edward Butler (b. 1875) and Lillie Kerivan (b. 1874).

My Wife’s DNA

The DNA represented in the map above comes from my father in law’s grandparents. However, for my wife, this represents the DNA that she got from 4 of her paternal great grandparents. How could I map that out for her?

Recombination

The short and simple answer is this: My wife got her DNA from her 2 parents. That is a given. So she, like her father, Richard, has a maternal and paternal side. She will have a similar map as her father. However, now her paternal side will have her father’s 4 (or in this case 3) grandparents all on one chromosome. To make room, something has to give.

Completed Chromosome 15 Map for 3 Siblings
Completed Chromosome 15 Map for 3 Siblings

Here is Richard on the middle line. Note that he only received DNA from one of his paternal grandparents. As my wife got all her paternal DNA from her father (sounds obvious, but still worth stating), she will potentially only get DNA from 3 out of 4 of her great grandparents. Here I am borrowing a Figure from a very helpful blog called Segments: Bottom-Up:

segments greatgrandparents

In that Segmentology Blog, Chromosome 5 is used as an example. Here all the great grandparents are represented. Unfortunately, I have not tested 2 of my wife’s siblings. If I had, then I would have the first line which indicates her grandparents (in this case on her paternal side). The second line of the image above, shows in a generic way, the new crossovers that my wife could have for her great grandparent level.

My wife and her 2 aunts

Here is how my wife looks compared to her 2 aunts at gedmatch compared to those Aunts’ Chromosome 15 map. I won’t show the match to her father as she matches him in all places.

Marie Chr 15

Completed Chromosome 15 Map for 3 Siblings

From this, I take away that my wife matches her 2 Aunts on their maternal side. The gedmatch match between my wife and her Aunt Lorraine shows a break at 31 which corresponds to Aunt Lorraine’s maternal side. Likewise my wife’s second match with her Aunt Virginia starts at 60 which corresponds with Aunt Virginia’s maternal start of her switch from Pouliot DNA to LeFevre DNA. When I merge these 2 results together, it looks like the Chromosome map for Richard, above with a crossover break at 35. This makes sense, as my wife got her paternal DNA from her dad. If I was making a Chromosome map for my wife, it would include her 2 great grandparents: Martin LeFevre b. 1872 and Emma Pouliot b. 1874. Her Chromosome 15 Map would look like her father’s up to location 95. After that point it may also be the same as her father’s, but I don’t believe that I can prove that.

It is beginning to look like there may have been no recombination for my wife on Chromosome 15. So far, we have not seen any room in Marie’s DNA for the purple paternal DNA that I mapped out for Richard above.

Enter cousin John

Recently, my wife and I contacted her cousin John at AncestryDNA. He kindly uploaded his DNA to gedmatch. I said that I would use his DNA for research. Then I thought, “Now how am I going to use his DNA for research?” Here is one way. We will look to see how cousin John matches his Uncle and 2 Aunts at Chromosome 15.

John Chr 15

These red and yellow show us that Cousin John likes to eat at MacDonalds. Not really. It does show:

  • coverage of the entire Chromosome 15 from position 18 to 100.
  • one large match with Richard. This would correspond to Richard’s paternal (Irish) side
  • the match with Lorraine could correspond with her paternal side also in the purple area on my Chromosome 15 map above.
  • The 2 matches with Virginia could also be on her Paternal (Irish) side in the blue and purple segments
  • If I were to make a Chromosome 15 map for cousin John, it would be more complete than my wife’s. It would be filled in with 2 great grandparents on his father’s father’s side.

I think I will make a great grandparent Chromosome 15 Map for my wife and her cousin John, but only because this is my 50th genetic genealogy blog. This map will just be for my wife and cousin John’s Paternal side of their Chromosome 15.

Map John Marie

It is a somewhat unusual chromosome map as there are only 2 great grandparents mapped for each cousin. My wife inherited the DNA from her dad’s maternal grandparents  Her cousin John inherited his DNA from his dad’s paternal grandparents. The part in the upper right corner should probably been left blank as I have only implied Pouliot DNA there.

further deductions

I have shown that it looks like my wife matches her dad on his Maternal Side. It looks like my wife’s cousin John matches his Uncle and 2 Aunts on their Paternal sides. Remember, I am talking about great grandparent matches, so I am going back a bit. The question is, should my wife match her cousin John on Chromosome 15? I would say no. Let’s look. Here is my wife’s matches in the area of Chromosome 15 down to a level of 3 cMs:

Marie and John

As you can see, there is no Chromosome 15 match. From that I can imply, but not prove, that my wife’s Chromosome 15 after position 95 is the same as her father’s and that she inherited her father’s mother’s Chromosome 15 intact.

To Recombine or not to recombine?

The smaller Chromosomes have less of a chance of recombining.  Chromosome 15 has 100 cMs which means on average there should be exactly one crossover per Chromosome 15. Lorraine had one crossover on each of her Chromosomes 15 (maternal and paternal). Richard had 2 maternal crossovers and no paternal crossover so he meets the average. Virginia was an overachiever with 2 maternal and one paternal crossover for an average of 1.5 crossovers. My wife’s father inherited his father’s Chromosome 15 intact, so had no recombination there. Likewise there may have been no recombination from Richard down to my wife on this chromosome.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Kathy Johnston’s method of DNA analysis worked well on my father in law and 2 siblings to find the DNA they inherited from their grandparents who were born between 1872 and 1875.
  • This method worked especially well for the maternal side as there were reference points aka my father in law’s maternal cousins who had tested for DNA. For these segments with matching cousins, I could assign specific grandparents which contributed to my father in law and 2 siblings’ DNA.
  • The segments that my father in law’s family inherited from their grandparents’ Paternal Irish side is defined and in place. However, those segments are awaiting specific names. Once further testing is done or existing testing is uploaded to gedmatch.com, then these names should be made clear.
  • This exercise on Chromosome 15 may be repeated for the other chromosomes.
  • This exercise showed two instances where recombination did not take place and another instance where it probably did not take place.
  • I would know more about my wife’s DNA if I had 2 more siblings’ DNA results.
  • I have been neglecting my wife’s DNA results as I had other test results from her older relatives. I need to update her FTDNA and gedmatch.com matches. This may give more clues on how she inherited her great grandparents’ DNA from her father.
  • A cousin who has tested was used to triangulate between the 3 siblings and my wife to check the work.
  • Based on the results of the 3 siblings Chromosome Mapping, maps can also be made for the children of these siblings. For the children, the mapping would show which great grandparents they received their DNA from.
Posted on

Slimming Down My Big Fat Chromosome 20

In a previous Blog, I mentioned My Big Fat Chromosome 20. I had discovered, for some reason, that more than one half of all my matches were on this Chromosome. This can be seen visually using a Swedish web site called dnagen.net.

dnagen circle chart

Here the default setting is at 200%. That means that only the matches that are twice as large as the median are shown. This program uses FTDNA matches. The match names are on the outside of the circle and the lines going between the names are what FTDNA calls ICW or (In Common With). I just noted today that there is a group on this circle that doesn’t connect with others at about 9 o’clock on the circle. These matches like to stay in their own Chromosome apparently. They are in a dark color which I take to be Chromosome 3. However, that is an aside.

The real point is to show Chromosome 20 in the dark green in the lower right half of the circle. Chromosome 20 is the Hong Kong of Chromosomes. In a little space, I have  lot of matches. Remember that Chromosome 20 is one of the smaller Chromosomes. If I have about 4,000 matches, that means that over 2,000 of them are on Chromosome 20. In my previous Blog on Chromosome 20, I determined that these matches were on my Frazer grandmother’s side. Her 2 parents were born in Ireland. That means that these matches represented Irish matches and not Colonial American matches as I had previously assumed.

The Progression of Sorting Matches

Autosomal DNA matches may be grouped in different ways. When I first tested, I got a bunch of matches at FTDNA. I didn’t know who any of them were. FTDNA had suggested some relationships which were mostly optimistic. Here is some of the progression of how I have sorted my matches:

  1. Sorted by projected relationship or match level (cMs)
  2. Sorted by actual relationship if known
  3. Sorted by Chromosome. This option is not available at AncestryDNA. One has to upload the AncestryDNA results to gedmatch for this option. This is when I discovered all my Chromosome 20 matches.
  4. Sorted by Triangulation Groups. By using a Tier 1 option at Gedmatch or by finding by hand all the matches that match each other at a particular segment, I was able to find many Triangulation Groups (TGs)
  5. Sorted by Maternal or Paternal. All our valid DNA matches should match on either the maternal or paternal side. Once I tested my mother, I was able to phase my results at gedmatch and find out whether I matched other testers on my mother’s side or my father’s side. This was a big breakthrough for me. This cut down a lot of frustrating searches. For example, there are a lot of people that match my mother that have Frazer or Fraser ancestors. My Frazer ancestors are on my father’s side. Therefor, I knew that when looking for Frazers, I could eliminate all my mother’s matches who had them as ancestors and not worry about them.
  6. Sorted by other known matches. I had my father’s 1st cousin tested. This got to the level of my great grandparents on my Hartley side. However, it didn’t tell me which great grandparent. My Hartley great grandparent was a relatively recent immigrant from England. My non-Hartley great grandparent had ancestors going back tot he Pilgrims in Massachusetts. I also had other relatives tested and found other matches that I knew I was related to.
  7. Another breakthrough happened after I had my 2 sisters tested. I used a method by Kathy Johnston to find out where you got all your DNA from your 4 grandparents by comparing your DNA results to 2 siblings. This method worked pretty well on most of my chromosomes. Now I knew where the DNA was coming from at my grandparent level for most of my matches. When I had a match, I could check my map to see which grandparent that match belonged to.

That is about where I left it at my last Blog on Chromosome 20. I looked at my crossover points for Chromosome 20. Here are my sisters compared to each other and to me:

Chr 20 Crossovers

Here is how I used the above comparison to map my grandparents that gave me my Chromosome 20 segments. The blank parts are half identical and ambiguous, so rather than guessing, I left them blank. For example, on Sharon’s row on the top, either the orange goes to the left and blue starts at the lower half or the opposite: the purple continues to the left and the green starts at the crossover line.

Chr 20 Final Segment

My chromosome 20 is on the bottom. At the time I wrote my previous Blog on Chromosome 20, I discovered that the vast majority of my matches were due to my Frazer side (green) and not my Hartley side (orange). This was a surprise as my Hartley grandfather had a mother with American Colonial roots. The final point of my previous blog on the subject was:

The fact that all these matches are on my Frazer line doesn’t necessarily mean that they are Frazer matches. They could be McMaster, Clarke, Spratt or any other known or unknown ancestor of my Frazer grandmother.

It’s great that I now know that most of my Chromsome 20 matches are Paternal and that they are on my Frazer grandmother’s line. But I am still curious as to where they are coming from. Can I find out more? I would like to try.

Chromosome 20: Beyond Grandparents

One advantage I have is that I am working on a Frazer DNA project with 27 testers. There are 2 lines of Frazers. I am on the Archibald Line and there is another line called the James Line. These 2 lines are somewhat distantly related as these 2 brothers were born in the early 1700’s. Here are the matches for the project on Chromosome 20:

Chr 20 Matches

All of these matches involve at least one James Line tester which I am not on. The 2 major matches between the Archibald Line and James line are between myself (JH) and my sister (SH) on the Archibald Line and Bonnie (BN) on the James Line. As I show below, even my McMaster Line has Frazers in it, which could be the source of that match. Sharon had very few Chromosome 20 matches compared to her siblings Heidi and myself. The 1,000 plus matches I had were before the 47 million mark where I match Bonnie above. My mega-matches mostly occur on Chromosome at 44,000,000 (End Location) or before. This tells me that my mega-matches are not of the Frazer surname. If they were, I would have seen some of my closer Archibald Line matches on Chromosome 20 from the Frazer DNA Project.

Enter cousin paul

Paul is my second cousin once removed who tested for DNA. His great grandparents are my 2nd great grandparents: George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

George Frazer Tree

When I compare myself to Paul, I get to either the Frazer or McMaster Lines. This will eliminate the Clarke line of my great grandmother and her Spratt mother as they are not in Paul’s line – only mine.

My McMasters: It’s a Bit Complicated

Here is my McMaster Line going back from my Frazer grandmother.

McMaster Ancestry

Not only did 2 McMasters marry each other, one of them had a Frazer mother! Marion Frazer is my grandmother, so she is 2 generations from me. Margaret McMaster is at 4 generations. James and Fanny McMaster are at 5 generations to me. Their parents (the left-most McMasters above) are at 5 generations out from my cousin Paul and six generations from me. This is useful to know in the Generations Estimate I have below.

Here is where the Frazer/McMaster split is.

Frazer Buggy

George Frazer b. 1838 is on the left and Margaret McMaster b. 1846 is on the right. The photo was taken in Ballindoon, Ireland in front of the Frazer family home.

At Gedmatch.com, I compared Paul and myself at:

People who match one
or both of 2 kits Updated

I chose most of those that matched both Paul and me. I left out an apparent duplicate and one who is anonymous for now. I also left out my 2 siblings. With those results, I chose the Traceability option and got this chart:

Generations Paul Joel

Those in red are in the Frazer DNA Project. We know their genealogy. Gladys descends from the couple above George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. Michael and Jane descend from one level above that. The circle above are those that are related to Paul and me, but not to others in the Frazer DNA Project. [One exception is Jane, but she matches at generation 7 which is about as far out as Gedmatch goes. This may or may not be a real match.] If those in the circle are not Frazer, then the apparent conclusion is that they are McMaster relatives.

Back to chromosome 20

See all the Chromosome 20 matches on my Gedmatch Traceability Report:

TG Chart Chr 20

Remember I said that my 1,000 plus matches on Chromosome 20 ended around 44M? This is what the above shows. It also shows a triangulation of matches. This triangulation is also implied by the cluster of matches within the circle of the Generations Estimate Chart above. The Chromosome 20 Triangulation Group (TG) includes:

  • Myself
  • *S. S.
  • Daphine
  • Feeney
  • Gladys

Now Gladys should not be in this list as she is in the Frazer DNA Project and has no known McMaster ancestors. In fact, when I run the ‘one to one’ at Gedmatch, she doesn’t match the others in the above list. There are glitches in the Traceability Report, so caution is needed. I will take out the last 3 names in the Generations Estimate to simplify the results. Unfortunately, that didn’t fix the problem, so I had to take out Gladys from the Frazer Project (sorry Gladys).

Gen Est Paul Joel

Now my presumed McMaster relatives are in the green circle. Here are the improved and simplified matches:

TG Chart Chr 20

I note now that the 2 ‘M’ kits (indicating 23andme testers) are now matching each other which is what I had expected previously. Note that I left my previous Traceability results in the blog as a warning that the Traceability utility is glitchy. Actually the new report is not indeed improved as now Michael from the Frazer project is matching my presumed non-Frazer McMasters. I took out Michael, and then Jane from the Frazer Project developed similar bogus matches with those she is not related to!

I’ll have to take out all the other Frazer Project people out for this Traceability to work. This was supposed to have worked so smoothly. Here below Joel and Paul should be the remaining McMaster relatives:

Joel Paul R3

Here is the Chromosome 20 TG. Note that Paul is not in it, but he matches others from the TG in other Chromosomes:

TG Chart Chr 20

This chart is only mostly right. Paul’s green match is actually on Chromosome 19 rather than 15:

Paul's Actual Match with Edge
Paul’s Actual Match with Edge

Here is the globe view of my proposed McMaster relative TG:

McMaster Globe

The colors in the lines correspond to the colors in the chart above. The light blue lines are the Chromosome 20 TG from my “big fat” area. The blue lines indicate a TG as they go from each of six people to the other 5. The gray lines represent multiple matches. I am at the bottom of the globe and my cousin Paul is to my right. He is not in the blue TG on Chromosome 20, but matches all my matches on other chromosomes at least once.

Conclusions and Further Research

From what I have shown above, I feel like I have found my McMaster relatives through DNA. However, these would have to be verified by genealogy. None of my proposed ‘McMasters’ have any gedcoms at gedmatch.

  • Daphine – she is on FTDNA but with no tree and no ancestors mentioned. An ICW search reveals 59 pages of matches – likely mostly on Chromosome 20.
  • Edge – He is at FTDNA. He has a limited tree. His paternal grandmother may be a lead. He has only 52 pages of in common matches at FTDNA
  • John – A search at 23andme showed nothing. Perhaps he is anonymous there.
  • Feeney – Same result – or perhaps these people are using different names?
  • *S.S – I see an S.S at Ancestry, but it is difficult to tell if it is the same person.

I have McMaster connections through DNA and genealogy at AncestryDNA, but there is no way to tell if the connection is on Chromosome 20 without a chromosome browser. My Mcmaster matches at AncestryDNA either don’t know how to upload their DNA to gedmatch, aren’t interested or haven’t gotten to it.

Opposition to TGs

Of late, on Facebook, there has been questioning as to the validity of  TGs – especially large TGs like I have at Chromosome 20. The thought is that no common ancestors will be found as there are just too many common ancestors in these large TGs. I have not explained the 100’s of matches in my Chromosome 20 TG, but I have shown 5 people that match both myself and my cousin Paul. These 5 by DNA do not have obvious Frazer ancestry and appear to be in my McMaster Line. So I suppose we have a stalemate. I cannot prove at this time (except to myself) that my Chromosome 20 TG matches are McMaster relatives and those who are not in favor of large TGs cannot prove that these matches are not McMaster relatives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Mapping My DNA To My Four Grandparents

I was thinking of calling this Blog “Kathy Meet Kitty“. Kathy is Kathy Johnston who taught me how to map my ancestral segments by comparing my DNA to two of my siblings’ DNA results and determining our crossover points. The crossover points can then be used to map out which grandparent you got your DNA from without having to physically test those grandparents. This is quite convenient as all my grandparents have been gone for quite a while. Kitty is Kitty Munson who has developed a Chromosome Mapper here. I have not seen a blog using Kitty’s Chromosome Mapper to map ancestral DNA segments via Kathy Johnston’s method, so I thought that I would write one. Kathy’s method is posted here.

Two Types of Segments

There are two types of segments, thus at least two types of segment mapping. This concept is best explained at the Segmentology Blog in an article appropriately called, What is a Segment?

ancestral segments

That Segmentology article first mentions ancestral segments. These are the segments that Kathy Johnston knows how to map. I have written many blogs about mapping my ancestral segments using her method. Ancestral Segments are the segments that you actually get from your ancestors. They fill up all your DNA. Here is an example of the ancestral segments that I have mapped to my four grandparents.

Joel Segment Map

Look at Chromosomes 1, 5, 6 and 7 for starters. This shows all my DNA filled in. The 2 paternal grandparents are on the top half of the chromosomes in blue and grean and the maternal two grandparents are on the bottom in red and peach color. The DNA I received alternates between one grandparent and another and fills in all the area. In fact, that is the process of recombination and can be seen in the Ancestral Segment Maps.

shared segments

These are segments that you find at gedmatch.com for example. These are our DNA matches. These matches may have a proposed relationship based on how much DNA you and your match share. Here is an example of some of my matches using Kitty’s Chromosome Mapper.

Chromosome map 4 Apr 2016

The best way to fill in a map like this is by testing as many relatives as possible. Now look at chromosome 1, 5, 6, and 7 on the shared segment map compared to the ancestral segment map above. The ancestral segment map on Chromosome 1, for example,  shows how much DNA I actually got from my Hartley grandfather. The blue in the Shared Segment Map shows how much I matched my father’s cousin. Next look at the maternal (bottom) part of Chromosome 1. Here the Rathfelder and Lentz matches on the right hand side are filled in on the Ancestral Segment Map. However, there is an additional section of Lentz on the left hand side of the Ancestral Segment Map where I don’t even have a match. I can tell I got my DNA there from my Lentz maternal grandmother. That is due to the crossover points I have and the fact that the DNA you get from your grandparents alternates between grandparent. On the maternal side, the alternation is between Rathfelder and Lentz.

If you find any inconsistencies between my Ancestral Segment Map and my Shared Segment Map, that means I messed up somehow.

More Ancestral Segment Mapping: Sister Heidi

In order to map my ancestral segments, I needed two siblings, so I used my two sisters, Heidi and Sharon. Here is Heidi’s ancestral DNA mapped out:

Heidi Segment Map

A few observations:

  • The areas of pale blue are where I had trouble figuring out how to map the ancestral segments, so nothing is mapped in these areas. I may have mapped out some of the segments, but then had difficulty telling whether they were maternal or paternal due to lack of known cousins that had tested. So I left these areas blank
  • The maternal areas shown as MG1 and MG2 – For these areas, I knew I had two maternal grandparents but I wasn’t sure which was which. Again based on lack of known cousins that had tested. I could perhaps guess, based on actual matches I had in these segments or where those matches were from, but I noted where the crossovers were and left these grandparents un-named.
  • These unknown grandparents are consistent within each chromosome and each sibling within each chromosome, but they are not consistent between chromosomes. So the unknown MG2 in Chromosome 8 may not be the same MG2 in Chromosome 11.
  • In my (Joel’s) Ancestral Segment Map, I don’t show any DNA on my paternal side for the X Chromosome. That is because males don’t get an X Chromosome from their father.
  • Heidi shows that she got her paternal X from her dad’s mom – a Frazer. Further, that chromosome did not appear to recombine. That means that she got that whole chunk from one of her great grandparents on the Frazer side.

How Do You Know What You Are Finding If You Don’t Know Where To Look?

These maps are very helpful in showing you where to look for DNA. Many people have matches that have ancestral names that are common to us but are not related. For example, my mother has matches with people that have Fraser or Frazer ancestors. I am related to Frazer on my father’s side. That means that I can forget about following up on maternal Frazer matches.

  • If I do want to look for Frazers, I need to look in my green areas (or my sister’s green areas) which is on her paternal side.
  • My sister Heidi is in an important Frazer Triangulation Group on her Chromosome 1 on the right hand side. She triangulates with others in a Frazer DNA Project I am working on. I am not in that group. Look at my Chromosome 1. It is nearly all covered by Hartley DNA. That explains why I don’t match these other Frazers at standard thresholds.
  • What if we were to want to look for Lentz ancestors of Heidi? We need to look at the red areas. Chromosomes 1, 6, 9. 14, 20, and 22 would be a good place to look. Fortunately, I also have Heidi’s matches on a spreadsheet. They are mostly divided by maternal and paternal matches. My mother has been tested for DNA. Based on that, I have Heidi’s phased maternal and paternal results and her matches to each of those results using Gedmatch.com.

Finally Sharon

My sister Sharon completes the Ancestral Segment Mapping:

Sharon Segment Map

  • The autosomal DNA that is missing on Sharon’s Map is the same for her 2 siblings. This is because Kathy Johnson’s ancestral segment mapping technique compares the siblings to each other using the Gedmatch.com chromosome browser.
  • Sharon has a lot of Frazer DNA match potential at Chromosomes 1, 8-12, 15, and 22.
  • However, Sharon is also not in the Frazer Triangulation Group in Chromosome 1 on the right hand side. In that particular section, she got her DNA from her Hartley paternal side.
  • The above point shows why it is important to test siblings.
  • Heidi and Sharon both have a large match (50+ cM) with someone on their X Chromosome. This person also has autosomal matches with my sisters and others in the Frazer DNA project.

Summary and Observations:

  • Ancestral Segment Mapping can be useful in determining which grandparent your matches match.
  • I know already whether my matches are on my maternal or paternal side. However, this goes back one more generation and further sorts my matches to grandparents. This cuts down the guessing by another half.
  • The maps also point out the areas where you can’t be as sure as to which grandparent your matches match as those areas are not mapped yet.
  • Ancestral Segments should line up with Triangulation Groups
  • Ancestral Segment Mapping can show matches that are Identical by Chance (IBC) or false matches.

 

Posted on

Mapping All My Frazer DNA

Thanks to a technique pioneered by Kathy Johnston, I have been able to map my DNA to my 4 grandparents. In the process of doing this, I can see where my 2 sisters got their DNA from also. One of those 4 grandparents is my father’s mother who was a Frazer. Both her parents were born in Ireland, so that helps in finding matches. I thought that it would be interesting to look at each of the Frazer DNA Project member’s matches to my family to see where they are on my family’s DNA maps.

The larger Chromosomes are the most difficult to map, as there are more potential segments and crossovers. The segments are the chunks of DNA we got from each grandparent. The crossovers are the vertical lines between the segments where the DNA we got crosses over from one grandparent to another.

Chromosome 1

I’ll spend a little more time on Chromosome 1 as it is the first.

Chr1 Frazer

  • The colors will not be consistent to a name between chromosomes. Also the position of the my and my sister’s chromosomes may not be the same
  • S and H are my sisters Sharon and Heidi. My bar is in the middle here (J)
  • The orange in this Chromosome is Frazer and represents my Frazer grandmother.
  • The numbers in the bars represent reference people. For Frazer, my reference is usually Paul, my 2nd cousin, once removed. However, I also used Jane above in this example
  • Note that if I had not tested my sisters, my chances for matching other Frazers would be very low for Chromosome 1. I couldn’t match a Frazer for most of this Chromosome. I would only be able to match another Frazer at either end.
  • When the 3 orange Frazer segments in my family are put together, we can potentially match a Frazer for the whole length of the Chromosome – except between 186 and 205.

The Triangulation Group (TG) in Chromosome 1

I’ve pointed this out before. The TG is to the right of the Chromosome and only my sister Heidi is in this TG.

TG Chr1 Frazer

Note that the first match in the TG above between MFA and Jane goes beyond where my sister Heidi could match a Frazer (198-205). This is fine as MFA and Jane have their own crossover points that are different than those in my family.

Chromosome 2

Here I’ll start with my spreadsheet matches.

Chr 2 Frazer

What might I expect here? Note that the matches are only with my 2 sisters. My guess is that I won’t have Frazer mapped on my Chromosome in these 2 areas (196-222). Also note a match with Jonathan who is on the more distant James Line of the Frazer Project. In addition, my sister’s matches with PF overlap by a small amount her match with Jonathan. This could be significant if this forms a Triangulation Group.

Here’s my family’s Chromosome 2

Chr 2 Frazer Feb

I had a little problem with this one, but it’s mostly right. Here the colors are switched, so Frazer is now green.

  • Notice that my 2 sisters, S and H have Frazer segments from at least half way through their Chromosomes to the end. This is where the matches are (195-221).
  • Notice that between me and my sisters, we should have good coverage for Frazer ancestor matches.
  • I (J row) cannot match any Frazer where my sisters matched as I have orange Hartley DNA in the area of 195-221.

Here is Jonathan’s family mapped out. He is on the horizontal line 1. Only Jonathan can match my 2 sisters from 142 to 221. His 2 sisters are on rows 2 and 3.

Chr 2 Jonathan

Any Triangulation Group?

It would be interesting if there was a triangulation group between these 2 distant lines. So far, we have not had much luck in finding one for Jonathan’s James Line. Perhaps we have one here. This is what Gedmatch shows for Sharon’s match with Jonathan in yellow and Paul in blue:

Sharon Chr 2 Gedmatch Browser Paul Jonathan

In numbers, Gedmatch also shows where the small overlap is with these 2 segments:

Chr 2 Sharon Paul Jonathan

The overlap is shown in the last column. The yellow (Sharon’s match with Jonathan) and blue (Sharon’s match with Paul overlap from 205 to 207. Let’s see what Heidi’s matches show:

Chr 2 Heidi Paul Jonathan

Here the overlap is pretty much the same, but is a bit shorter for Heidi.

So for a Triangulation Group, Jonathan would also have to match Paul. I would expect this to be a small match, so I bring down the gedmatch numbers. This is a bit controversial, by the way, but I think I’m on fairly solid footing here. I took the limits way down to 3 cM. Here are all the results of the match between Jonathan and Paul, but I’m really interested in Chromosome 2:

Jonathan V Paul 3cM

To me, it is more than mere coincidence that Jonathan and Paul match at the exact place where they have an overlap in my 2 sisters’ matches. In all 3 cases, the match is between 205 and 207 on Chromosome 2.

Is This the First James Line Triangulation Group (TG)?

Yes and no. What I mean is that this is not strictly a James line TG but a TG between the James Line and the Archibald Line of the Frazer DNA Project. We have what we need for a Triangulation group. Paul matches Sharon and Heidi. Jonathan matches Sharon and Heidi, and Paul matches Jonathan on the small segment where he needs to match him in order for there to be a TG.

A triangulation group should represent a common ancestor. But who is the common ancestor? I can think of 3 possibilities:

  • The common ancestor of the Archibald and James Lines. This is based on the known genealogies. This common ancestor probably goes back to the late 1600’s.
  • A more recent unknown James Line ancestor. I have an additional line of Frazers that I haven’t placed that may be part of the James Line. This would be a good candidate.
  • A common collateral family. That is, a common family that married into both of our families with a common ancestor. This would be the least known option.

Chromosome 3

Chromosome 3 should be simpler. There is one Frazer match with my family. That is between Heidi and Cathy. Cathy is a a descendant of Archibald Frazer b. 1802 and Catherine Parker.

Chr 3 Heidi CR

This is a small single match, so possibly not even a valid match. Let’s look to see if  this match is in a spot where Heidi got Frazer DNA from her grandmother:

Chr 3 Heidi

It looks like this match is in the about the only area where Heidi (row H) could’ve gotten any Frazer DNA match. Recall the match is from 15-21. But shouldn’t Sharon in the S Row also match Cathy in her purple Frazer segment? Actually, she does. I’m working from 2 spreadsheets and only had Sharon’s match on one of the 2 spreadsheets.

Chr 3 CR Heidi Sharon

See, the DNA corrected my oversight!

Chromosome 5

There weren’t any Frazer Project matches to my family on Chromosome 4 that I had recorded. Here is the match between my sister Heidi and our 2nd cousin once removed Paul. He also matches my sister Sharon at the same spots.

Chr 5 Paul Heidi

My prediction is that the map should look like the one for Chromosome 3 in the first part of the Chromosome. Chromosome 5 is another Chromosome that I found difficult to map:

Chr 5 Heidi Sharon Paul

Note that I didn’t get a lot of Frazer in my Chromosome 5 (last row J). There is also a section from 107 to 173 where there would be no Frazer matches with me or my sisters. Perhaps if I tested another sibling….?

Chromosome 7

Here I see a smattering of matches. I included my fairly close Frazer relative Paul as a reference even though he doesn’t match my family on this Chromosome.

Chr 7

Here, none of these matches come together. What does the Chromosome map show?

Chr 7 map

As with many of my maps, I have different version as I have tried to perfect them. But something looks wrong here. Either the map is wrong or my matches above are wrong. Sharon should have a Frazer match with Jane at 99 to 107, but that is showing as blue which in this case is my non-Frazer Hartley side. I had one other case where one of the Frazers matched on my mother’s side. After lowering the thresholds a bit, I got this match between my non-Frazer mother and Jane:

Chr 7 Jane Gladys+

That means that Jane either matches one of my mother’s ancestors way back or is identical by state or by chance in this area. But what about the match between my sister Heidi and MFA of the Frazer DNA Project? I lowered the thresholds a bit again at Gedmatch and checked to see if MFA also matched my mother.

Chr 7 MFA and Gladys

Oh, my. It seems like everyone is related to everyone! Welcome to the family. Actually, if MFA and Jane were to be related to my mom, it would make more sense on her orange Lentz side (which is where they do indeed match). That is the side where my mom has a grandmother from Sheffield, England. The green side would make less sense at that is primarily German and specifically Germans that lived for many years in a colony in Latvia. Well, at least I don’t have to revise my Chromosome 7 map.

Chromosome 9

I see one lone match between my sister Sharon and my cousin Paul.

Chr 9 Sharon Paul

Chr 8

That makes sense. Sharon is the only one with Chromosome 9 Frazer DNA in my family. As no other Frazers in the Project appear to match here, I can assume that this match is on my McMaster side. Paul and Sharon share a Frazer ancestor that married a McMaster, so half our shared DNA could be on the McMaster side coming down through our respective Frazer lines.

Chromosome 10

Chr 10

Chr 10 Map

Out of curiosity, I checked to see if my sister Sharon would match Paul on the first bar (S) if I lowered the Thresholds. She did between 6 and 9 (top left green segment). Again, this could be McMaster DNA.

Chr 10 Sharon Paul

Chromosome 12

This Chromosome has been discussed before as it is part of a TG.

Chr 12 TG

Chr 12 TG Map

Here are few more [probably McMaster] segments that are matches between cousin Paul and my family:

Chr 12 Paul matches

Chromosome 14

My sister Heidi has a small match with Charlotte of the James Line.

Heidi Charlotte Match

I don’t know if it is a valid match, but it falls in the right area of Heidi’s chromosome.

Chr 14 map

Chromosome 17

Here I have a lone match with MFA

Chr 17

Chr 17 map

Looks like I’m the only hope for Frazer matches in this Chromosome. As the chromosomes get higher in number, they get shorter. The shorter chromosomes have fewer segments and are simpler than the longer lowered numbered chromosomes.

Chromosome 20

Here I am again with Bonnie from the James Line:

Chr 20

I wrote a whole blog on this Chromosome on January 12, 2016.

Chr 20 Map

I have a bit to finish on this Chromosome. Note that Bonnie’s match with me on the bottom bar fits in from 47 to 54. It seemed like Sharon should match Bonnie also. I looked more closely at my spreadsheet and she was there. Here is what gedmatch shows.

Sharon Bonnie

Chromosome 21

My sister Heidi matches Cathy. These 2 also matched at Chromosome 3 above.

Chr 21

Here I have a problem.

Chr 21 map

I have some nice colors but no grandparents named. I don’t have enough cousins that match me on this short Chromosome to identify which grandparent is which. But maybe that’s OK. When I check to see if Cathy matches with Heidi’s paternally phased DNA (that is, her Frazer side) there is no match. Cathy matches Heidi’s maternal, non-Frazer side (or is Identical by Chance).

Heidi Cathy Maternal

So either way, this is not a good match for the Frazer project. However, this is a good thing to know. This does not invalidate the match Cathy did have with Heidi at Chromosome 3.

Chromosome 22 (Last One)

There are just a few small matches in our family with cousin Paul left. They are small, and likely to represent the McMaster side of our ancestors. These McMasters apparently lived parallel lives to the Frazers in bordering County Sligo. Perhaps they came to their particular area of Ireland for the same reasons as the Frazers and stayed or left for the same reasons.
Chr 22

Finally, the last map.

Chr 22 Map

Summary

  • I have listed every known Frazer match to myself and my 2 sisters in the Frazer DNA Project
  • These matches were checked against my Chromosome maps to make sure they mapped to the correct Frazer grandparent
  • In some cases, the Frazer matches were found not be Frazer matches at all because they matched my non-Frazer mother
  • One pleasant surprise was finding an additional Triangulation Group at Chromosome 2. This TG was between the 2 main Frazer Lines in the DNA Project: The Archibald and James Lines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

All My Mother’s DNA

A lot of my writing has been on the Frazer DNA Project. That Project involves DNA on my Father’s side. I’d like to focus on my mother’s DNA in this Blog.

Mitochondrial DNA

I have had my mitochondrial DNA tested in myself, so it would be the same as  my mother’s. mtDNA is interesting as one can trace the mutations down from genetic Eve. My haplotype (and my mom’s) is H5’36. I like the fact that there is a prime [‘] in the designation. I think this is because they ran out of room in the place where it belonged among the other haplotypes. I have 2 exact mtDNA matches. Both of their ancestries trace to Ireland. This is interesting as I have not traced my mother’s maternal line back to Ireland. As far as I know, her maternal line went back to the Sheffield, ENG area or just outside of it. However, the focus of this blog is not mitochondrial DNA.

Autosomal DNA Testers

Unlike mtDNA, which goes up the mother’s mother’s mother’s line, atDNA can go in any and all directions up the ancestral ladder. It is much less focused. Sort of like Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In analyzing atDNA, it is best to have known testers that can be used as a reference point to sort the scattered matches into the right families. The testers I have with known genealogies are:

  • Catherine – She is the lone 1st cousin once removed representing my mother’s father’s Rathfelder/Gangnus side.
  • Judy – She is also a 1st cousin once removed representing my mother’s mother’s ancestral grandparents: Jacob Lentz and Annie Nicholson. Judy is my 2nd cousin. She tested at 23andme and matches me there but has not uploaded to Gedmatch yet for more comparisons.
  • Joan – She tested at Ancestry and is my mother’s second cousin once removed. Her common ancestors with my mom are William Nicholson b. 1836 and Martha Ellis b. 1835. Joan is also 3rd cousin with me and my 2 sisters which I have had tested. She is 3rd cousin to Judy through the Nicholson line but not the Lentz line as she has no Lentz ancestors.

Here is how the relationships look in a chart:

Glady's Cousin Chart

Here are 3 of my mom’s grandparents: Maria Gangnus; Jacob Lentz and Annie Nicholson. The last is her great grandfather, William Nicholson.

Maria GangnusJacob LentzWilliam Nicholson

Ancestor Chromosome Mapper – Kitty Cooper

Kitty Cooper has developed a popular Chromosome Mapper. We should be able to map my mom’s paternal side from her DNA matches with Catherine and her maternal side from her matches with Judy and Joan. Judy has not uploaded to gedmatch, so I just used her match results with me at 23andme to represent her DNA matches with my mom. The actual DNA Judy shares with my mom is much more than shown for Jacob Lentz and Annie Nicholson.

Gladys Chromosome Map

Some observations:

  • There are 8 autosomal chromosomes with no matches from these 3 cousins
  • The map phases the results into paternal (top part of the bar shown in blue) and maternal results (bottom part of the bar shown in red and peach)
  • Chromosome 9 –  On the maternal (bottom) side the 2 close segments indicate where my mom, Gladys, has a crossover point. the color goes from red (the DNA she got from her Nicholson grandmother) to peach (the DNA she got from her Lentz grandfather)
  • Chromosome 9 and 14 – Here we see results stacked up on top of each other. Without our testers, we would not know which side the results my mom’s matches came from. In these areas, at least, we will know for sure whether the matches are on the paternal or maternal side
  • All other matches – We will know if the matches between mom and anyone in these areas are maternal or paternal.
  • If anyone matches my mom in the red areas (and also matches Joan), we will know it is not with an ancestor of the Nicholson family.
  • Anyone who doesn’t match the people mapped out above in the area where they should match probably represent a match from the other side. For example, a large match along the area of Chromosome 18 that doesn’t match Catherine (who is on the paternal side) would likely be a maternal side match. The only other option would be a false match (Identical by State IBS or Identical by Chance IBC).
  • In the areas where there are no matches, it is a guess as to whether those are paternal or maternal matches. If someone has a tree showing that all their ancestors have been in Germany, that would be a hint that the match should be on my mother’s father’s side. He was German and born in Europe.

More on Joan and the Nicholson Matches

I have already written about Rathfelder matches in a previous blog. I haven’t yet addressed Joan’s Nicholson matches. I’d like to do that now. One way to look at how my mom and Joan match is through Gedmatch. They have a utility that will show the people that match 2 other people. I ran that and came up with myself and my 3 sisters as well as several others. One spot that looks like a Triangulation Group is found on Chromosome 5:

Joan Chromosome 5

#1 is Joan. I didn’t include myself and my 2 sisters, but I know they match Joan here. In fact, here is Joan’s match with me, my younger sister, my mother and my older sister on the same Chromosome:

Joan Chr 5 match w Hartleys

Now, back to the previous image. In order for my mother’s green matches above to be in a triangulation group (TG), they have to match Joan and each other. I’ll check:

  • Joan matches green #2 above at around 11 cM
  • Green #2 matches green #3 at about 10
  • Green #3 matches green #4 at about 15 cM
  • For comparison Joan and my mom match each other at about 30 cM

I didn’t do all the comparisons, but did enough to suppose that this is a TG. Technically, I’m supposed to do every comparison. I didn’t check the pink match as it was small and didn’t line up with the other matches.

What Do the Green TG Matches Mean?

A TG should indicate a common ancestors. Likely this common ancestor will be one of the ancestors of Annie Nicholson:

Nicholson Ancestors

All I have to do now is write to the 3 green matches. Then hope that the common ancestor isn’t too far back and that they have good family trees. Hey, it could happen.

 

Posted on

Butler YDNA

This blog is not about all Butler YDNA, but about my father in law Richard’s YDNA. His results came in this week, so I thought I’d write a little about them. As he had 10 children, I thought that they might be interested.

Butler Genealogy

The Butlers are Irish. They are believed to come from the Kilkenny area. However, the documentation for that is not the best. Michael Butler was b. in Ireland around 1810. His son, Edward was b. in the 1830’s and made his way to the New World. He likely arrived in St. John, New Brunswick where he married Mary Crowley in 1855. I mention more details in my Blog on the Butler Brick Wall.

Deep Roots of the Butlers and Family Lore

My wife says that Butler is a Norman French name. She says the Butler name came from the fact that they were wine tasters. According to Ancestry.com:

Butler Name Meaning

English and Irish: from a word that originally denoted a wine steward, usually the chief servant of a medieval household, from Norman French butuiller (Old French bouteillier, Latin buticularius, from buticula ‘bottle’). In the large households of royalty and the most powerful nobility, the title came to denote an officer of high rank and responsibility, only nominally concerned with the supply of wine, if at all.

I had been a little skeptical about the family lore and figured that the Butler YDNA would be typically Irish which is R1b. According to Family Tree DNA:

R1b, which originated in western Europe, is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup among Irish men, at a frequency of about 81.5%. I1 is the second most common with 6%, followed by I2b at 5%, R1a at 2.5%, and E1b1b at 2%. G2a is found in only about 1%. Also rare are I2a (1%) and J2 (1%).

So What Did the Results Show?

I was wrong. According to FTDNA my father in law is I-M223. According to FTDNA:

I-M223 was known as I2b1 and is now known as I2a2a by ISOGG

ISOGG is the International Society of Genetic Genealogists. I’m not sure if that means that our Butler is in the 5% or 1% group in Ireland. However, they are either quite rare or very rare there. So I signed up my father in law for the Butler YDNA project and also the I-M223 Project at FTDNA. At the I-M223 project, they put him in the group with others that are fairly close matches. Three have the name Butler and one has the name Whitson. That makes me feel like we are on the right track. It is not unusual to have other surnames match on the YDNA line. However, it is better to not be in the minority.  The FTDNA group further put my father in law Richard into this curious category:

1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1- M223>…>L701>P78>S25733>A427: test I-M223 SNP Pack or I-M223 SNP Pack or S23612

This is a group with a lot of numbers. These first numbers probably went back to when someone could tell there was a certain signature in the YDNA results, but all the SNP tests weren’t developed yet. The second numbers are the SNP tests that the administrator thinks Richard would pass if he were to take them all. That is good, because it puts him several steps down the SNP tree. The last part is what the administrator wants the tester to do. One is to take a test that will test several SNPs. The other is to test for a specific SNP. In this case, the SNP is S23612.

Origins of the I-M223 Haplogroup

The I-M223 Haplogroup came into existence about around 17,600 years before present (ybp). Give or take a few thousand. The A427 branch is much more recent at 5,200 ybp. According to one YDNA Butler match to Richard, he feels that the origin of this branch of Butler that didn’t test positive for S23612 was in England and before that Germany. Some information from the Eupedia website also mentions that the L701 branch may have arisen from the Goths. I can imagine a stimulating dinner conversation with the Butler family: “So, I hear that the Butlers are descended from the Goths.” “What…???? I thought that we were descended from the Normans”. Who knows, maybe the Goths moved into France at some point and mixed with the Normans. Or they could’ve moved from Germany to England where the Normans were and then made their way to Ireland. I’m sure that there are many possible scenarios.

More Recent Connections

Two of the more recent Butler YDNA  matches to Richard had roots in Ireland, so that makes sense. One had his earliest known Butler ancestor from the border of Laois and Kilkenny County.  That is shown by a blue balloon below. That match had a GD or Genetic Distance of 4. The other was from Wexford and had a GD of 2 with Richard.

Kilkenny Wexford

This shows some likelihood of having a common ancestor within a certain number of generations when your match has a GD of 4:

4 GD Butler

Here is a match with a GD of 2. Note the differences in Percentages.

2 GD Butler

Kilkenny or Wexford?

The 2 GD match who had a mariner Butler ancestor in Wexford is interesting for 2 reasons. When Edward H Butler, the son of Edward Butler, the immigrant ancestor died in 1925, he listed his father as being born in County Wexford, Ireland. The second reason is that the photo we have of the immigrant Edward Butler shows him in a sailor outfit.

edwardh

Compare the above with the image of sailors our helpful YDNA Butler relative sent:

Sailor Outfit

Perhaps Edward Butler had mariner background in Ireland or perhaps he was in the Navy in the American Civil War.

Two Death Certificates

Here is Edward Butler’s Death Certificate from 1915 showing that he and his two parents were born in Kilkenny

Edward Butler Death 1915

Ten years later in 1925, his son, Edward H Butler died and recorded that his father was born in County Wexford, Ireland. Why had his birthplace changed in 10 years?

Edward H Death 1925

So although the YDNA results don’t clarify the death certificates, they are consistent with where the death certificates say the Butlers were from!

 

 

Posted on

Beware the False DNA Match

In this blog, I’ll write about false DNA matches: what they are; how to find them; examples – some from the Frazer DNA Project I am working on.

What Are False Autosomal DNA Matches?

False DNA matches are those that are not Identical By Descent (IBD). Perhaps you have heard the term. It basically means that the match is not from a person that is your ancestor. That sounds like defining something by what it is already. And it kind of is. A false match is also called Identical By State (IBS) or Identical By Chance (IBC). These are two different names for pretty much the same thing. It basically means that when the computer generated your match it wasn’t from an ancestor. ISOGG has a good article on the subject.

How Can I Tell If I Have a False Match?

There are several ways. I’ll list a few. I will give examples later in the Blog. The first list is more sure fire, but involves additional testing of parents or other relatives.

FINDING FALSE MATCHES BASED ON ADDITIONAL DNA TESTING

  1. If  a person matches you but doesn’t match your mother or father’s DNA results, that is a false match. As you got all your DNA from your parents, this has to be a false match.
  2. Conversely, if you match someone else but don’t match their mother or father’s results, you have a false match.
  3. This is similar to the above. There is a way to phase your own results if you have had one or both of your parents tested. If you do not match on the phased (that is maternal or paternal) portion of your results, then it is most likely a false match.
  4. The last method has to do with chromosome mapping. I have written some about this in the past. If you have mapped your DNA to one grandparent, and the match is in the same area of your chromosome, from a different grandparent, then that has to be a false match. I’ll give an example later. There are 2 ways to do this mapping. One way is to test a lot of relatives and map their results to a common ancestor. Another way is if you have 2 siblings tested in addition to yourself, it is possible to figure out from which of your 4 grandparents your DNA came from. This method has been pioneered by Kathy Johnston.

WHAT IF I DON’T HAVE PARENTS OR OTHER RELATIVES TESTED?

  1. Testing parents is the best way. Then it is good to test other relatives. If that is not possible, then one may look at statistics. Many of the statistics are at the ISOGG article I mentioned above
  2. 15 cM or greater match – these are considered to be all good matches
  3. less than 5 cM – very few at this level will be considered true matches. ISOGG reports that about 85% of matches at this level are false. So it’s better not to go there.
  4. Triangulation – this is a way to determine true matches (or IBD). I have read that any match 5 cM or greater that triangulates will likely be a true match. In my experience only the larger cM matches tend to triangulate, so for me, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I won’t get into the triangulation aspect much in this blog.

My False Match With Deb

Deb was one of the first false matches that I was in touch with. I had thought that perhaps we had colonial ancestry. We shared many colonial ancestors including some of the Pilgrims from Plymouth, Massachusetts. She mentioned that she had her parents tested also. This would have been helpful to find out which side we were related on. However, I matched neither her mother’s nor father’s results. So it had to be a false match. Here is how we show to match at Ancestry:

Deb Ancestry Leaf Match

It looks legit. It even says that Deb and I have a Shared Ancestor Hint. But in this case it is a bad hint. Another clue that this might be a false match is that the match is fairly low. At Ancestry, they use a filter and the match was only 6.0 cM. Here she is on my spreadsheet.

Deb spreadsheet

The matches in my spreadsheet are above the thresholds for FTDNA and Gedmatch. The lower number is phased to my father’s side, so one would think that the match would be good. However, my paternal phasing is based on a test with my mother. These phasings are not 100% accurate apparently. Deb also matches with my 2 sisters. In addition, she matches my two sisters on the X Chromosome. Apparently, these are all false matches. I have also read that many female X Chromosome matches are false. I suppose these are two examples. The bottom line is that I don’t match Deb’s parents and my sisters don’t. So these cannot be real matches.

Another False Ancestry Match

I have another example that I just thought of. I have another Shared Ancestor Hint. This one is on my mother’s side. It is based on an AncestryDNA match between Kay and myself. Kay also matches my sister Heidi but not my sister Sharon. So Heidi shows this same False Shared Ancestor Hint.

Shared Ancestor Hint Rathfelder

This match is down to 5.4 cM at Ancestry with their fancy filtering methodology. Unfortunately, Ancestry apparently doesn’t have the technology to check that even though my mother tested with AncestryDNA, my mother doesn’t also match Kay – at least not by DNA. However, Ancestry clearly shows that Kay and my hint’s line to me is through my mother. So this is a false match. Ancestry is wrong again. However, they do have a lot more money than I do.

Frazer False Matches

I have perhaps more experience with the Frazer side of my DNA than other DNA having worked on the Frazer DNA Project for a while. There are also false matches within that project. Here are a few false matches on Chromosome 7 between my two sisters and Frazer DNA Project Members. My sisters are SH and HHM.

Frazer False Matches

HERE’S HOW I FIGURED OUT HOW THESE 2 FRAZER MATCHES WERE FALSE

Jane and MFA are in the Frazer DNA Project. In fact they have great matches elsewhere and even triangulate. So why am I calling these matches false? The main reason is the Chromosome Mapping I have done. This was done by a method I have described in previous posts. Three siblings are compared (my 2 sisters and me). Crossover points are determined. Here is what my Chromosome 7 looks like.

Chromosome 7 Crossovers

I have a cousin on my mom’s side who tested (in green). Her match at 56-75 with my 2 sisters and me ensures that the maternal side is on the top of the 3 DNA bars. This is because at that location (56-75), there is only one color that all the siblings share (green).  That means blue and purple represent DNA from my paternal side. Blue is from our Hartley grandfather and purple in this case represents my Frazer grandmother. The numbers represent matches with relatives who I have had tested that are related to two of my four grandparents. In this case, the relatives matched my mother’s father (green) and my father’s father (blue).

SHARON’S FALSE FRAZER MATCH

My sister Sharon’s DNA is represented by the first horizontal bar. She has blue Hartley DNA from the beginning to point 129,000,000 (or 129 for short). At that point from 129 to the right end, the DNA from Sharon’s Frazer grandmother takes over. 129 is the crossover between where she gets her Hartley DNA to where she gets her Frazer DNA on Chromosome 7.

I have that Sharon matched Jane from the Frazer DNA Project from 98 to 107 for 7.6 cM. However, this cannot be a Frazer match as Sharon got all her DNA from the beginning of her paternal side to point 129 from her Hartley (non-Frazer) grandfather.

Frazer False Matches

HEIDI’S FALSE FRAZER MATCH

Likewise, my sister’s match with MFA of the Frazer DNA Project is also false. Her bottom bar is all blue which means she has all [non-Frazer] Hartley DNA. There is no room for her to match MFA from the Frazer DNA Project from 130 to 135. In fact, Heidi has a match with her reference Hartley relative from 134 to 139. What the map shows above is that you cannot get DNA from 2 different paternal (or maternal) grandparents at the same location. It has to be either one or the other.

Interestingly, these false matches happened in the places where they could not have happened. If they were to have been real matches, they could’ve happened with me (Joel) as I have more purple area on my bar above. Or MFA could’ve had a true match with Sharon where she had some purple room, rather than with Heidi – which is a false match.

So Are False Matches Good Or Bad?

They are neither good nor bad. However, if you have a match that is false and you think it is true, then that could be bad. That would lead to wrong conclusions.  Notice that in the above example, both the matches were just above the Gedmatch 7.0 cM cutoff. Just because a match is above the cutoff, doesn’t mean it is a real match. That level was chosen because there are probably more true matches than false matches at that level, but there are still a lot of false matches around 7 cM. Gedmatch and testing companies don’t generally like to filter out matches that could be true.

Summary

  • It is good to be aware of (and wary of) false matches
  • Just because a match is above a threshold doesn’t mean that it is a true match
  • Matches below a threshold could be true also, but the odds are against that
  • False matches do not triangulate
  • False matches do not match either of your parents’ DNA
  • Neither do they match either of your matches’ parents’ DNA
  • False matches may match a phased kit of your own DNA as phasing a parent based on another parent’s testing is not 100% accurate
  • If a match doesn’t match your paternally or maternally phased kit, it can be considered false
  • A low match level means high likelihood of false matches; a high match level means a high likelihood of true matches
  • At about 15 cM there should be no false matches
  • Don’t blindly accept AncestryDNA Shared Ancestor Hints.