Sunday, September 11, 2016

STR's And YFull

The STR values finally came in for Roger Forgey (descendant of Andrew Forgey and Margaret Reynolds). The STR values provided through the BigY test, and YFull, are said to be less reliable than the original FTDNA markers tests. The Big Y was not designed to be a marker test. It's designed to identify SNP's. Since our terminal SNP at this time is so old, about 800 years old, it isn't very helpful.  I see more potential in the STRs. Although if we had a closer cousin tester to Roger at Y-Full we would get a closer terminal SNP. Sounds like a combination of STR's and SNP's gives you an idea of how far back your common male ancestor lived? Still trying to understand all this.

I had hoped I could compare Roger's 37 marker test with Craig's 67 marker test. I was able to compare more markers; 61 to be exact. This does help. All matched except 3 . Another mismatch was found on a marker in the 67 marker range. The other two were in the 37 marker range. This means they still remain close matches. They probably share a common male ancestor back in the 1600's, as we already know from our paper trail.

I will upgrade my Uncle's test to the Big Y when there is a sale. That should help.

Right now Roger Forgey has 4 close matches on the STRs. Three of the four are Fergusons. The one is not in the Ferguson group, and doesn't have any surname posted. This could be a Stewart? This result makes me think the STR's though more prone to error with this particular test, are accurate enough to establish which matches are closest in time. We believe Forgey is a variant of Ferguson, and these results would seem to point in that direction. Matching up 400 STR's even if a few may be off by a digit would be great.


I have no idea what the significance of having 30 markers difference is at 400 markers? Not sure how far back in time that would put the common ancestor?

It appears that they were only able to get 431 good reads on Roger's STR's, out of 500. An average comparison of about 400 STR's between his matches. With 55 not available for comparison.

Going back to our about 800 year old terminal SNP. Four out of  seven of Roger's SNP I-B3819 matches are Fergusons. Y-Full estimates that the time to the most recent ancestor for I-BY3819 could be from 1250 years to 425 years ago. Not sure how they come up with these calculations which seem to disagree with one another? The Fergusons in the Ferguson group are actually more closely related  to each other with a newer, downstream, terminal SNP of I-BY3821 which they estimate has a Time To Most Recent Ancestor (TMRCA) of 800 to 275 years ago. They could all share a common male ancestor as recently as 275 years ago.

For those new to Y DNA testing SNPs are listed on a Y tree which looks like this:

 

Those related closer in time have SNP's farther down on the list, or downstream.

The STR's look like this:


The rows represent those tested. The columns are the values on each marker. The value numbers need to be exactly the same to match on that marker.

Upgrading another Forgey test to the Big Y will be helpful. It is very expensive so I wouldn't do it unless there is a good sale. Comparing 400 STR's could prove to be very helpful.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Strenghthening The McPike And Browning Lines, Indiana and Tennessee




I made out and mailed the "First Families Of Tennessee" application. As I was doing that I was thinking how do we know the Nathan Browning in Roger Browning's 1828 Greene County, TN Will is our Nathan? Our Nathan in Indiana is definitely our progenitor because he and his wife Obedience McPike are named as parents on a couple Browning death certificates and a marriage certificate. I was thinking how would I prove the Nathan in Greene County, Tennessee was the same person as our Nathan in Indiana? This is a common problem the farther back we trace the family. How do we establish someone with the same name in another state is actually our ancestor? It's been a while sense I've looked at the Browning line. For my purposes I was convinced the Brownings in Greene County were the same, and they migrated to Indiana.

We are definitely blood relatives of Nathan Browning and Obedience McPike. My late mother has many DNA matches with descendants of this couple. Here are a few of the lines we match:





Why do we believe Nathan Browning and wife Obedience McPike originally came from Tennessee and specifically the Greene County area? We have the Roger Browning Will stating he has a son named Nathan. There were several Nathan Browning's in the US who were contemporaries of our Nathan Browning. Can we be sure which one is ours? Looking at Census records of the children of Nathan Browning (Nathan died before the 1850 Census contained birthplaces, as did his wife) the older children state they were born in Tennessee. This would support Roger Browning as being Nathan's father since there were no other Nathan Browning's in the early Tennessee records.

Probably the strongest supporting circumstantial evidence is the fact Lina Dayton, named as Roger's daughter in his 1828 will, ends up with her husband Joseph in Pleasant Run Township, Lawrence County, Indiana. The same township Nathan Browning and Obedience McPike lived in.

Roger Browning's 1828 Will Greene County, TN naming daughter Lina Dayton

How do we know Lina Dayton, named in her husband Joseph Dayton's will, is the same Lina Dayton named in her father Roger's will? A very strong piece of evidence appears in her husband Joseph Dayton's will. One of Lina and  Joseph's children is named Browning Dayton. We have to thank Joseph and Lina for solidifying the Browning connection by naming a son Browning!

Joseph Dayton's will Lawrence County, Indiana

To make these connections even firmer Nathan Browning and Obedience McPike had a daughter named Melinda. Lina's name was actually Melinda, this niece appears to have been named after her.

Here we have Melinda Browning/Ramsey 1850 Census
States she was born in Tennessee
 
My mother matched a descendant of Melinda "Lina" Browning/Dayton at AncestryDNA, which provides even more support for our Browning pedigree (we also match a descendant of Roger's daughter Sala Dewes, she was also named in his will).
.
Edna Kapple DNA match

I'm always on the lookout for more information. It would be great if a document specifically stated the Browning's of Lawrence County, Indiana came from Greene County, Tennessee. Haven't found a document with that direct statement yet. The evidence we have is strong anyway.

William McPike is the only McPike I can find on early records for Tennessee. All of Obedience McPike/Browning's children agree that she was born in Tennessee about 1789. Obedience also named a son William. I'm confident William is her father. I'll keep looking for more evidence however.

Everyone seems to have William McPike's wife, and Obedience's mother, as Obedience Holloway. I can't find any documentation to support this? Apparently William McPike and William Holloway built a road in Washington County, according to a minutes book for that county. Not sure what sort of document states that William's wife was a Holloway? I do find a William Holloway on an 1805 Taxlist for Greene County, TN. If she was a Holloway William may have been her brother?

I'm still trying to figure out where in Greene, Sullivan,  and Washington counties the Brownings and McPikes lived. I need to collect up the deeds. It appears William McPike purchased land 140 acres of land from Shadrack Hale (Washington County Deeds book 4, page 23 July 20, 1789). Since William McPike appears on a Greene County tax list in 1783 (Nolichucky Settlers) it appears he was living on land in Washington bordering Greene County? On February 8, 1796 William McPike buys 250 acres of land from William Rosberry. It was located on the Limestone Fork of Lick Creek in Greene County (book 2, page 445 Greene County Deeds). He sold this land December 28, 1796 (book 6, page 156 Greene County, TN Deeds). The following year on Christmas day William bought 220 acres on Tory creek (now Long Creek?) in Cocke County, TN. I don't have any of the actual deeds. I am hoping the actual deeds contain more family information?

As for Roger Browning I don't have any deeds or deed index information. I had associated him with Greene County more than his in-law William McPike. Now it appears William McPike was in Greene County in 1783 with the other Nolichucky Settlers. Roger doesn't appear in Greene County until around 1800. Before that he is living in Sullivan County, where his likely brother Amsey Browning also lived. He first purchased land in Sullivan County in 1789. Apparently the deed says the land is on Kendrick Creek? I'm not sure where his land in Greene County was, but it may have been near his son's land on Caney Branch?

1919 DAR magazine
I've written to the North Carolina Archives to get a copy of William McPike's Revolutionary War file. I think it may just be a voucher? I thought I saw somewhere that he hired a substitute? I may be completely wrong? According to a 1919 article from DAR magazine all of the able bodied men living in Washington County in 1780 would likely have fought at the Battle of Kings Mountain, and some would have went on to Yorktown. The McPike's seem to believe William did serve at both of these locations. There was another William McPike from Pennsylvania who was indeed at Yorktown. Not sure if two William McPike's were at Yorktown?

Naming patterns, Roger Browning's 1828 will in Greene County, TN, documents naming the birthplaces of the Browning family of Indiana, and DNA have been important in establishing our Browning lineage and roots in Tennessee.

I'll be collecting up the actual deeds, and hopefully getting a copy of the Revolutionary War document or documents soon.

Visiting the Sycamore Shoals Museum sparked my interest in finding out
whether William McPike fought at King's mountain


Saturday, August 27, 2016

Proving A Tennessee First Families Line To 1796





I just returned from the "First Families of Tennessee Reunion & Jubilee" 2016 in Knoxville. I had a wonderful time! A distant cousin provided great company, and drove me to all the family sites. Nice since I don't know anyone else in the area. I attended the conference and learned a great deal about Tennessee and Virginia research that I didn't know. I will have to do research in Virginia Civil Parish records now. The yearly property line processioning records could be useful for me. Also I need to find out who the Forgey family landlord was in Co. Louth Ireland in hopes his records contain some family information. The Scots-Irish presentation was outstanding.

I would like to join "First Families of Tennessee" and get the certificate. I'm not sure which line contains the best proof. I will read through the instructions for acceptance carefully before submitting an ancestral line. I have two, out of 3, lines which should qualify. One line is my Roger Browning line. My other line would be the Andrew Forgey  line. The Forgey family was in Tennessee by 1780.

Here is the proof for the Andrew Forgey ancestral lineage:


 
The obituary is proof my ancestor Andrew was in Tennessee in 1794. Although probably not the best proof since this is a secondary source.  
 
Circumstantial evidence points to a Hugh Forgey being Andrew's father. All other Forgey couples in Knox County have identified children. Hugh Forgey and Catherine Fisher are the only couple living in Knox County at the time of Andrew's birth without identified children. Also, Andrew had a brother Archibald who appears to have been named after Hugh's father-in-law Archibald Fisher. And my ancestor Hugh Forgey, Andrew's son, appears to be named after his grandfather Hugh Forgey. My Andrew born 1794 would have also been named after his Forgey grandfather. Hugh's name first appears in Tennessee records in 1786, when he signs a petition for the division of Sullivan County. Hugh's parents were Andrew Forgey and Margaret Reynolds. Andrew Forgey was granted land in Sullivan County in 1780. 
. 
Every US Census Andrew Forgey, born 1794, appeared on states he was born in Tennessee 
 

 
A Forgey family bible lists my ancestor Hugh Forgey as Andrew Forgey, born 1794's, son.  (it does not date to the time period, but instead contains entries transcribed from another older family bible along with contemporary mid to late 1800's entries)
 
The above bible entry is proof of descent from my ancestor Hugh Forgey, son of Andrew.
 
The next link in the chain to myself would be Hugh's son William Wray Forgey. I have Hugh's will and a Census record to prove this link.
 
 

 
William Wray Forgey's son Charles Lynn Forgey was my Grandfather. I would establish the link between Charles and his father with the 1910 US Census.
 
 
I would establish the relationship between Charles L. Forgey and his daughter, my mother, Edna with the 1940 Census.
 


 
I would use my own birth certificate to prove my relationship to my mother.
 
Proving the Browning line would begin with Roger Browning:
 
The East Tennessee Historical Society already has an approved descendant of Roger Browning. I don't need to prove Roger was in Tennessee prior to 1796, since this is already established. The First Family descendant of Roger used a 1789 deed for Sullivan County, TN as proof.
 
I would use Roger Browning's will to prove Nathan was his son:
 
 
My Ancestor Richard Washington Browning was a son of Nathan. I would use Richard's death certificate to prove that relationship. I can't find this document, unfortunately, so I will order another copy.
 
I would use my Great-Grandmother Isis Browning-Forgey's Obituary to prove her relationship to her father.
 
 
If that isn't enough I also have Isis Browning-Forgey's death certificate.
 
 


 
From here I would use the 1910 Census, 1940 Census, and my birth certificate.
 
William McPike:
 
Another early Tennessee settler ancestor of mine would be William McPike. I'm finding several problems with some of the research I've found posted about him. There does appear to be a payment voucher for him located at the North Carolina archives. The payment was made out to someone living in the Tennessee area, voucher #59, folio 2, special cert #3437. It is most likely for my ancestor William McPike. He is said to have fought at the Revolutionary Battle of King's Mountain. That is possible, but I thought I read somewhere that he hired a substitute? Also several people have stated he was at the battle of Yorktown. I believe that was a different William McPike. That man was fighting in a Pennsylvania regiment, not a North Carolina regiment.
 
If I were to use William McPike as my "First Families of Tennessee" ancestor I have no idea how I could prove my ancestor Obedience McPike's relationship, other than some circumstantial evidence? It looks like a number of William McPike's descendants have applied for membership in the DAR. I could order a packet of supporting documents from the DAR to see how William's children were proven?
 
I will probably join using my Roger Browning ancestor since my mother was most interested in the Browning line. I think she would approve.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Monday, June 20, 2016

At A Standstill With Autosomal DNA

Don't mistake my post as criticism of autosomal DNA. It's a very useful test. However to make use of it for genealogy purposes we need to map segments. If you are looking for your parents, siblings, 1rst cousins mapping isn't necessary. Adoptees can get results without mapping segments. Genealogists, generally, are not looking for close relatives.

The problem I've run up against is the DNA testing company with the most good matches doesn't provide exact segment information. Everyone knows this is AncestryDNA. What I have managed to do is reconfirm, over and over, that I am indeed related by blood to several paper trail ancestors.

23andMe isn't much better. They have a great chromosome browser, and now they have a great common match feature, but they don't have a way to post a tree at their site. No trees means not much progress using their site. I have, however, been able to collect some segments for my DNA mapping, which sure beats AncestryDNA. Family Tree DNA is a bust now too, because they have failed to attract enough testers. I haven't gotten a good match with them in a long time. I have in the past been able to collect some important segment data. Now that Ancestry is dominating the market for DNA testing Family Tree DNA seems to have had a steep decline in the number of testers.

Everyone says just ask your AncestryDNA matches to compare at GEDmatch. I have not been lucky enough to have many agree. My top matches, generally, have not to date agreed to upload to GEDmatch. Without being able to map my chromosomes with large segments from 2nd to 3rd cousins it's impossible to confirm where the smaller segments come from. I could put together a great chromosome map if only AncestryDNA somehow provided a chromosome browser. I would love to resolve a brickwall on my Campbell line using autosomal DNA, but can't without a chromosome map. Establishing exactly which segments relate to which families is critical to success with autosomal DNA. This can't always be done if, for instance, you are from an endogamous population. I do have ancestors who were French Canadian. This population is very interrelated. The French Canadian segments are useful anyway. They tell me these segments came from my maternal Great-Great Grandfather. Aside from the French Canadian line my family isn't endogamous.

Recently I'm noticing some matches sharing substantial amounts of DNA at AncestryDNA, such a 91 cM share. I know exactly how we are related since the match has a tree posted. I'm hoping that this match agrees to upload to GEDmatch. This alone won't be very helpful, however, without many more matches also sharing their segment information. It's the aggregate segment data that is so powerful when it comes to using autosomal.

AncestryDNA cites the danger of matches discovering inherited disease information about a match through segment data as the reason they will not provide exact segment info. I'm afraid without the exact segment information the test isn't very useful for genealogists.

AncestryDNA really painted themselves into a corner by not providing the ability to share segments early on. They've decided to ignore this important tool and provide New Ancestor Discoveries and Circles. I've written in my blog about how a 4th cousin and I shared some of the same NAD's. This line has a brickwall too, so  I was very interested in the origins of the NAD matches. I tried to workout how we were all possibly related. Those NAD's have now been removed by AncestryDNA. I guess we aren't likely related after all, or at least within the genealogical time frame. This waste of time could have been better spent mapping chromosomes.

I'll keep trying to persuade AncestryDNA matches to upload to GEDmatch. Otherwise I will remain at a standstill.


Tuesday, May 10, 2016

To Phase Or Not To Phase? Plus, She's Back?

My to Quack or not to Quack souvenir  from my recent vacation

 

That is the question...

Is the phasing and filtering AncestryDNA does worth the extra processing? I've wavered about this for years. It sounds like a great idea. On a theoretical basis it is. In practice not so much. The phasing AncestryDNA does attempts to use haplotypes to separate the DNA we inherit from each parent. The results are also filtered in order to remove matches who share population segments. When I listened to an Ancestry representative explain the haplotype method she did say there was an error rate with the phasing. Some haplotypes haven't been encountered before. Removing population segments, with filtering, isn't helpful for me since these segments at least tell me which ethnic group a segment comes from.

A recent update to the AncestryDNA product has many discussing the merits of this companies approach to matching. An issue was brought up at the Facebook ISOGG group which I hadn't noticed. Before the recent AncestryDNA update parents and children were said to share up to 90 segments of DNA. According to the other companies around 30 segments are shared. This vast discrepancy is due to the fact Ancestry's phasing and filtering chops up segments. The recent update has brought the number of shared segments down to the 50's. Still many more than the other companies.

I've posted about the fact that during AncestryDNA's previous update, when Timber was introduced, a 3rd cousin went missing. I checked to see if she was returned immediately after the update finished. I didn't see her listed as a 3rd or 4th cousin so I assumed she wasn't returned with this update. Going through hints yesterday I found her. She has returned. She is listed as a 5th to 8th cousin now. What does this tell me? First of all the prediction is off. Secondly it tells me the AncestryDNA product is still in a state of flux and who knows what will happen with future updates? Apparently someone can match you today, and may be removed in the future, just to possibly be returned somewhere down the line?

I didn't find that any close matches were removed this time. I did find several distant cousin matches had been removed. It's possible these matches do match DNA wise? AncestryDNA states it is possible good matches were removed.

I would rather see AncestryDNA do away with the phasing and filtering. Shuffling matches in and out of our lists doesn't make any sense. It's just confusing. Does the phasing and filtering improve match results? Not in my case. Predictions at the 3rd cousin range and beyond are impossible to get exactly right. I'm not even sure if phasing and filtering helps improve predictions for closer cousins? What it can do is remove good matches.

One thing is certain, every time AncestryDNA updates results they get publicity. As someone once said "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Recap Of Sunday's SL Discussion: Working With Segments

We've been having DNA discussions in the virtual world of Second Life (just consult the "Genealogists In Second Life" page at Facebook for more details). Our next discussion will be on Sunday May 1, 2016.
Here is a recap of our last meeting Sunday April 3, 2016.
This slide shows a view from the 23andme chromosome browser

 
  • The browser shows our 23 pairs of chromosomes. One row from our Mother the other from our Father
  • It shows where my Mom, a match, and I share DNA.
  • Mom shares from side to side on each chromosome (the purple lines).
  • Match is represented by the red segments
  • Does she match my Mom?
  • We would check either my Mom or my matches match list and see if they match
  • We would then check the chromosome browser to verify they match on the same chromosomes in the same place
  • Another view (above) of a chromosome browser shows the pair of 23 chromosomes, plus the X
  • I've listed some alleles (i.e., A's, G's, C's, T's) which are used to determine who matches 
  • One line across each chromosome always represents a parent. The companies can't tell which alleles come from which parent. Only testing parents can work this out, in order to list the alleles separately and correctly for each parent. Without that its up to software to figure this out
  • AncestryDNA phases results without parents. This often produces good results, according to them. They acknowledge a small error rate
  • The same positions are tested for each parent
  • Because of that segments two, or more, matches may look like they match in the chromosome browser. You must know whether the match is a match on the paternal or maternal side to know whether overlapping segments represent a match
  • I tested my mother so I can narrow down the possibilities
  • I borrowed someone else's grandparents to demonstrate how having grandparents segments is useful in establishing IBD segments and finding a more precise relationship with matches.
  • Here you can see the possible 3rd cousin match also has the same matching segments as she had with my mother. She matches my maternal grandmother on the same segments
  • As it turns out she is also Nicaraguan. Just like my grandmother
  • These segments are certainly IBD

  • You can see (in the slide above) that the other set of grandparents don't share the same red segments. This confirms there is no match on the paternal side
  • This view shows the segments that my grandparents gave me through my father. The side to side shares from parents are divided up by segments they got from their parents. Siblings receive different assortments of DNA from grandparents.
  • Grandparents DNA is further segmented with DNA from their parents
  • This chain of inherited DNA continues back in time, until we not longer share DNA with certain ancestors
  • Notice here how the paternal grandparents segments fit together like puzzle pieces (above)

  • If you don't have living grandparents you can recreate the segments your grandparents gave to you by testing and comparing segments with 2nd cousins
  • There is also a way to test siblings to find start and end points for grandparents shares

  • Downloading segment data from Family Tree DNA , 23andMe, and GEDmatch allows you to compare segments from matches from all three places
  • You can upload and compare the segments at third party sites such as Kitty's Chromosome Mapper. Or you can download a free app from Genomate Pro (good idea to donate too). This software will allow you to store and compare your segment match data.

  • Triangulation is useful for all testers. The definition of triangulation is having a matching or overlapping segment with two matches or more
  • It's especially useful if you don't have close relatives who have tested. In such cases a good triangulation can establish a segment as identical by descent, or not a false match
  • Triangulated shared segments, or overlaps, should overlap by at least 7 cM's
  • When triangulating without establishing segments as identical by descent, using close relatives, it's best to use segments in the IBD range. According to Dr. Tim Janzen 15 cM and 2500 SNP segments are more likely to be IBD
 
  • In September of 2015 Vee got in contact with me through 23andMe's messaging system. She asked me to look over her list of names, and said she had a tree on Ancestry. I determined the most likely connection was through the surname Grenier.  I have French Canadian Ancestors with that surname. Her ancestors did not come to the US through Quebec, however. Instead they came from France to New York in the 1700's
 
 
  • Last week I began using Genome Mate Pro. This app allows you to look at shared segments on each chromosome from various sources. I noticed Vee, my Paternal Aunt, a Paternal First Cousin, and a third cousin on the paternal side all matched on chromosome 6 in the same place. I found 2 others who also matched
  • I had to dig a little to find trees for the two additional matches. When I compared everyone, except my 3rd cousin, and closer relatives, I found they all shared many of the same surnames, and all had Southern roots 
  • It also dawned on me that the names shared by these 3 common matches were also the surnames associated with  all my NAD's
  • Looking through the NAD's again I believe our common connection has something to do with the surname Douglas. I had first thought Troxell was the common surname, but one match in the NAD's doesn't share that surname. Still trying to work out our connection because I don't have Douglas on my tree?
  • All of these matches share 25 to 32 cM segments, and around 8000 SNPs, on chromosome 6. This makes it nearly certain the shared segments are identical by descent
Someone at the discussion asked "Once you have verified your segment matches, did you then establish documentation through public records etc..?" Yes. You need to also compare documented trees to see how you might be related to a match. Unfortunately it's difficult to document trees at Family Tree DNA. Or maybe it's just not as straight forward? You can add stories and notes to your Family Tree DNA tree, which many of us, including me, haven't done.
 
We also discussed the fact that it's difficult to get AncestryDNA matches to respond to messages, let alone upload to GEDmatch.
 
Another problem with AncestryDNA that we talked about is the lack of specific segment data, which hampers our ability to make the correct DNA connection with our matches. Matches can match through more than one couple; so segment mapping would help to determine which couple the DNA likely came from.
 
Another problem someone brought up was the need to meet the genealogy proof standard, regarding the lack of segment data at AncestryDNA. Scholarly genealogy journal articles, which refer to DNA testing, include exact segment data. Without the exact data and comparisons your proof argument won't hold up to scrutiny.  
 
Next meeting we will discuss GEDmatch.

 
 
 
 
 

 

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Do We Need To Be Scientists To Use Our DNA Results?

No, I don't think we do need to be scientists to work with our segment data. We don't have access to actual data to scientifically analyze our own results as far as coming up with IBD statistics anyway. We can look at population genetics, but these scientists haven't evaluated the results from the new large genetic genealogy databases. They can't tell us what the likelihood the 15 cM segment we share with a match is from our common 4 x great-grandparents.

As genetic genealogy testing consumers we must rely on the data analysis the companies are providing us with. Companies like AncestryDNA are putting out statistics like these:


To me a 99% probability is good? This would imply that my Aunt's 5th cousin match sharing a 20 and 15.7 cM segment more than likely shares IBD segments? The 99% probability means they likely share an ancestor within the past 6 generations. If we take away 10 cM's  for phasing, timber etc. we are still in the 99% probability range.

 
 
Here I've crossed out lines that are not Colonial American in my Aunt Loretta's tree. Most of these ancestors came to the US at the turn of the 20th Century. The only line that would correspond with this match would be through Mary Owens born 1852. Her ancestors were all Colonial Americans. Aunt Loretta's 5th cousin match has mostly Colonial Virginian ancestry. I haven't traced any lines expect one back to Colonial Virginia. I have my Aunt's lines back 6 generations, and more, except in Ireland. I feel confident after examining the tree of our match, and my Aunt's tree, that any matching segments more likely than not match to our Colonial American ancestors.



If we find a triangulation on one of these segments, with good overlap, and that happened to be a 5th cousin match, I don't understand why that would be suspect either? As some would say. They would agree with this statement by Ancestry "In populations that have grown rapidly in the past 200 to 300 years, individuals are more likely to be related to each other through two or more ancestral couples. Such population growth may also lead to marriages between related individuals, such as second cousins. As in the founder effect, this also leads to an excess of DNA sharing, but due to multiple common ancestors living one to two hundred years ago, rather than thousands of years ago." The triangulation naysayers would say how can you tell where such a segment comes from if you might share several ancestral lines? Maybe you can use segment mapping or build out your tree as far as possible? Some are also saying that segments shared between those with many Colonial American lines are the result of endogamy. Read Ancestry's statement again. They are saying they aren't seeing the founders effect?

At AncestryDNA the lack of segment data makes it impossible for us to even try to decide which lines, out of maybe a couple possibilities, we might match on. You don't have to be a scientist to map segments.

I think most of the experts in the genetic genealogy field would agree with this statement from Ancestry:"The longer the stretches of evidence for identical haplotypes the more evidence there is that the identity is due to a recent common ancestor."

 From Ancestry "Our test set contains over 150 genotyped samples from a large family with a well-researched pedigree containing about 2,500 relationships that vary from 1 meiosis to 15 meioses. In order to estimate recall, we must know whether a given pair of individuals has IBD." Ancestry compared 150 samples to find IBD, so we can find IBD by comparison. Wonder if they had Colonial American ancestors? I realize they only used this test set for finding IBD in close relatives, but this would seem to suggest mapping would help in establishing a relationship with more distant relatives.

We need the studies carried out by Ancestry and the other companies to guide us as to whether our matches have a good chance of sharing ancestors within the past 6 generations. We need good statistics regarding the likelihood a segment is IBD. Personally if a segment has a good chance of being IBD and I share a set of common ancestors with a match I have little doubt where the segment came from.

Reading Ancestry's white paper for matches did give me some pause for thought...
"third cousins, in fact, are only about 98% likely to have any IBD." Only? That's a pretty high percentage to me? That statement is a little troubling. I hope the rest of the reasoning behind their analysis is better?

Given the chance I think non scientists, provided with segment IBD probabilities and good trees, can make valid connections with matches

Friday, February 26, 2016

Comparing Match cMs At Different Sites

After a discussion at ISOGG Facebook I decided compare the data from matches who have results in multiple places including AncestryDNA, Family Tree DNA, 23andMe, and GEDmatch. I copied all my mother's match names from these site. I then sorted the names alphabetically. I found it was impossible to compare with AncestryDNA testers because most do not use their first and last names. Because so few testers use first and last names I was not able to use this method to find testers who were also in the other databases. It would be too time consuming to pick out those using their own first and last names. So I decided to do a more scaled down comparison using known cousins who have results in multiple places.

My results demonstrate that segment cM's are generally close to the same when comparing at Family Tree DNA, 23andMe, and GEDmatch. I did find a case where a segment cM's were 10 cM's apart between Family Tree DNA and GEDmatch. SNP totals at GEDmatch are often lower. Now I know to turn down the SNP totals when comparing at GEDmatch. I'll use 500 SNPs now.


Since AncestryDNA doesn't share their segment information I couldn't compare using segment totals. Instead I compared with cM totals. I didn't use segments under 7 cM's in the Family Tree DNA totals. It looks like GEDmatch always has the highest total cMs.  Ancestry always has the lowest. The average difference between Ancestry DNA and the other sites is 17 cM's. AncestryDNA phases and filters matches raw results, which is the reason for the differences in total cMs

Most of these matches are predicted in about the same cousin range at Ancestry and the other sites. The problem can be seen in my first chart. 23andMe, Family Tree DNA, and GEDmatch all show the person in chart one line 1 as a match. This person did test at Ancestry isn't a match with my mother there, even though she is a confirmed 4th cousin. I hadn't noticed until putting this together. I'm noticing more matches at the other sites who don't match at Ancestry. I have at least 5 confirmed cousins who did match at Ancestry, but don't now. Likely because of Timber. I'm not seeing this when looking at matches elsewhere. I'm sure some don't match at Family Tree DNA, but match elsewhere because of the 20 cM requirement. I have not encountered that because 1 cM segments are included.

Someone said if the results are different between sites what difference does it make? Ok, if each company has slightly different ranges but come up with the same matches then there isn't any problem. If confirmed cousin matches are being lost than I believe the companies should be rethinking their testing and matching procedures. Third cousins, and more distant cousins, are the ones affected by unreliable matching techniques. If a match shares only once segment they are more likely to be disappear as a match with additional processing.


Putting this together I have found more difficulties working with AncestryDNA than the others sites.
  1. Ancestry doesn't allow you to download matches or their cM numbers (I used the chrome extension. Doesn't include cMs). 23andMe and Family Tree DNA allow you to download spreadsheets.
  2. Ancestry should encourage testers to provide full names if they want to participate in sharing with other testers. I understand why some may not want to use their real names. They should use a consistent pseudonym, and use it everywhere, if they want to collaborate.
  3. It would be nice if we could filter matches by total cMs.  
  4. It would be nice if we could search by username.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Triangulation Example

 
 
Some ISOGG group members at Facebook have been wanting to see examples of triangulation at the 6th cousin level. My Melvin family segment triangulations would be closest to this cousin range. One match is a 5th cousin 1x removed, which is pretty much equivalent. This triangulation is with descendants of  John Melvin b. abt. 1776, Maryland and Mary Redden b. abt. 1777 Maryland. The Melvin segment matches are as follows (see chart above, which includes my Aunt, myself, and two other distant cousins):
  1. The light blue segment, on chromosome 1, represents my Aunt on my Paternal side. She shares this 22.1 cM segment with a 3rd cousin. This match is a descendant of our common ancestors John Melvin and Mary Redden.
  2. The light pink segment, on Chromosome 1, of the same size is my segment match with the same person as my Aunt. This is a 3rd cousin 1 x removed to me.
  3. The smaller dark pink segment sandwiched between the ones described above belongs to another John Melvin and Mary Redden match. This 14.2 segment is also shared by my Aunt and myself. This match is a 5th cousin to my Aunt, and a 5th cousin 1x removed to me.
  4. The green segment is where the 3rd cousin range match, to my aunt and myself, matches our 5th cousin range match. These 5th cousins share a slightly larger segment which is 18.6 cMs. You'll notice it extends passed the segments my aunt and I share.
Elijah Hicks and John Melvin sign
marriage bond
Both of our Melvin matches have good trees. Our 5th cousin range match has all lines going out at least 6 generations. Looking at other possible lines which may also be the source of these segments I don't see any other matching ancestors.

My proof of relationship to this Melvin family is through  US Census research, a bible record, and the Elijah Hicks and Nancy Melvin marriage record.

Examining whether these segments are likely IBD it would seem that they are in that cM range. Checking to see if my mother shares the same segment on chromosome 1 with all of these matches. No she doesn't match. You can see here my comparison between my paternal aunt with my mother. All of our Melvin matches matched between 165,698,481 to 180,598,459 on chromo 1,:

My Mom and my Paternal Aunt's shares in the same place as a 3rd cousin and 5th  Melvin cousin match



Looking a little more for possible places where our ancestors may have crossed paths I made this chart. Are we all from the same ethnic background? Could these be population segments? My paternal aunt and I have a fairly unique ethnic makeup. My 3x great-grandparents William Owens b. 1820 and Nancy Hick b. 27 Oct 1831 and their ancestors make up our only Colonial American line.

 
 
 
Here you see our lines are Austro-Hungarian, French Canadian, Colonial American, and Irish Catholic.  When looking at the places of origin for the Melvin matches of my aunt and I, we find both have quite a bit of Colonial Ancestry. I don't see any other shared ancestors between either of the other two testers. We all have Colonial Ancestry, but no other shared ancestors. My Colonial line on the paternal side is very small. Neither tester has French Canadian roots like my Aunt and I. Neither has Burgenland, Austria ancestry, as my Aunt and I do. They don't have Irish Catholic roots either. Our 3rd cousin match has a large Scandinavian line, which none of the rest of us have.

I think it's more likely than not that this Melvin Family triangulation is a good triangulation.

Some of those who would discredit triangulation would say, well it could just be a coincidence that we all match in the same place on chromosome 1. They would also say it's nearly impossible to share segments with cousins in that range. Chances of matching at all at that range are minuscule. It would be like being struck by lightening to triangulate at that cousin distance, so they would say. What are the chances we would all match in the same place and share the same ancestors? Wouldn't that be as unusual if you are sticking with statistical probability? I have a feeling we have a long way to go before we even really know what the statistical probabilities are? We aren't able to do enough comparisons, or look at enough possible triangulations to get an idea of how likely or unlikely they are to occur. A company is holding a huge amount our genome information, but they aren't sharing it with customers. They will sell genomes for medical research though.

PS This company now has no chromosome browser in 29 countries!



Wednesday, February 17, 2016

DNA On Fire AncestryDNA 4th Quarter 2015 Report


The Fourth Quarter, and 2015 full year report, at AncestryDNA emphasized the importance of the DNA product. This product has resulted in an increase in Ancestry subscriptions, which is Ancestry's core product. The 1 million new testers in 2015 helped increase subscriptions from 2,115,000  in the year ending December 2014, to the 2,264,000 in the year ending Dec 2015. An increase of  149,000. The subscribers who came to Ancestry through the DNA product are more engaged, and tend to subscribe to more expensive packages. They also tend to renew their subscriptions, according to Ancestry.

AncestryDNA now has 1.5 million testers in their database. The reason we are not seeing more tools like, a chromosome browser, is because sales are "on fire" according to one Ancestry Official. Black Friday 2015 sales were up 200% over last year. AncestryDNA has a lower profit margin than subscriptions, so as long as sales are brisk we won't be seeing new tools which would cost money to add.

The Ancestry Executives were also asked if the new medical focus has resulted in more hacking attempts? One Executive said he didn't want to divulge that information. Interesting at that point in the conference call the line suddenly went dead. I thought, were they hacked lol?

One Executive said a show Ancestry is sponsoring will likely increase DNA sales. Long Lost Family which will premiere its second season on TLC  March 6, 2016 will be sponsored by Ancestry. Sounds like it's based on a British show.

The sentiment regarding the DNA product's 2015 sales, and the current 2016 sales, has led these CEO's to forecast continued fiery sales of the DNA kits in 2016.