Friday, December 14, 2007

Searching mtDNA Matches: a method

Anne Nelson* believes that you will need a FGS to be sure there is a genealogical connection.    It has been seen that exact HVR1+2 matches do not necessarily have the same underlying coding region (the other part of the mtDNA genome) mutations.

Lacking that, she suggests that "one place to start looking for genealogical connections is your list of  HVR1+HVR2 matches.    Share your mtDNA lineage with them  --  both your direct line of women and whatever you know about sisters/daughters and who they married . . . . The key is to narrow your matches down to people who "track" in the same timeframe and geographic location as you do.

One tactic I recommend is mapping the lineages on a GOOGLE map.    FTDNA offers a map for your oldest known ancestresses, but this falls a bit short, imho.    The reason is that your lineage may be traced back to 1750 while your matches' may go back to 1880s, 1850s, 1820s, or 1790.    By only posting the oldest known ancestress, you lose the migration of the descendants.    I offer an example from my own mapping efforts (although this needs some reworking, it will give you the idea):

As to timing on your DNA timeline, your matches could be close or more distant.    FGS is showing that we don't know nearly enough yet to be able to give you a precise answer to this question.    For instance, the group I have mapped above has the same coding region as a group which has a different HVR1+HVR2 motif  (although it's close).    I think that until we have a good picture of the . . . sub-clade, which will take many many more FGS to have, we won't know what the timeframe for the relationship between these two groups is.

I can tell you that I have seen some successes from folks looking at these maps and realizing another line took basically the same migration path that theirs did and finding at the very least a probable connection.    I'm working right now on a possible connection between my 1805ish GA born U2e gggggrandmother and an mtDNA match born a little later in AL.    Given the migration paths of the time, the AL woman's mother was probably born in GA, SC, NC, TN or VA.    Right now there are only two of us with lineages that close together, spatially.    However, some of our matches don't understand how to think about mtDNA matches yet, I don't think.    They looked just at the surnames and said "no connection" instead of looking at the TIME and PLACE.    My third oldest MIGHT be in the same place as their oldest, but with a different surname."

*Anne Nelson is a Project Administrator (since 2002) for the WEBB, MAYNOR/MAYNARD/Soundex, WITCHER, H5 mtDNA and H9 mtDNA projects, and the Co-Admin for the HUDSON project.    She has been working with mtDNA for the last few years, and does custom mtDNA reports.    It is through this last that she has been taking a hard look at specific mitotypes and their sub-clades, examining the FGS sequences available as well as the HVR1 and HVR2 data which is more readily available.


Blogger M. Glenn said...

Saw your reference to your U2e 4x gr grandmother and wonder if any connection to my U2e 3x gr grandmother born in 1811 in SC. Compare notes?

2:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home