To me, genealogy is about understanding who we are. Traditional genealogy takes us through historical records, pictures, and stories about our ancestors, allowing us to add names, dates, and places to our family tree. And we strive to understand what our ancestors did, why they did those things, and just what their lives might have been like. As genealogists, we see all this as important to understanding who we are.
In a previous post I speculated about new studies of the DNA of the bacteria in our body, and how the biome contained in our body was essentially inherited and influenced our lives in subtle ways.
Now I learned about another factor in determining who we are, something called epigenetics. The idea is that much of our DNA is dormant until activated. External factors, such as our diet, our environment, lifestyle, etc. can cause various traits to be activated. And even more important is the finding that these traits can be passed on to our children. They aren't part of the DNA you and I study for genealogy. That never changes. But these traits aren't permanent. They can be deactivated. At this point, I don't think scientists understand all the ways epigenetics affects our lives. The field is still very new.
Epigenetics seems to fall in the "nurture" side of the "nature vs. nurture" debate, which is not what we would expect from a genetic field.
I'm sure we'll learn more about this and its implications, if any, for genealogy in the future. My takeaway for now is that our parents and grandparents affected us more than we could have imagined, even if we didn't know them.
My apologies to those who know more than me about genetics and recognize my oversimplifications.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Ancestry DNA and Making the Most of Matches
I wasn't really sure how DNA testing could help me extend my genealogy until recently. I've got some ideas, now, on how to approach it.
Ancestry DNA reports people who have matching DNA to you. They simplify the analysis so we don't need to be DNA experts. Based on the amount of DNA we share, matches are given a predicted relationship range. I have found these to be fairly accurate. I can make a good guess as to whether it is great grandparents, or great great grandparents, that we share. And if a tree is provided for the match, sometimes I can identify the family, or even the ancestor we share. But there are thousands of matches. Where does one begin?
Genealogy is always about working from the known to the unknown. It is the same with this. Take things step-by-step. Start with the best matches. These are the ones that have known common ancestors. They show up as "hints" in the list of matches. Ancestry allows you to filter them. Besides their tree, they each have a set of matches that you share. These matches are all on the same family line, perhaps a few generations back. Sometimes they will have a tree, which confirms this, and helps pinpoint your relationship.
First thing I did was to make a circular pedigree chart with mostly blank space, I added surnames in the spaces provided, leaving as much blank space as possible. Then I went through all the best matches, looking for the appropriate space on the chart. I found that the cousin level for that match corresponded to the generation on the chart, making it easy to plot the match in the right generation. When I was certain of the relationship, both family and generation, I put the match on the chart in ink.
Some matches pose a bit of a dilemma. These are matches with fairly complete trees, but no obvious common ancestry. Since these matches do have trees, the map of locations that ancestry provides for matches can be helpful. These seem to be matches for your dead-ends. Maybe the surname of a female ancestor is not known, or maybe its from a first marriage, or changed for some other reason. I think this is what I am seeing with my Salucia Sophronia Clark line. I see a group of people who match a Squibb/Clark 3rd cousin and myself, but not some of the known Squibb 4th and 5th cousins. They may be my "Clark"s. Or they may be her husband Robert Squibb's mother's family. also a dea-end. I have one group of matches with 25 - 30 centiMorgans of DNA match which could be 3rd, 4th or 5th cousin. There are charts with this information. This is probably the most technical piece of information that Ancestry reports, and it is buried a bit. Click on the information symbol by your matches confidence level, and it will report this. I don't think Ancestry considers it essential, since they give you an estimated relationship.
Most matches just don't have trees. Sometimes its for privacy. I have already uncovered two adoptions in my very extended family that are understandably sensitive issues. Usually, I think it is because people don't see the advantage in sharing this information or don't know much about their specific ancestry. Most just want to see their heritage report.
But even these matches are useful. Digging deeper, by looking at the matches you share with them, will add to your knowledge a bit. Based on the relationship with other matches, and the reported generation, you can plot these matches on the chart as well. But use pencil. There are too many uncertainties with these, since you don't have a proven relationship, neither family nor generation. Eventually it will all come together, maybe with more work on your part, or in time as more people submit their DNA tests to Ancestry.
Another thing I've explored a bit is downloading my raw DNA file from Ancestry. This too, is a bit hidden, being in the settings, but it is available. Other services accept this file and do their own analysis and matching. Some are even free. Most are a bit more technical than Ancestry. Gedmatch.com takes the Ancestry DNA and a tree and can be used to report matches as well, but with chromosome number and location of common DNA. At this point I haven't found a good use for that, but it is early in my learning process.
Bob Mesenbrink
January 2017
Ancestry DNA reports people who have matching DNA to you. They simplify the analysis so we don't need to be DNA experts. Based on the amount of DNA we share, matches are given a predicted relationship range. I have found these to be fairly accurate. I can make a good guess as to whether it is great grandparents, or great great grandparents, that we share. And if a tree is provided for the match, sometimes I can identify the family, or even the ancestor we share. But there are thousands of matches. Where does one begin?
Genealogy is always about working from the known to the unknown. It is the same with this. Take things step-by-step. Start with the best matches. These are the ones that have known common ancestors. They show up as "hints" in the list of matches. Ancestry allows you to filter them. Besides their tree, they each have a set of matches that you share. These matches are all on the same family line, perhaps a few generations back. Sometimes they will have a tree, which confirms this, and helps pinpoint your relationship.
First thing I did was to make a circular pedigree chart with mostly blank space, I added surnames in the spaces provided, leaving as much blank space as possible. Then I went through all the best matches, looking for the appropriate space on the chart. I found that the cousin level for that match corresponded to the generation on the chart, making it easy to plot the match in the right generation. When I was certain of the relationship, both family and generation, I put the match on the chart in ink.
Some matches pose a bit of a dilemma. These are matches with fairly complete trees, but no obvious common ancestry. Since these matches do have trees, the map of locations that ancestry provides for matches can be helpful. These seem to be matches for your dead-ends. Maybe the surname of a female ancestor is not known, or maybe its from a first marriage, or changed for some other reason. I think this is what I am seeing with my Salucia Sophronia Clark line. I see a group of people who match a Squibb/Clark 3rd cousin and myself, but not some of the known Squibb 4th and 5th cousins. They may be my "Clark"s. Or they may be her husband Robert Squibb's mother's family. also a dea-end. I have one group of matches with 25 - 30 centiMorgans of DNA match which could be 3rd, 4th or 5th cousin. There are charts with this information. This is probably the most technical piece of information that Ancestry reports, and it is buried a bit. Click on the information symbol by your matches confidence level, and it will report this. I don't think Ancestry considers it essential, since they give you an estimated relationship.
Most matches just don't have trees. Sometimes its for privacy. I have already uncovered two adoptions in my very extended family that are understandably sensitive issues. Usually, I think it is because people don't see the advantage in sharing this information or don't know much about their specific ancestry. Most just want to see their heritage report.
But even these matches are useful. Digging deeper, by looking at the matches you share with them, will add to your knowledge a bit. Based on the relationship with other matches, and the reported generation, you can plot these matches on the chart as well. But use pencil. There are too many uncertainties with these, since you don't have a proven relationship, neither family nor generation. Eventually it will all come together, maybe with more work on your part, or in time as more people submit their DNA tests to Ancestry.
Another thing I've explored a bit is downloading my raw DNA file from Ancestry. This too, is a bit hidden, being in the settings, but it is available. Other services accept this file and do their own analysis and matching. Some are even free. Most are a bit more technical than Ancestry. Gedmatch.com takes the Ancestry DNA and a tree and can be used to report matches as well, but with chromosome number and location of common DNA. At this point I haven't found a good use for that, but it is early in my learning process.
Bob Mesenbrink
January 2017
Monday, December 26, 2016
Will DNA Results Help Find the Real Salucia Sophronia Clark?
In another blog of mine, I publish articles that would interest my family. One of the topics has been a great great grandmother of mine named Salucia Sophronia Clark. She has been a mystery to me and dozens of other researchers for many years. She married Robert F. Squibb in Clinton County, Iowa in the 1857. She reliably reported in census records that she was born in the early 1840s in Ohio. But I've never found her family. Some people list parents for her, finding similar names in census records, but none make sense as they still show her there in 1860. Salucia was in Iowa and married in 1860, so cannot be the same person.
I've studied the various Clarks of Clinton County, Iowa, and they were numerous. None seem to be related to Salucia.
So I finally took my DNA test and got the results back. I used Ancestry DNA, which looks at the general mix of DNA called autosomal DNA. It does not include the Y-DNA, which is only the male line, nor the mtDNA which is only the female line. The male line wouldn't help with Salucia, but since she is my mother's maternal grandmother, an mtDNA test applies to her and may be of help ultimately.
Ancestry shows other people who share matches with your DNA. They do not show chromosomes and locations where matches exist like other companies, but Ancestry has an extensive collection of personal family trees. Some of those people who have tested their DNA have chosen to link their DNA with their family tree. This has proven helpful in narrowing down matches to a specific line, while avoiding the long chromosome/location numbers of each match.
As I looked at matches I recognized one 3rd cousin match as being one of the people I've corresponded with regarding Salucia and the matching tree confirmed what I suspected. I clicked on her information which gave me twelve 1st through 4th cousin matches that we have in common. Five of them had useful trees attached, that could be used compare back to four generations where we should have a match. Some of them I could identify as Squibb line ancestors and not those of Salucia. But I could not find any Clarks.
Although my 3rd cousin and I both got some of the same pieces of DNA from Robert and Salucia, we also got unique DNA from them as well. We each have our own matches. I found that by looking at my matches' matches I could go deeper. I found more people, and more trees, all matches to me, and still likely to be related on the Squibb or Clark lines.I made a chart in Excel, where I could list each match, and who our shared matches were. So far 33 of my matches seem to fall under the Squibb/Clark lines. Not all of these matches, match each other. Some are Squibbs. Some are "Clarks". I use quotes around Clark because I really haven't found any Clarks.
After doing this, and it took a while, I was able to separate the two groups. I assumed that those whose trees did not include the Squibb family, and their close matches, must be related to Salucia. Making lists of the surnames in the trees from these people, two names popped out in multiple trees. Neither was Clark. I kept seeing Trotter and Ellis. One or the other. And in one case, both.
Hardy Ellis married Martha Trotter. Hardy Ellis, born 1789 in North Carolina, died 1874 Kentucky, and Martha Trotter, born 1800 in North Carolina, died 1885 in Kentucky. They had a large family, including a girl, Elizabeth Ellis, born 1835. Could she have run away and changed her name to Salucia Sophronia Clark? Far fetched, but that sort of thing did happen.
One thing that is striking about these lines is that they all run through the south. Ancestry DNA allows you to compare locations of birthplaces of your matches on a map. My ancestry pretty much runs within a couple hundred miles of modern-day I-80 and I-70 from the east coast to the midwest. Absolutely nothing south of Virginia. Those southern DNA lines really stand out. They are in my genealogy waiting to be discovered.
It's going to take some more work.
I'll report more later.
Bob Mesenbrink
December 2016
I've studied the various Clarks of Clinton County, Iowa, and they were numerous. None seem to be related to Salucia.
So I finally took my DNA test and got the results back. I used Ancestry DNA, which looks at the general mix of DNA called autosomal DNA. It does not include the Y-DNA, which is only the male line, nor the mtDNA which is only the female line. The male line wouldn't help with Salucia, but since she is my mother's maternal grandmother, an mtDNA test applies to her and may be of help ultimately.
Ancestry shows other people who share matches with your DNA. They do not show chromosomes and locations where matches exist like other companies, but Ancestry has an extensive collection of personal family trees. Some of those people who have tested their DNA have chosen to link their DNA with their family tree. This has proven helpful in narrowing down matches to a specific line, while avoiding the long chromosome/location numbers of each match.
As I looked at matches I recognized one 3rd cousin match as being one of the people I've corresponded with regarding Salucia and the matching tree confirmed what I suspected. I clicked on her information which gave me twelve 1st through 4th cousin matches that we have in common. Five of them had useful trees attached, that could be used compare back to four generations where we should have a match. Some of them I could identify as Squibb line ancestors and not those of Salucia. But I could not find any Clarks.
Although my 3rd cousin and I both got some of the same pieces of DNA from Robert and Salucia, we also got unique DNA from them as well. We each have our own matches. I found that by looking at my matches' matches I could go deeper. I found more people, and more trees, all matches to me, and still likely to be related on the Squibb or Clark lines.I made a chart in Excel, where I could list each match, and who our shared matches were. So far 33 of my matches seem to fall under the Squibb/Clark lines. Not all of these matches, match each other. Some are Squibbs. Some are "Clarks". I use quotes around Clark because I really haven't found any Clarks.
After doing this, and it took a while, I was able to separate the two groups. I assumed that those whose trees did not include the Squibb family, and their close matches, must be related to Salucia. Making lists of the surnames in the trees from these people, two names popped out in multiple trees. Neither was Clark. I kept seeing Trotter and Ellis. One or the other. And in one case, both.
Hardy Ellis married Martha Trotter. Hardy Ellis, born 1789 in North Carolina, died 1874 Kentucky, and Martha Trotter, born 1800 in North Carolina, died 1885 in Kentucky. They had a large family, including a girl, Elizabeth Ellis, born 1835. Could she have run away and changed her name to Salucia Sophronia Clark? Far fetched, but that sort of thing did happen.
One thing that is striking about these lines is that they all run through the south. Ancestry DNA allows you to compare locations of birthplaces of your matches on a map. My ancestry pretty much runs within a couple hundred miles of modern-day I-80 and I-70 from the east coast to the midwest. Absolutely nothing south of Virginia. Those southern DNA lines really stand out. They are in my genealogy waiting to be discovered.
It's going to take some more work.
I'll report more later.
Bob Mesenbrink
December 2016
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
The DNA Results are In!
That was quick. Quicker than I expected. Quicker than Ancestry said. It's always good to under-promise and over-deliver.
My head is still spinning. There is a lot to take in, but ultimately, it isn't a huge surprise. Well, still a bit of a surprise.
I expected 40% Europe West and result was 46%. About right. A lot of German background.
I guessed 30% Great Britain and result was actually a lot lower at 11%. It seems like I've read some discussion about the Great Britain percentage, and I suspect this is because of the numerous outside influences to the island. in particular, Vikings. In fact, while I predicted a small amount of Scandinavian ancestry with 5%, the results show 17%. A lot more than I thought.
Irish ancestry has always been a suspicion of mine, although I can't trace back to Ireland. With ancestral names like Brady, Brennan, McInytre, it seemed likely. I guessed 5% given what little I could prove. Irish is actually my second highest ethnicity at 20%.
It seems odd to me that having two great grandparents from Great Britain, and numerous old American lines going back to colonial times, that Great Britain would have such a small influence on my DNA makeup.
Those four, Europe West, Irish, Scandinavian, and great Britain make up 94% of my ethnicity. As I suspected, there are small amounts of Europe East and Iberian Peninsula, but even smaller than I thought. But 3% Italian/Greek is pretty interesting to me.
What does not show up is interesting as well. No African, no Asian, no Jewish, no native American - 100% European.
The folks at Ancestry DNA explain that this is all just an estimate. Our DNA varies, even between siblings, And our family trees cannot possibly be traced as deep as what our DNA shows.
The other advantage that DNA matching brings is matching other people who have DNA test results posted and many who have actually posted their trees. One of my matches is a first or second cousin in Georgia. I don't know who that is, so I am anxious to find out. And then there are dozens of other matches, more distant, a few of whom I have corresponded with in the past regarding genealogy. Sometimes the match shows the common ancestor on our trees. More often there is just a list of common surnames. But it depends on how complete our family trees are on ancestry. Sometimes, the connection isn't known at all. Ancestry allows you to display maps of birthplaces in both trees. In my short time, I haven't found that to be helpful, but I really like the idea.
You can also look at the ethnicity mix of others. Another Stephenson family related to me also shares more ethnicity from Scandinavian than Great Britain.
I'm sure a lot more will come up.
My head is still spinning. There is a lot to take in, but ultimately, it isn't a huge surprise. Well, still a bit of a surprise.
I expected 40% Europe West and result was 46%. About right. A lot of German background.
I guessed 30% Great Britain and result was actually a lot lower at 11%. It seems like I've read some discussion about the Great Britain percentage, and I suspect this is because of the numerous outside influences to the island. in particular, Vikings. In fact, while I predicted a small amount of Scandinavian ancestry with 5%, the results show 17%. A lot more than I thought.
Irish ancestry has always been a suspicion of mine, although I can't trace back to Ireland. With ancestral names like Brady, Brennan, McInytre, it seemed likely. I guessed 5% given what little I could prove. Irish is actually my second highest ethnicity at 20%.
It seems odd to me that having two great grandparents from Great Britain, and numerous old American lines going back to colonial times, that Great Britain would have such a small influence on my DNA makeup.
Those four, Europe West, Irish, Scandinavian, and great Britain make up 94% of my ethnicity. As I suspected, there are small amounts of Europe East and Iberian Peninsula, but even smaller than I thought. But 3% Italian/Greek is pretty interesting to me.
What does not show up is interesting as well. No African, no Asian, no Jewish, no native American - 100% European.
The folks at Ancestry DNA explain that this is all just an estimate. Our DNA varies, even between siblings, And our family trees cannot possibly be traced as deep as what our DNA shows.
The other advantage that DNA matching brings is matching other people who have DNA test results posted and many who have actually posted their trees. One of my matches is a first or second cousin in Georgia. I don't know who that is, so I am anxious to find out. And then there are dozens of other matches, more distant, a few of whom I have corresponded with in the past regarding genealogy. Sometimes the match shows the common ancestor on our trees. More often there is just a list of common surnames. But it depends on how complete our family trees are on ancestry. Sometimes, the connection isn't known at all. Ancestry allows you to display maps of birthplaces in both trees. In my short time, I haven't found that to be helpful, but I really like the idea.
You can also look at the ethnicity mix of others. Another Stephenson family related to me also shares more ethnicity from Scandinavian than Great Britain.
I'm sure a lot more will come up.
Friday, November 25, 2016
Deciding to Submit a DNA Test
In a past post of mine, I was debating the value of DNA testing in genealogy. When Ancestry offered their test for $69, I placed my order. The test kit will take a week or so to get here, and then I have to send it back in. Results come in a month or two.
The AncestryDNA test is an autosomal DNA analysis which looks at a person's overall DNA makeup, examing his or her genome at 700,000 locations. Ancestry says that I can expect to learn "information about your ethnicity across 26 regions/ethnicities and identify potential relatives through DNA matching to others who have taken the AncestryDNA test".
The 26 regions, using Ancestry's region names, include those that I am certain I am descended from, such as Europe West (which includes Germany) and Great Britain (including England and Scotland), and those that I expect smaller amounts, such as Ireland and Scandinavia. I've speculated about some amounts from Europe East (Some of those German ancestors of mine lived in present day Poland). And my Squibb family name may have derived from Spanish, Esquivel. If that is the case there could be some Iberian Peninsula ethnicity showing up. I think Jewish ancestry is always a possibility with Europeans. Will I see any Europe Jewish or even Middle East ancestry?
I won't be surprised at seeing any of the European regions on my DNA. I will be surprised to see any American Indian, African, Asian or Pacific Islander. But maybe the word surprise is a bit strong. I just don't expect any of those. In actuality, my known genealogy has too many holes, and perhaps too many mistakes, for me to be totally confident of my ethnic makeup. Genealogy can only go back so far. The trail of records we rely on runs out after a few centuries. But our DNA is our makeup. DNA extends the trail, but only in a more general way. For now at least.
The other benefit is in sharing results with others. Perhaps I will find other relatives, or confirm known relationships. Maybe I'll have to put more of my tree up on Ancestry to get the benefit from this. Finding someone who I share DNA with, doesn't tell me how we are related.
Now the wait. I'll post my results in a couple of months.
And for some fun. My prediction:
40% Europe West (Mesenbrink, Van Gundy, Flier)
30% Great Britain (Stephenson, Davis, Squibb)
10% Irish (Brennan and suspected numerous others)
5% Europe East (Nipkow)
5% Scandinavian (Friend - could be Finnish/Russian too)
5% Europe Jewish (Were Squibbs and Cowan's Jewish migrants?)
5% Iberian Peninsula (Squibb name from Esquivel?)
The AncestryDNA test is an autosomal DNA analysis which looks at a person's overall DNA makeup, examing his or her genome at 700,000 locations. Ancestry says that I can expect to learn "information about your ethnicity across 26 regions/ethnicities and identify potential relatives through DNA matching to others who have taken the AncestryDNA test".
The 26 regions, using Ancestry's region names, include those that I am certain I am descended from, such as Europe West (which includes Germany) and Great Britain (including England and Scotland), and those that I expect smaller amounts, such as Ireland and Scandinavia. I've speculated about some amounts from Europe East (Some of those German ancestors of mine lived in present day Poland). And my Squibb family name may have derived from Spanish, Esquivel. If that is the case there could be some Iberian Peninsula ethnicity showing up. I think Jewish ancestry is always a possibility with Europeans. Will I see any Europe Jewish or even Middle East ancestry?
I won't be surprised at seeing any of the European regions on my DNA. I will be surprised to see any American Indian, African, Asian or Pacific Islander. But maybe the word surprise is a bit strong. I just don't expect any of those. In actuality, my known genealogy has too many holes, and perhaps too many mistakes, for me to be totally confident of my ethnic makeup. Genealogy can only go back so far. The trail of records we rely on runs out after a few centuries. But our DNA is our makeup. DNA extends the trail, but only in a more general way. For now at least.
The other benefit is in sharing results with others. Perhaps I will find other relatives, or confirm known relationships. Maybe I'll have to put more of my tree up on Ancestry to get the benefit from this. Finding someone who I share DNA with, doesn't tell me how we are related.
Now the wait. I'll post my results in a couple of months.
And for some fun. My prediction:
40% Europe West (Mesenbrink, Van Gundy, Flier)
30% Great Britain (Stephenson, Davis, Squibb)
10% Irish (Brennan and suspected numerous others)
5% Europe East (Nipkow)
5% Scandinavian (Friend - could be Finnish/Russian too)
5% Europe Jewish (Were Squibbs and Cowan's Jewish migrants?)
5% Iberian Peninsula (Squibb name from Esquivel?)
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Genealogy's Next Frontier: The Bacteria in Your Body?
In genealogy, we usually consider that who-we-are is determined by our genes. It is the nature in the nature vs. nurture argument. Genes determine our physical characteristics. But we don't neglect nurture either. So much of who-we-are is determined by how we were raised. Everything we learn from our parents, our food preferences, our behaviors, our tradition and culture, and every little quirky thing we see our parents do, becomes a part of us, to be passed down to our children, just as our genes are. That's why it is so important to try to answer the questions about our ancestor's lives, so that we can understand this side of genealogy. This is the nurture side of the equation, and I think, it is as important as the genetics. Nurture doesn't require a genetic relationship. Some relationships are not genetic, yet are just as important. Adopted children may not have the genes of their adoptive parents, but they do share in the nurturing piece just as birth children.
I'm wondering if we can soon add a new dimension to who-we-are. Although the bacteria in our body weigh only a few pounds, they make up roughly half the cells in our body. For every gene we have, our collection of bacteria have one hundred. That collection of organisms is our microbiome. The Smithsonian published an article discussing this and research performed at Ohio State University. It turns out that the our microbiomes differ greatly from each other. We each have a microbiome fingerprint. No two people have the same microbiome. But we do share similarities with others. Researchers were able to develop a model that was fairly accurate at determining race from the types of bacteria in an individual's mouth swabs.
Research is under way to explain the microbiome differences between different individuals. Possible reasons include genetics, diet, stage of life, and antibiotic intake. But it is clear that families do share the same mixes of bacteria, as described by Science Daily.
Some organisms in our body are bad for us, but most aren't, in fact some are very necessary. They are not just passive organisms, sharing our body with us. They have definite effects on us, and different mixes of organisms have been found to effect our health. Other studies, such as one described in Live Science suggest that these microorganisms can even communicate with our brains to affect our mood and who knows what else. And researchers are wondering what diseases may be caused by the effects of our microbiome. Clearly, our microbiome is an important part of who-we-are, perhaps as important as our genes and our upbringing.
There are currently, several companies that do microbiome testing on individuals. These include UBiome, American Gut Project, SmartDNA and others, but these have no genealogical purposes that I can see. They are strictly for diet and health. But just as the human genome studies eventually worked their way into genealogy, I suspect studies of the human microbiome will as well. While genetics is well understood, just how, and to what extent, we inherit our microbiome, is yet to be determined. I'm willing to bet there will be some application to genealogy in the future. Somebody will have to come up with an addition to nature vs. nurture. How about nature vs. nurture vs. bioture?
Bob Mesenbrink
(c) 2016
I'm wondering if we can soon add a new dimension to who-we-are. Although the bacteria in our body weigh only a few pounds, they make up roughly half the cells in our body. For every gene we have, our collection of bacteria have one hundred. That collection of organisms is our microbiome. The Smithsonian published an article discussing this and research performed at Ohio State University. It turns out that the our microbiomes differ greatly from each other. We each have a microbiome fingerprint. No two people have the same microbiome. But we do share similarities with others. Researchers were able to develop a model that was fairly accurate at determining race from the types of bacteria in an individual's mouth swabs.
Research is under way to explain the microbiome differences between different individuals. Possible reasons include genetics, diet, stage of life, and antibiotic intake. But it is clear that families do share the same mixes of bacteria, as described by Science Daily.
Some organisms in our body are bad for us, but most aren't, in fact some are very necessary. They are not just passive organisms, sharing our body with us. They have definite effects on us, and different mixes of organisms have been found to effect our health. Other studies, such as one described in Live Science suggest that these microorganisms can even communicate with our brains to affect our mood and who knows what else. And researchers are wondering what diseases may be caused by the effects of our microbiome. Clearly, our microbiome is an important part of who-we-are, perhaps as important as our genes and our upbringing.
There are currently, several companies that do microbiome testing on individuals. These include UBiome, American Gut Project, SmartDNA and others, but these have no genealogical purposes that I can see. They are strictly for diet and health. But just as the human genome studies eventually worked their way into genealogy, I suspect studies of the human microbiome will as well. While genetics is well understood, just how, and to what extent, we inherit our microbiome, is yet to be determined. I'm willing to bet there will be some application to genealogy in the future. Somebody will have to come up with an addition to nature vs. nurture. How about nature vs. nurture vs. bioture?
Bob Mesenbrink
(c) 2016
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Will DNA Testing Help My Genealogy?
I'm debating whether I should take a DNA test or not. I had a distant relative ask me if I've taken a DNA test because he thought it would help tie our families together. But I was under the impression that unless you share the same male or female line, it wouldn't be useful. Since the relative and I don't share the same last name, and more importantly, don't share the same direct male line, I felt it wouldn't be useful. But I wasn't sure.
So after studying the various tests, I've come to the understanding that there are generally three basic types of tests available - one for the male line, one for the female line, and one for general DNA analysis. The test for the male line is especially useful because others having the same male line can be identified. This type of test is called a Y-DNA test because it looks at the Y chromosome. Since women do not inherit a Y chromosome, they have to rely on their father's or brother's Y-DNA test to learn about their own male lines.
Both men and women inherit an X chromosome, but an X-DNA test is usually not provided. It turns out that it more complicated to trace the origin of X chromosome DNA, since both men and women pass it down, men get it from their mother, and women get it from both their father and mother. More commonly, the female line is tested using what is called mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing. Both men and women inherit mitochondrial DNA and can learn about their maternal lines using this test.
The third type of test commonly used is an autosomal test. This test looks at the remaining chromosomes, which are not X or Y. These tests are used to identify the general heritage mix that you have and can be helpful in proving a fairly close relationship between two people. It is not possible to identify a particular line as you can with Y-DNA and mtDNA.
So, for proving genealogical lines, the Y-DNA and mtDNA tests are the best. They can be used to positively identify paternal and maternal lines, respectively, and can be used to prove common ancestry between people. Unfortunately, these tests are limited to the maternal and paternal lines which excludes most of the family tree.
The autosomal test is interesting because it includes DNA from the entire family tree. Its weakness is that you can't know how the DNA was inherited. Comparisons can be made between individuals to determine a probability of relationship, but it doesn't prove how they are related. Even if you suspect that two individuals share a common ancestor, and the autosomal tests show a relationship, the two may actually have a different relationship than the one you suspect, and the suspected link may or may not even exist.
Its interesting to consider that relatives do not necessarily share any autosomal DNA (atDNA) at all. For example, two cousins could inherit entirely different sets of atDNA from their common grandparents - still cousins, just no DNA in common. The odds are extremely slim, but when you start talking about distant cousins, it becomes more likely. On average, second cousins share just over 3% of their atDNA.
It is also interesting to consider that you may have absolutely no atDNA in common with a known ancestor. In fact, your genetic family tree is considerably smaller than your genealogical family tree, because many ancestors do not contribute to your DNA makeup. It reminds me of pedigree collapse, the situation that occurs as your ancestry goes farther back, where people start showing up more than once in your ancestry.Your actual family tree is much smaller than your theoretical family tree. I wonder how this pedigree collapse and genetic tree collapse are related. It would seem that with an ancestor showing up in your tree multiple times, that it would be more likely that you would actually inherit DNA from him or her.
In any case, I don't have a reason for a Y-DNA test, since I'm pretty confident about my paternal heritage. And I'm not convinced that the atDNA test would help extend my genealogy. Perhaps it would give a few tips regarding general heritage.
But the mtDNA might be interesting. My direct maternal line ends with my 2nd great grandmother and her origins have puzzled me for years. Perhaps submitting mtDNA results to a database would yield some potential relationships. I think its going to take a bit more consideration and understanding. Hopefully what I have uncovered so far is correct. Please understand that I am certainly no expert in the subject. But I do hope that it helps to explain things some.
Bob Mesenbrink
July 8, 2015
So after studying the various tests, I've come to the understanding that there are generally three basic types of tests available - one for the male line, one for the female line, and one for general DNA analysis. The test for the male line is especially useful because others having the same male line can be identified. This type of test is called a Y-DNA test because it looks at the Y chromosome. Since women do not inherit a Y chromosome, they have to rely on their father's or brother's Y-DNA test to learn about their own male lines.
Both men and women inherit an X chromosome, but an X-DNA test is usually not provided. It turns out that it more complicated to trace the origin of X chromosome DNA, since both men and women pass it down, men get it from their mother, and women get it from both their father and mother. More commonly, the female line is tested using what is called mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing. Both men and women inherit mitochondrial DNA and can learn about their maternal lines using this test.
The third type of test commonly used is an autosomal test. This test looks at the remaining chromosomes, which are not X or Y. These tests are used to identify the general heritage mix that you have and can be helpful in proving a fairly close relationship between two people. It is not possible to identify a particular line as you can with Y-DNA and mtDNA.
So, for proving genealogical lines, the Y-DNA and mtDNA tests are the best. They can be used to positively identify paternal and maternal lines, respectively, and can be used to prove common ancestry between people. Unfortunately, these tests are limited to the maternal and paternal lines which excludes most of the family tree.
The autosomal test is interesting because it includes DNA from the entire family tree. Its weakness is that you can't know how the DNA was inherited. Comparisons can be made between individuals to determine a probability of relationship, but it doesn't prove how they are related. Even if you suspect that two individuals share a common ancestor, and the autosomal tests show a relationship, the two may actually have a different relationship than the one you suspect, and the suspected link may or may not even exist.
Its interesting to consider that relatives do not necessarily share any autosomal DNA (atDNA) at all. For example, two cousins could inherit entirely different sets of atDNA from their common grandparents - still cousins, just no DNA in common. The odds are extremely slim, but when you start talking about distant cousins, it becomes more likely. On average, second cousins share just over 3% of their atDNA.
It is also interesting to consider that you may have absolutely no atDNA in common with a known ancestor. In fact, your genetic family tree is considerably smaller than your genealogical family tree, because many ancestors do not contribute to your DNA makeup. It reminds me of pedigree collapse, the situation that occurs as your ancestry goes farther back, where people start showing up more than once in your ancestry.Your actual family tree is much smaller than your theoretical family tree. I wonder how this pedigree collapse and genetic tree collapse are related. It would seem that with an ancestor showing up in your tree multiple times, that it would be more likely that you would actually inherit DNA from him or her.
In any case, I don't have a reason for a Y-DNA test, since I'm pretty confident about my paternal heritage. And I'm not convinced that the atDNA test would help extend my genealogy. Perhaps it would give a few tips regarding general heritage.
But the mtDNA might be interesting. My direct maternal line ends with my 2nd great grandmother and her origins have puzzled me for years. Perhaps submitting mtDNA results to a database would yield some potential relationships. I think its going to take a bit more consideration and understanding. Hopefully what I have uncovered so far is correct. Please understand that I am certainly no expert in the subject. But I do hope that it helps to explain things some.
Bob Mesenbrink
July 8, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)