Getting your DNA into gedmatch

There are many companies that you can get your DNA processed with for genetic genealogy purposes. The big three are 23andme, ftdna and ancestry.  Once you have your DNA done on one of those sites (or others), you can use the tools on that site to 'match' with other users of that same site.  

However, the potential genealogy discoveries you can make are limited to the tools (and quality) that site offers as well as the people who have chosen to get their DNA processed by that site.  For a fee, FTDNA and ancestry both give you the option to import DNA from other sites, so many people choose to download their DNA data from the original site and import it into other sites.  This gives you a broader toolset to use as well as more potential matches. 

If only there were a site that were free, had a huge toolset and a huge user base!  Enter gedmatch.  Gedmatch does have paid tiers to support the site but there is a whole lot you can do without paying anything, and users from all of the big three, plus other sites have uploaded their DNA there, giving you a much larger and more diverse user base to test against.  

When Genetic Genealogy Creates Brick Walls

I was talking to a cousin not long ago.  We are genetically related and we are pretty certain our MRCA is one of two people.  She's done exquisite work mapping out the family trees of all of her close genetic cousins and she has a problem... the people who are related genetically should not be related according to their family trees and the ones that should be genetically related to each other, if the trees are correct, are not.  She's encountered a genetic genealogy generated brick wall; a place where all of the evidence that all of these people have gathered doesn't match the genetic truth of who actually parented who.

Talking to her about this situation really made me think a lot over the past couple of weeks about my own research.  Frankly, it's terrifying for me to consider, given how much of my soul I put into my research, that really, it could just be - wrong.  I mean, I kind of flippantly know that it could all be wrong and for naught... but it's hard to consider in actuality.  And from that perspective, in contrast, it seems like the times before genetic genealogy was accessible almost seems heavenly.  A for sure, well sourced and researched conclusion on a lineage back as far as possible, without question.  Of course, the tree would still be wrong, if you're wanting to understand who your genetic ancestors were... but ignorance being bliss and all.  Maybe, in that case, what matters is a sense of knowing.  It satisfies the itch to have a story and a sense of belonging, even if in error.

Mind the Fuzzy Gray Areas - Drawing Conclusions in Genetic Genealogy

I was inspired by an email from a cousin this morning to ponder the logic of genetic genealogy a bit.  Genetic genealogy is deceptively easy on some sites.  It's packaged and marketed by the big sites as an auto-magical way to find relatives you didn't know you had.  So, my experience is that folks get very excited by having these relatives show up and then make assumptions about their own heritage that I often find to be guesswork, at best.  The thing is, your relation to to a person and the conclusions you can draw from that connection are not nearly as clear cut as it can sometimes look on whatever website you're using.

I should also preface this by saying, that to the average person, I'm probably the most annoying genetic cousin ever.  When a cousin tells me a conclusion they have drawn, I will, without fail, ask them for enough information so that I can re-discover it on my own and very often tell them that it's not a for sure conclusion - or maybe even wrong.  Sorry, not sorry, cousins!  Here's why.

How to Find the Admixture of Shared DNA Segments

You find a genetic match and you have a family tree ancestor in common.  Hooray!  It's possible the genes you share could be from that ancestor.  Knowing the admixture of the SNPs you have in common could provide more clues.  For instance, if the ancestor in question was African, if the genes you share came from that ancestor, it should show that in the admixture.  

Tools like ancestry.com, ftdna and 23andme will give you an overall admixture (I am 3% Lithuanian, for instance). That overall admixture is impossible to use as a clue in gene to gene comparison of matches.  You could both share African descent, for instance - and it could be from entirely different ancestors.  Lo, the African continent happens to be pretty vast and offers billions of possible ancestors!   To find the admixture that is relevant to a particular match, you have to get more granular - down to the segments within a gene.  Only gedmatch offers the tools to do that at this time.  

These instructions will help you find out if the DNA you and you and your genetic cousin have in common has a particular admixture. It is roughly the process I used to find Millie Turner and Samuel Hussey in my genetic makeup.Although this will not prove a MRCA, it will provide more clues or evidence.  

The following caveats apply : 

• An admixture tool is only as good as it's sample size and population.  For instance, if the sample didn't include any people of African descent, it will not pick up African admixture.  For this reason, different admixture tools interpret genes differently so you might not get a completely straight forward answer.  My experience is that you will find one or two admixture tools that do a better job than others of approximating your admixture - and that will differ from person to person.
• When you look at the admixture of a specific gene, for yourself, for instance, you are seeing what you got from BOTH parents.  To find out which admixture on a particular gene came from which parent, you would run through these instructions first to compare yourself to one parent or the other.  
• Not sharing the admixture of the ethnicity of the ancestor does NOT mean you do not have that ancestor in common.  It could mean that, through recombination, across generations, you just don't have any genes from that ancestor or not enough for it to accurately show up in admixture analysis.  
• If your genetic makeup has the admixture of the ancestor in common that also does NOT mean you are definitely related to that person.  So, if you have African admixture, that does not prove you are related to the African ancestor in question.  You might have other African ancestors that you don't know about yet.  

Millie Turner, Daughter of John and Patience Turner - Genetic Connection Found!

It seems like all I blog about these days is the Turner connection.  I admit, their story is so intriguing, that I've been focused on it for a good while now.  It's the tiny little sliver to the left there - the light pink one, that has just been itching to have a story told about it.  Also, it helps that I have some distant cousins hoping to find their own Turner DNA connection and I probably get the most email from them.

At any rate, today, I finally had the breakthrough I was hoping for.  I have definitively pinned down a segment of DNA that came from John Turner's daughter, Millie.

DNA Test Results - Neanderthals and Mitochondrial Eve

Neanderthal Child Reconstruction | KPjas |CC3

The thing that interested me in genealogy to begin with was this desire to know who I am, what I'm made of and where I came from.  I started with this really general research into the origins of humans, which ended with 'humans migrated to various places across the earth at various times'.  Then I picked up about 700 years ago in Europe with my earliest known ancestors with genealogy.  Between the two - 700 years ago and a few hundred thousand years ago was this really big gap of ... "Eh, Who Knows?!"

So, one of the most compelling reasons I wanted to get my DNA tested was to find out what my mitochondrial Haplogroup is - and, in turn, to have some idea of how my ancient ancestors migrated across the earth's surface, and in turn, what their lifestyles were like.  Its one thing to know, in general, that some male and female somewhere got together to have babies, who had babies etc and that's how our species came to be - but something else entirely to know where my ancestors specifically, fit into the advent of agriculture or the use of iron or how they helped carry their culture from one place to another.

I got my dna analyzed via 23andme.com.  They do two forms of analysis that was applicable to this particular research into myself.  They will tell you how  much of your DNA is neanderthal as well as what your maternal haplogroup is.

Neanderthals were these humanoid folks that were really closely related (although  not ancestors) to modern humans.  We are Homo Sapien Sapiens, they were Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis (or Homo Neanderthalensis). We have tons of neanderthal fossils.  And by 'we', I mean scientists that know what to do with such things.  Not too terribly long ago - only a few years - it was discovered that modern humans have a touch of neanderthal DNA in them.

I will say that there seems to be quite a bit of dissention over how that DNA got into us humans.  Some say hey maybe only the males of one species were able to mate with the females of the other and only the female offspring survived.  Some say, if it happened, it was rare.  And some insist it never happened and instead, the Neanderthal DNA that we have in us is actually the DNA from a third, common ancestor.

At any rate, only this year, the first fossils thought to be a hybrid of neanderthal and modern human was found.  Cusp of science and whatnot and 23andme is able to analyze for it.  So the first cool thing I found out is that I have 2.8% Neanderthal DNA.  By whatever means neanderthal DNA made it into my DNA, I can now reasonably explain my eating habits and my son's bedroom.

But even cooler was to discover that my mitochondrial haplogroup is T2f1.  Ta da!  Exciting, right?  Those four characters tell me how my ancient ancestors migrated across the earth so that I, Carrie, wound up here, where I am.  You know exactly what those four characters mean.  Right?  Hah.  Neither do I.  I'm still piecing together my specific history - but in the mean time, here is some stuff about Mitochondrial Haplogroup where it intersects with ancient history.

Health and Genetics Meets Genealogy

DNA Double helix | Public Domain

I have to say that although it's fascinating to find civil war soldiers, knights and kings in my family tree, medical history is one of the huge pieces of information that I get from my research.  Regardless of having both parents living, most of their siblings still alive and most of their parents having lived into my teens, I have a tremendous lack of knowledge about my family health history.  As in... I never really had a family health history at all.  All of those family history forms you fill out at a doctor's office so that they know what you are at risk for... I just never had anything to put there.

My mom raised us but after about age 8, her family was relatively far flung. I wasn't raised around my father's side of the family but even once I established a relationship with my father, we stayed relatively disconnected from his family until I later reconnected with his siblings in adulthood.  Maybe that's why family health stuff isn't common knowledge in my immediate family.  It could also be a generation thing... genetics and hereditary diseases and disorders is a relatively new generation-wise, 'common knowledge' concept.  Even 10 years ago, DNA testing wasn't something the average person had access to, let alone for under $100.  It could also be a regional thing.  Health care in the south is vastly different than health care where I am now.  Whole person (holistic) care just isn't 'a thing' there.  Medical issues are tackled completely differently.  My family is Southern and their attitudes about health have definitely been shaped by Southern culture.  But, for whatever reason, here I am with no family health history to speak of.