Genealogy Chat

Karen No, your family's DNA does not die out. Your father's three daughters(!) however, did not inherit a Y chromosome, which is what we are talking about here, from their father they inherited his X chromosome, which itself contains combined chromosomes from both his mother and his father. DNA testing can be done on "whole chromosomes" but it is extremely complicated, time consuming and expensive because you have to unravel the double helix."Whole chromosomes" contain absolutely masses of information, much of which is repeated time and time again.It is not the first tool of genealogy, although it is extremely useful in crime situations. Y chromosomes are much simpler (they are in fact incomplete and broken X chromosomes - a man is a broken woman, ha ha) and that is why they are useful in tracing a paternal line. They mutate reasonably frequently so you can tell roughly at which generation a mutation took place. Mitochondrial DNA is useful in tracing female lines, but as it mutates very slowly (about once every 4000 generations) it is only used in a broad sense to show where your female ancestors originated geographically. So dont fret, your family's DNA is safe, its only the Y chromosome which has disappeared - and that was broken anyway!

here is a thought......my father had no sons, only 3 daughters. What happens to those lines?? My sons would have their father's Y chromosomes. Does the DNA of my family just die out?? We weren't expecting science lessons on this site !! LOL

our ancestors ringlets in lockets might be useful after all !!

Well, the more people who "go for it" the quicker and cheaper it will become. I personally think it won't be long before everyone will have to deposit a DNA sample at birth: it might not happen in my lifetime but it almost certainly will happen in yours! By that time, someone will have developed a quick and cheap method of testing, so we can all give swab tests at Airports and so on. Genetics is a young science and I wish I was going to live long enough to see the incredible developments which will surely take place. I am struck by the thought that the whole human race is much more closely related than was previously imagined. In other words, we do not have "millions" of ancestors, but in most cases, probably only a few hundred and these can be traced geographically further back to the oddest places in the world. The Naughty Lady syndrome does not of course alter the accuracy of Y chromosome relativity. And DNA testing does remove that 1% of doubt we must all have in the dead of night - what if my 5xGrandfather wasnt really the child of my 6x Grandfather?

Many THANKS to everyone who has responded - here or in private. Just to mop up and reply to a few further points above (and in reply to a number of the private points raised): Martin Briscoe: YES 100% spot on, that's exactly one of the aims. As far back as easy, reliable, written records (parish registers) go my surname (Tarling) may have originated in two or perhaps three areas: is this spontaneous or might they be related (two of the areas are close to each other). Easy answer: get a bunch of men with a reasonably long paternal biological ancestry through the Tarling surname and ask them to suck a cotton bud. Living vs dead question: Well this is a stange discussion. We are a race of living fossils that contains the recombinant product of the DNA of all our ancient ancestors (as well, it seems, as a lot of unexpressed DNA from their ancient ancestors - from algal-blanketweed and TV celebrities onwards). So all men have very similar Y-chromosomal DNA to their paternal line ancestors anyway. However as I understand it, it's very easy to carry out this sort of study for living people (well men actually, but I didn't want to be sexist) and it's routine, reliable and cheap. If you want to start digging up your G x lots grandfather that's a whole different bag of parameters. Making sure you've got the right DNA (and not mole, worm, bacterium, decayed leaf or whatever) is a pain and then the DNA may have denatured anyway - and that's without the small matter of applying to carry out an exhumation. This is a task for TV scientists and police forensic labs, where money is not so important. So at the moment: living is easy and dead is difficult! Marjorie: So that study was a great success: it proved that there was no link between the americans and the brits of same family name (well it did if they got their statistics right). So our ex-colonial non-cousins can now save their time and money trying to find the connection. Their surname evolved elsewhere - and they may find out where as the DNA databases expand. You're right that DNA will prove to be the revolution to family history in this century that the internet did at the end of the 20th. century. Richard: Thanks, fascinating stuff and exactly the sort of use for these studies. However is it going to get cheaper and better soon, or should we just go for it now? Happy hunting, Stephen

Twinkle: THANKS: Absolutely right, in all respects. Y-chromosmal DNA is passed intact from father to son. But over time there will be natural mutations in the markers used (STRs). These changes are slow enough that we can be sure that the markers will be fairly similar over a few generations, but fast enough that there is a major difference between extremely genetically unrelated individuals. Caveman Y-chromosome DNA certainly included the genes for sex (and putting the rubbish out of the cave), and probably for beer, cars, football and mowing the grass as well. However I am precluded from considering what traits might pass with Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to child.... And on a more serious note again: you are spot on, and current research shows that what are euphemistically known as 'non-paternity events' run at somewhere in the vague area of 2% per generation. This may be due to a naughty woman or it may be due to adoption (which even 100 or so years ago was not documented), or to second marriages for a woman (where the son from the first marriage take the surname of the second husband), or just because the records are wrong (or heavens forbid: wrongly interpreted by the family historian). Actually there are two sorts of naughty woman: the married sort who has a son whose father is not her husband (ask David Blunkett to explain) and the sort who is not married and whose son takes the surname of their unmarried mother rather than the biological father (you need Cecil Parkinson here I think). So in actual fact it may not be naughty women so much as naughty men! Anyway for all these reasons these studies work best when you have a whole group of men with the same surname (or same common paternal ancestor anyway), then the odd 2% per generation can easily be spotted and excluded. Thanks for your perspicuous and perspicacious input. Happy hunting, Stephen

Paul B You are right as far as autosomal DNA goes (as used for most forensic tests), most geneticists will agree with you. But by the way they will not agree with your maths for autosomal DNA: with each generation the number of ancestors doubles so in terms of autosomal DNA you share 1/2**8 of one set of your 16 GG Grandparents' DNA which is about 0.4% and that's why that root is a loss at the moment - come back in 50 years time and we'll let you know. HOWEVER: I have spoken with geneticists (some of them fairly experienced) about this, and as Twinkle says: a man has the same Y-chromosome as his 16 GG grandfather down the paternal line, i.e. 100% of his ancestry EXCEPT for minor variations due to mutation (evolution if you like). So for that reason you and a 16th. cousin of yours who are both straight down the paternal line (removed a generation or two if you want) will have remakably similar Y-chromosomal DNA give or take a few mutations (and as Twinkle correctly points out assuming there have been no 'non-paternity events'). The mothers, mothers,... line involves Mitochondrial DNA, and the problem there is that it mutates more quickly (because it's extra-cellular?) and surnames do not pass with mothers. Mt-DNA has proved outstanding in terms of following ancient human migration over tens of thousands of years, but not much help in family history. So Y-chromosomal DNA is no gimmick - the science, technology and experience are here now; and there are many, many studies to support this. For the price of a couple of certificates we can find out whether we are paternally related to another person of the same surname (or indeed of another surname). My question is only whether it is going to get cheaper and better very quickly now? Happy hunting, Stephen.

Tests on the Y chromosome are probably the most reliable, as it is passed from father to son. Technically all men today have the same Y chromosome as their caveman ancestors (oh it explains so much!) However, it has one major failing; female fidelity. It only takes one naughty girl to throw the whole thing out which is why DNA evidence for proving direct descent is never 100% certain.

My family has already participated in a one name DNA study with some interesting results. For example we've found a match with some people in another country proving the origin of our surname which we'd already assumed was of non-British origin. More interesting, is proof of our other theory that the name is linked to an aristoristcratic line dating from the time of the Battle of Hastings.

My brother has just taken part in a 37 point Y chromosome test at the invitation of a group of 14 Americans who have the same family name as us, but they are unable to trace their roots back to England. My cynical interpretation of this invitation is that they are hoping to hitch a ride on our extensive (and expensive!) research. However, I suppose that another way of looking at it is, if one or some or indeed all of these Americans prove to have a Y-chromosome relationship to us, then we should freely give of this information. After all, they will have to trust US that we got it right! I certainly think that DNA will have an important part to play in future genealogical research and I find it a fascinating subject.

No Nichola that is not correct. Did anyone watch the programme a while ago on DNA testing and trying to find out who was related to the vikings? A random selection throughout the country of testing was done and swabs were taken from the cheeks and sent to Laboratories to match up with samples of viking remains found in various archaeological "digs" that are around the country. This is the way forward for DNA testing. It is also very good for researching name groups. Take an Irish name for example like Hennessy and taking DNA samples from all Hennesseys in the world would throw up some interesting common facts which would link them all together. You can then link all the Hennesseys going back in time to when they first appeared in Ireland, which may be centuries ago. Those that were not linked could well have some difficulty of proving parentage and could, as someone has already suggested be a little awkward. However I am sure that where some people challenge parentage today they will use DNA testing. DNA is worth reading about and understanding. It is an interesting scientific field. Janet

It might be interesting at some point to investigate occurences of the same surname in different parts of the country. Whether they have a common source or all appeared independently. Martin

I understand it is very effective if you want to know if cousin Fred umpteen times removed really IS your cousin, but it won't help you to trace whether the John Brown mouldering in his grave who died in 1630 is your gt x lots grandpa. nell

Jeanie A (and others) see Janet North London Borders' excellent summary. Also I'd add: Y-chromosome is passed from father to son - like surnames. The Y-chromosome DNA mutates (evolves), and so the closer the match from two men, the closer the paternal line. They test little areas - called markers - and the more markers we measure the more accurate the result. Current tests are about £120 for about 40 markers. It's great for taking a collection of living men with the same surname and clustering them in groups. The test requires wiping a cotton bud round the inside of your cheek (not just after you've eaten a ham sandwich!) and sending it off. And Bob's your 8th. cousin, or not. No medical or similar information can be gleaned from the results - it uses bits of the massive amount of unused junk DNA we all have. It's all quite routine and simple and the technology is all here now. My question is whether the price and accuracy are going to get a lot better, quickly or not? Mitochondrial DNA follows the maternal line - passed from mother to all children, but mutates more quickly. Best used for analysis of movement of ancient tribes, not a lot of use for family history, except possibly ethnic deep background. Autosomal DNA is the stuff we get from both parents, but it's mixed together in complicated ways so we don't know which bit comes from which ancestor. This makes it extremely difficult to unravel. However I guess that in 50 years time we'll be using that as the basis for family history. So keep a DNA sample of any living relative! This is the stuff they use for forensics because it unique to us alone (well and an identical twin). Chris Pomery's book "DNA and the Family Historian" is excellent. Or search the web and you'll find labs offering their services and more details. Anyone who wants to ask any further questions is welcome to contact me. Happy hunting, Stephen

DNA testing for Genealogy is now well on its way and for those people who want to know more, then Ancestors December 04 had a long article entitled, "DNA Can it help your research." DNA testing for men is now becoming an important tool for family historians. Diagrams show how the Y-chromosome is passed through the male line of their male descendants throughout the extended family tree. There is a DNA test, a Y- chromosome test that looks specifically at the genetic similarities between male DNA samples. Results from a Y-Chromosome test can be sorted to identify the different men who are likely to share a common historical ancestor, a process which creates a new genealogical category "Genetic Families." DNA testing is not new, it has been used for a couple of generations by academic paleo-anthropologists. It has also been used in forensic criminal investigations. Since the year 2000 around 25000 men have taken a DNA test. Suggest you buy the magazine for further information. Janet

I'm with Peter on this one. I havent the faintest idea what this subject is about. Do we have to dig up graves to get at old DNA. Simple explanation please!!

Of course it may throw up a lot of problems for people who arent blood related - I am not sure that it is a direction I would want to take. The important thing is not the genes but the relationship.

Blimey, Peter, that's a wee bit patronising. Even if you think it - it's not always a good thing to say it. Cheers, Tricia

A lot of people on this site will have no idea what you are on about but I see where you are comeing from. I exspet its a little early to start thinking about gene tracying just yet, but like you I can see it is the next obveus step. And theres a good chance it will all be on the web.

Is now a good time to start a surname study using Y-chromosome DNA studies? The methodology is established, the labs now seem to be covering plenty of markers and the prices are lower (and paying in US dollars is good news for anyone with sterling), and databases are getting to be a useful size. (Tip: Chris Pomery's book DNA and Family History is good). Will these trends continue or will we find more labs (including a good UK-based one), and twice as many markers for half the price in a year's time?