Is your project using "more" markers? (4/3/06)

[Terry Barton]

Some projects seem content to operate at "low" or participant-decided number of markers, while other projects set a minimum number of markers that must be ordered.? And, other projects have clamored for "more" markers.

Here are the marker counts offered by the various companies:

FTDNA: 12, 25, 37, 59
RG:? ? ? ?26, 43
DNAH:? ?23-43
DNAF:? ?0-80
EA:? ? ? ?18

By combining the markers from the various labs, one man can test 93 different markers - for a substantial cost.

The recent offering of 59 markers for $269 (through a project) or $99 to upgrade a prior marker result brings the possibility of comparing more markers down to a much more affordable price.

So the Question of the Week: Is your project using "more" markers?? If so, why? (and how?)

[Terry Barton]

The Barton DNA Project passed its 5 year anniversary last month.? The project has been one of the leaders in using "more" markers, starting with BYU/Relative Genetics at 23/26 markers, and then moving to FTDNA to use their 37 marker test, which has been our "standard" test for the past 2 years.

We already had 111 men tested at 26 markers when we switched to FTDNA as our primary testing company.? We are now at 157 men.? We have results at every possible level (12, 25, 26, 37, 42, 43 & 48) that existed in late 2005.?

Our biggest challenge is our R1b1  Barton Lineage I, with 68 men. There are 26 families in this Lineage that cannot connect their paper trails to each other.? The latest the common ancestor could have been born was in the 1620s, but we suspect it was earlier.

We have established a 48 marker ancestral haplotype For Barton Lineage I and still find only a few "branches" from shared mutations.? We have been seeking an economical way to test even more markers to see if we can find additional branching through more markers.

We currently have a carefully selected group of 15 men who have ordered the 37 to 59 marker upgrade.? This will raise our total number of markers to 68.? We are hoping to see additional branching emerge.? If we do, we'll encourage more of our men to upgrade to fill out the details.

Our project results page is at:? http://www.bartonsite.org/Modals/Modals.htm

And our family pedigrees are at our Family History page:
http://www.bartonsite.org/inc_family_history/inc_family_history.html

I will provide a project summary as results are available.

Terry Barton

p.s.? This project was presented at the Second International Conference on Genetic Genealogy in Washington DC on Nov 4, 2005

[Terry Barton]

The Hodges DNA project is now 2 years old and is approaching its 50th man.? ?This project is similar to the Barton project, starting at RG and moving to FTDNA, but moving at a much earlier stage in its history.  The FTDNA 37 marker test is our "Standard".

The R1b1 Lineage I has 15 men from 13 families, all tested at 37 markers, with 6 also tested at 43 markers, establishing an ancestral haplotype of 48 markers.? The 13 families cannot connect their paper trails and the latest a common ancestor could be born is 1660.

Four men have upgraded from 37 to 59 markers, which will give us 20 additional markers to review for branching.? (Men with their earliest ancestor in teal have upgraded)? Here is our website:?

http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/h/hodges/results.html

I will post updates as results are available.

Terry Barton

[Ed Robson]

Terry, When you say "The latest the common ancestor could have been born was in the 1620s" how do you define that?  We all know that he FTDNATiP provides a curve that shows a lower probability of a common ancestor in more recent time periods with the probability increasing as we go further back in time.  What probability threshhold do you use when you make the above statement?

[Terry Barton]

Ed, the conclusion that the most recent common ancestor of Barton Lineage I was born no later than the 1620s is based purely on paper trails.?

I use the FTDNATiP calculator only as a reference tool to see if there is reason for hope - or doubt.? My experience with the range of statistical probabilities certainly affects my reluctance to put much stock in the statistics - as the ranges in the probabilities are so very wide.? I am also cautious about FTDNA's mutation rate - as it is considerably higher than what we have seen in Barton Lineage I.

Here are our two extremes:

1. My uncle and I are 41/43 - using RG's test.? This is 1.5 generations.? ?(we have learned through extensive testing that my father generated one of the two mutations and I generated the other.)?

From DNA calculations, the probability of my uncle and I being related in 1.5 generations is

- 1.8% at .004 mutation rate
- 0.3% at .002 mutation rate

Looking at it another way: a 50% probability of our relationship, would require

-? ?8.1 generations at .004 mutation rate
- 16.1 generations at .002 mutation rate

2. My uncle and Richard Barton are 43/43.? (they don't share a common ancestor any later than that one born in the 1620s.? My guess is that it was earlier.? The least it could be is 10 generations)

The probability of their relationship in 10 generations is

- 82.1% at .004 mutation rate
- 96.8% at .002 mutation rate

If you used only the above DNA test results, you would assume that my uncle and Richard are much closer related than my uncle and me - and you would be very wrong.? We have to give careful valuation to the paper trails - as clearly, my uncle and I are much more closely related.

Another aspect - WHICH markers you have been tested on also makes a difference.?

Richard and I are 35/37, 40/42. 41/43 and 45/48.? I estimate that my Uncle and Richard are 36/37, 41/42 and? 47/48 and that my uncle and I are 36/37, 41/42 and 46/48.? Only one of the three mutations in this analysis is common to FTDNA and RG - each of the other two show up in only one company's tests.

If you compare at 42 markers (RG26 + FTDNA37) - my uncle and I are 41/42 and my uncle and Richard are (estimated) 41/42 - identical separations.

Only at 48 markers are my uncle and I (46/48 estimated) closer than Richard and me (45/48).? But, my uncle and Richard are still closest (47/48 estimated)

BOTTOM LINE: use mutations and genetic separation as a guide - not a precise calculation.? And, when you cane - compare each man to the ancestral haplotype instead of man to man and identify the mutations as specific information, not simply differences.

Terry

ps? I used this calculator:? http://www.moseswalker.com/mrca/calculator.asp?q=2 as I needed one that would deal with many variations

[Claire_T]

The Sinclair project is using 25 markers and they already have some interesting results.
http://www.stclairresearch.com

Claire

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

The Nolan DNA Surname project only has 17 participants with 14 posted results, but I am not sure it is a good idea for any surname project to limit access based on a participants disposable income. Our surname project certainly needs more participants rather than limiting access based on a participants disposable income. After all, genealogy is a hobby for most people. Why would any surname project exclude participants based on income or the ability to afford a more substantial DNA test? Isn't the purpose to include as many participants as possible and encourage everyone to test their DNA at whatever level the participant can afford??

Glenn Allen Nolen
ganolen@gmail.com

[Terry Barton]

Glenn, while I encourage at least 37 markers in my ancestral projects, it is not a requirement for participation.  We have had folks start at 12 and 25 markers. 

I am aware of projects that do not allow participation unless the participant purchases a certain number of markers - and I personally disagree with that approach - for the same reasons you cite.

Terry

[joeflood]

I havent put a marker requirement on anyone, but I believe I may have to put a "sharing of ancestry" requirement. We have a couple of folks who have jumped on but wont tell us anything about their ancestry - so they are dead wood really.

Joe Flood
administrator Coadcoode onename and DNA projects

[Terry Barton]

Joe, a number of admins have expressed this concern.  I hate to see this happen - but understand your frustration.

Have you considered telling them that they have x weeks after their results are returned to provide their ancestry - or they will be removed from the project? 

And - maybe some statement that you understand that some folks have privacy concerns and that you are willing to not share any of their ancestry after some date - say 1900 or 1850 - if that will help them decide to provide their ancestry.  And if they wish not to be listed as contact or researcher, you will be the "go-between"

Terry