My 22-person project is designed for medical research and science in general but my interest in family history also plays a role. Two of my project members are now deceased and a third is under live in care. Some of my project members were recruited because of known medical histories. Some of my project members insist on more privacy than others. Due to my medical condition I have each of my project members set as public matches so If something happens to me there will be some selected information available in each of their profiles. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Sam Sloan via Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:06 PM To: Brooks Family ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] The New 23andMe This useful site is about health information. However, here we are referring to genealogical or family history information such as a Family Tree. Surely you are not saying that a Family Tree cannot be published without the permission of everybody who is on the tree. Here we are talking about people who joined these groups and submitted their DNA samples for the purpose of finding their relatives or health information about their relatives. There are several categories of cases. For example, I am a member of the Sloan Surname Project here: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sloan/default.aspx?section=yresults I have one of the lowest numbers so it seems that I was one of the earliest members. My number is 13599. You can see my name about 2/3rd way down the side. However, this group is almost dead. Nobody has joined in a long time. I am not even sure if the administrators are still around. The people who joined this group joined before the Family Finder Tests existed and before gedmatch.com was created. However, their DNA samples are in storage and will still be good for 25 years. I have checked and not a single member of this group of 66 persons has uploaded to gedmatch.com other than myself. Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a long time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead. I would gladly pay the fees required to give those these tests show are closely related to me to give them a longer Y-DNA test plus the Family Finder test and upload it to gedmatch.com I do not see why I should not be allowed to do that. Sam Sloan On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Brooks Family via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > " The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health > information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of > the individual. " > from here: > > http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents.html > > On 10/27/15 9:22 PM, Brooks Family wrote: > > My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me > > that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. > > > > And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. > > > > On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: > >> The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person > >> dies. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sloan, Just for your information, since you mention using the stored DNA of deceased individuals at FTDNA for upgrading to tests that would suit your own private interests you should be aware that FTDNA addresses this under Legal Issues and Privacy at https://www.familytreedna.com/privacy-policy.aspx: To wit: "The owner of an account is responsible for naming a beneficiary to that account, should the test taker pass away. If no beneficiary is named on the account, Family Tree DNA retains *ownership of the record and DNA*." So the fact is you will have to negotiate rights to privacy with FTDNA who is the owner of the data regardless of your opinion that one can "assume that anybody who submitted their DNA sample wants to find their relatives and therefore would have agreed to this were they still alive." You know nothing about what they would have agreed to, nor is it pertinent. You have to deal with the wishes of the beneficiary or with FTDNA. Instead of arguing with Brooks, or this list, I suggest you contact the management at FTDNA and discuss the issue with them directly. Richard On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > This useful site is about health information. > However, here we are referring to genealogical or family history > information such as a Family Tree. Surely you are not saying that a Family > Tree cannot be published without the permission of everybody who is on the > tree. > > Here we are talking about people who joined these groups and submitted > their DNA samples for the purpose of finding their relatives or health > information about their relatives. > > There are several categories of cases. For example, I am a member of the > Sloan Surname Project here: > > https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sloan/default.aspx?section=yresults > > I have one of the lowest numbers so it seems that I was one of the earliest > members. My number is 13599. You can see my name about 2/3rd way down the > side. > > However, this group is almost dead. Nobody has joined in a long time. I am > not even sure if the administrators are still around. > > The people who joined this group joined before the Family Finder Tests > existed and before gedmatch.com was created. However, their DNA samples > are > in storage and will still be good for 25 years. I have checked and not a > single member of this group of 66 persons has uploaded to gedmatch.com > other than myself. Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a > long time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead. > > I would gladly pay the fees required to give those these tests show are > closely related to me to give them a longer Y-DNA test plus the Family > Finder test and upload it to gedmatch.com I do not see why I should not be > allowed to do that. > > Sam Sloan > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Brooks Family via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > " The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health > > information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of > > the individual. " > > from here: > > > > > http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents.html > > > > On 10/27/15 9:22 PM, Brooks Family wrote: > > > My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me > > > that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. > > > > > > And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. > > > > > > On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: > > >> The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person > > >> dies. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

" The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of the individual. " from here: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents.html On 10/27/15 9:22 PM, Brooks Family wrote: > My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me > that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. > > And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. > > On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: >> The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person >> dies. >

Paul, I'd like to see the distribution curve of [percent of n instances of a shared segment] on the y-axis, vs cMs on the x-axis for each cousinship (3rd to as far out as is reasonable, maybe to 10th cousins. Actually the ultimate graphic would be for these 8 curves to be on one chart. So if 4th cousins would show an average of 14cM, we would expect the curve to peak at 14cM (the most percentage of say n=1,000 or 10,000 instances); and to be less at 13cM and 15cM and have tails in both directions - perhaps show the 2 S.D. spread) It might be a pretty wide chart for 1-3 cousins; and I think the interest is in what the curves, 2 S.D.s and tails would look like for the more distant cousins. I don't know how to scale the y-axis to reflect the fact that 4th cousins only match (above a threshold) 50% of the time, and 6th cousins only 2% of the time.... Maybe just the curve for when they do match and then we'd need to multiply by the probability of matching at all. This set of curves would give us something concrete to go on. Over time we might be able to gather some real data to validate or tweak the curves. These curves would also show the effect of using a 5cM or 7cM or 10cM or 15cM threshold in our spreadsheets.... Thanks for taking this on. Jim Bartlett www.segmentology.org On 09/15/15, Paul Rakow via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: Yes, we can calculate the spread too. I'm thinking of putting up some tables and graphs from this simulation. I would like some discussion and input on what would be most useful. What is the best way to measure the spread in a quantity? What would be the easiest to understand? Standard deviation? Or upper and lower quartiles (half of your cousins will lie between X and Y, one quarter below X, one quarter above Y)? I plan to plot some histograms too - some of the distributions are a long way from the normal distribution bell curve, and it can be useful to know what the tail looks like. ---- Which are the chief quantities of interest? I thought of: Total shared cM Largest matching segment Average number of matching segments Probability a relative will fail to match you. Any others? ------ In the cases where a threshold matters, what would be a good number to use? I was thinking of using the gedmatch default of 7 cM, are there other interesting values? Thanks, Paul Rakow On Tue, September 15, 2015 18:20, Wjhonson wrote: > > But I would also be interested in what values are obtained at the edges > of 1 standard deviation > > If we have one hundred fourth cousins and ten of them test... will we > find one that matches us at 70cms? > > That's the sort of thing that could be useful information so we aren't > chasing ghosts > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Rakow via <[1]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: genealogy-dna <[2]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 12:56 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] 9th generation common ancestors > > > > > Anne - thanks again for the link about longest segments. > > > I've built a > measurement of the average length of the longest segment into the > simulation, and tried it out for a few cases. > > For cousins: > > > Simulation: > > > 1st > cousins, 91 cM , average length of longest segment. > > 2nd cousins 49 cM > > > > 3rd cousins 24 cM > > > > Observed numbers (Shared cM project, Blain > Bettinger) > > > 1st cousins, 83 cM > > > 2nd cousins 49 cM > > > 3rd cousins 27 cM > > --- > > > I would consider that a success, everything within about 10%. > > > > For ancestors/descendents > > > Simulation > > > Grandparent/grandchild > 193 cM average longest segment. > > > Great-grandparent/great-grandchild 131 cM > > (This includes lots of cases where the "longest matching segment" is > an entire chromosome). > > Observed numbers (Shared cM project, Blain > Bettinger) > > > Grandparent/grandchild 170 cM average longest > segment. > > Great-grandparent/great-grandchild 102 cM > > > > So, for > descendents the simulation is looking a bit high, but not absurdly so. > > > Paul > References 1. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com 2. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com

My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: > The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person dies.

This useful site is about health information. However, here we are referring to genealogical or family history information such as a Family Tree. Surely you are not saying that a Family Tree cannot be published without the permission of everybody who is on the tree. Here we are talking about people who joined these groups and submitted their DNA samples for the purpose of finding their relatives or health information about their relatives. There are several categories of cases. For example, I am a member of the Sloan Surname Project here: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sloan/default.aspx?section=yresults I have one of the lowest numbers so it seems that I was one of the earliest members. My number is 13599. You can see my name about 2/3rd way down the side. However, this group is almost dead. Nobody has joined in a long time. I am not even sure if the administrators are still around. The people who joined this group joined before the Family Finder Tests existed and before gedmatch.com was created. However, their DNA samples are in storage and will still be good for 25 years. I have checked and not a single member of this group of 66 persons has uploaded to gedmatch.com other than myself. Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a long time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead. I would gladly pay the fees required to give those these tests show are closely related to me to give them a longer Y-DNA test plus the Family Finder test and upload it to gedmatch.com I do not see why I should not be allowed to do that. Sam Sloan On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Brooks Family via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > " The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health > information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of > the individual. " > from here: > > http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents.html > > On 10/27/15 9:22 PM, Brooks Family wrote: > > My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me > > that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. > > > > And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. > > > > On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: > >> The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person > >> dies. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

This useful site is about health information. However, here we are referring to genealogical or family history information such as a Family Tree. Surely you are not saying that a Family Tree cannot be published without the permission of everybody who is on the tree. Here we are talking about people who joined these groups and submitted their DNA samples for the purpose of finding their relatives or health information about their relatives. There are several categories of cases. For example, I am a member of the Sloan Surname Project here: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sloan/default.aspx?section=yresults I have one of the lowest numbers so it seems that I was one of the earliest members. My number is 13599. You can see my name about 2/3rd way down the side. However, this group is almost dead. Nobody has joined in a long time. I am not even sure if the administrators are still around. The people who joined this group joined before the Family Finder Tests existed and before gedmatch.com was created. However, their DNA samples are in storage and will still be good for 25 years. I have checked and not a single member of this group of 66 persons has uploaded to gedmatch.com other than myself. Obviously, the reason for this is these people joined a long time ago and have not kept up to date or else they are dead. I would gladly pay the fees required to give those these tests show are closely related to me to give them a longer Y-DNA test plus the Family Finder test and upload it to gedmatch.com I do not see why I should not be allowed to do that. Sam Sloan On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Brooks Family via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > " The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health > information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of > the individual. " > from here: > > http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/decedents.html > > On 10/27/15 9:22 PM, Brooks Family wrote: > > My hospital's Compliance department has very adamantly informed me > > that HIPAA does not expire with the patient. > > > > And study patients are under a whole different set of rules. > > > > On 10/27/15 9:20 PM, Sam Sloan wrote: > >> The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person > >> dies. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

They can't. I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion: many of the people that have died were enrolled in a study, or only tested for "health reports". Either way, there's patient or study subject confidentiality. Not just HIPAA - studies usually have even tighter confidentiality requirements. Even contacting a family member would be viewed as a breach of that confidentiality. So, yes - when you send messages to that unresponsive cousin, you may be talking to yourself. On 10/27/15 8:41 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > I ask that there be an option that the DNA testing organization can search > for the person and if it finds out that the person who submitted their DNA > sample is now dead, then at our expense we can find out who that person > was, pay for the upgrade and submit it Family Finder and to gedmatch. We > can safely assume that anybody who submitted their DNA sample wants to find > their relatives and therefore would have agreed to this were they still > alive. > > Sam Sloan

I agree that you are not a lawyer. For the rest of it, you are incorrect. The privilege of patient confidentiality disappears once the person dies. You can report that a person died of cancer, but while he is still alive you cannot report that he has cancer. I am confident that it would be completely legal to reveal the identities of these people after they have died. Of course, they would have to check carefully to make sure that they are really deceased. Since a high percentage of the people in these groups are elderly it will not be long before the majority of the people in these groups will have passed, but their test results will have value for those of us still alive. Sam Sloan On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Brooks Family via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > They can't. > > I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion: many of the people that have died > were enrolled in a study, or only tested for "health reports". Either > way, there's patient or study subject confidentiality. Not just HIPAA - > studies usually have even tighter confidentiality requirements. Even > contacting a family member would be viewed as a breach of that > confidentiality. > > So, yes - when you send messages to that unresponsive cousin, you may be > talking to yourself. > > > On 10/27/15 8:41 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > I ask that there be an option that the DNA testing organization can > search > > for the person and if it finds out that the person who submitted their > DNA > > sample is now dead, then at our expense we can find out who that person > > was, pay for the upgrade and submit it Family Finder and to gedmatch. We > > can safely assume that anybody who submitted their DNA sample wants to > find > > their relatives and therefore would have agreed to this were they still > > alive. > > > > Sam Sloan > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I've been browsing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/ and looking for the current number of full mtDNA sequences for humans.  Please let me know where that number can be found. Thanks and sincerely, Peter Peter J. Roberts

Peter Unfortunately, GenBank doesn't give a total - and I suggest there are about 30,700 sequences at present. But this total is not really accurate as, for example, about 1,000 sequences from the 1000 Genome project are duplicated. So perhaps a better estimate is to say there are 29,500+ distinct sequences. Searching with - "homo sapiens" [organism] "complete genome" mitochondrion - gives 30342 and with - "homo sapiens" [organism] "complete genome" - gives 30522 And then there is - "homo sapiens" [organism] " partial genome" mitochondrion - which gives another 363 Also, there is the problem of the 'Kampira' set of 200+ African sequences which are all CRS !! - oops !! I do try to keep my page up-to-date at: http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/checker/accession.htm but I know this list is not totally correct. Ian ------------- On 27/10/2015 18:51, Peter J. Roberts via wrote: > I've been browsing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/ and looking for the current number of full mtDNA sequences for humans. Please let me know where that number can be found. > Thanks and sincerely, Peter > > Peter J. Roberts

Barton, As I would understand it, if we have a group who all share an IBD segment, then there would be, somewhere way back in history, a Common Ancestor for the group who was responsible for this segment. If you don't look at the whole group, parts of the group might have inherited the segment through a much more recent common ancestor. In your group of 4, one of your matches might be a 5th cousin, descended from the first child of the CA, while the other three might be your first or second cousins, all descended by the same route for many generations. You and your near cousin have a common ancestor who is much more recent than the common ancestor for the whole group. I don't think there's any reason to think that the descent had to split into 4 strands right at the start, as you say here. Regards, Paul Rakow > Let?s take that example (a 5th cousin as the most distant in the TG). > For me to believe that very well may be the CA, I, and my 3 matches would > need descend from 4 different children of the 4th great grandparent ? or > something pretty close (one of them from the same child but different > grandchildren, say). Otherwise, who is to say the CA is not some other > CA I share with one of my nearer cousins in the TG? On Tue, October 27, 2015 03:53, Barton Lewis bartonlewis@optonline.net [DNA-NEWBIE] wrote: > > > > When you say, ?I believe all the IBD segments in a TG come from the same > ancestor,? that?s where things get messy (for me). Previously, there?s > been discussion of different levels of cousins matching on a TG ? a 2nd > cousin; 3rd cousin once removed; and 5th cousin, say. On its face, that > sounds kind of specious; they?re all still descended from a CA, if it?s > the same family, right? But that?s just it: we don?t know for sure they > are ? if they?re from an endogamous population especially ? and unless > they have a very, very robust tree all the way back to the level of the > root CA. > > > > Let?s take that example (a 5th cousin as the most distant in the TG). > For me to believe that very well may be the CA, I, and my 3 matches would > need descend from 4 different children of the 4th great grandparent ? or > something pretty close (one of them from the same child but different > grandchildren, say). Otherwise, who is to say the CA is not some other > CA I share with one of my nearer cousins in the TG? We early colonials > have lots of endogamy; and ancestors and lines are going to be > duplicated, even (and maybe) especially where we don?t see them. >

Thank you for your great explanation of the problems must of us are thinking about. However, I have one point I would like to add. The reason that many of our matches do not respond is because they are dead. Many if not most people do not take an interest in genealogy or family history until they are elderly. Few young people are on these groups. Thus, if several years pass and our matches do not respond to emails, there is a high likelihood that this person has passed on. I too am facing the frustrating situation that my closest match does not answer. In this case, I would want him to not only answer but to upgrade his Y-DNA test, submit it to Family Finder and post it on gedmatch so we can find our most recent common ancestor. I would be willing to pay for this. I ask that there be an option that the DNA testing organization can search for the person and if it finds out that the person who submitted their DNA sample is now dead, then at our expense we can find out who that person was, pay for the upgrade and submit it Family Finder and to gedmatch. We can safely assume that anybody who submitted their DNA sample wants to find their relatives and therefore would have agreed to this were they still alive. Sam Sloan On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Franklin Genetics via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Here here! I agree. :) > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jamie Arnold via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > I think i read on a blog somewhere that when the change occurs, those who > > remain > > as anonymous now will still remain as anonymous but when those anonymous > > log in > > after the change they will be met with an option along the lines of > > something if > > they wish to continue to remain anonymous or go public with a name, > > initials, > > alias etc. If they choose to remain anonymous i think they no longer > > appear and > > show in your match list and i also think that those that choose to remain > > anonymous will lose their match list all together and the only way that > > they > > will be able to see their match list is if they were to go public. > > > > I also think that once the change has occurred you will not be able to > > send a > > message to anyone who is showing as anonymous but the messages that you > > have > > already sent to those who are anonymous before the change will still > > remain for > > them to reply back to you. > > > > I personally think its a good idea that anonymous people after the change > > who > > choose to remain anonymous when faced with the option to do so will no > > longer be > > able to view or have a match list until they choose the option to go > > public as > > that way it is somewhat one sided at the moment with anonymous people > > being able > > to have and view a match list which includes those who are public matches > > in the > > profile and are able to view segment details of public matches in their > > countries of ancestries. So if you want to have and view your match list > > you can > > only do so if you choose to go public which makes it a 2 way street for > > everyone > > and therefor the majority of people that do go public should hopefully be > > serious about genealogy and most likely to respond.. > > > > I think that there is the option that when you go public that you can > > choose to > > make your dna segments automatically be revealed and appear in the match > > list of > > all those who also choose the option to automatically make their dna > > segments to > > be revealed so need to send out a sharing invitation to those people but > > those > > people that don't choose the option to make their dna segments to be > > automatically revealed will still have the option of being able to > contact > > people and send them a sharing invitation? to ask them to share genomes. > > > > My very top match who is anonymous who shares 80cm on 3 segments with me > > has > > never responded to my 2 messages that i have sent in the last 2 years and > > this > > match also appears as anonymous in my countries of ancestries list so i > am > > hopeful that this person must be interested in genealogy if they have > > completed > > the where are you from survey to then appear in countries of ancestries. > I > > am so > > hoping that when they log in again after the change that they choose to > go > > public and receive their match list as only with a match list can it be > > helpful > > to someone who is interested in genealogy otherwise they will lose their > > match > > list which won't be of any help to them at all if they choose to remain > > anonymous. > > > > Overall i believe that the change is going in the right direction. Those > > that > > choose to remain anonymous are most likely have taken the 23andme for the > > health > > report and not interested in genealogy so no loss if these people no > longer > > appear in a match list but i guess would be a loss if they were showing > as > > a > > very close match before the change and you are banging your head against > > the > > wall wishing that the person would reply back to your message that you > > have sent > > to them. > > > > Jamie > > > > > > > > On 23 October 2015 at 11:00 Shannon Christmas via > > > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What The New 23andMe means for genetic genealogy: > > > > > > > > > http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/131724191762/the-23andme-metamorphosis > > > > > > Very Respectfully, > > > Shannon > > > -- > > > Mr. Shannon S. Christmas > > > Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist > > > The Christmas Collective > > > <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> > > > Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions > > > New York, NY | Washington, DC > > > P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 > > > F: 1.888.788.5984 > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > -- > Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN > Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project > http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ > FranklinGenetics@gmail.com > http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & > helps. > > *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY > one with all the tools you need for genealogy and DNA!--* > > http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d > > BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY BOOK! > > http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I think i read on a blog somewhere that when the change occurs, those who remain as anonymous now will still remain as anonymous but when those anonymous log in after the change they will be met with an option along the lines of something if they wish to continue to remain anonymous or go public with a name, initials, alias etc. If they choose to remain anonymous i think they no longer appear and show in your match list and i also think that those that choose to remain anonymous will lose their match list all together and the only way that they will be able to see their match list is if they were to go public. I also think that once the change has occurred you will not be able to send a message to anyone who is showing as anonymous but the messages that you have already sent to those who are anonymous before the change will still remain for them to reply back to you. I personally think its a good idea that anonymous people after the change who choose to remain anonymous when faced with the option to do so will no longer be able to view or have a match list until they choose the option to go public as that way it is somewhat one sided at the moment with anonymous people being able to have and view a match list which includes those who are public matches in the profile and are able to view segment details of public matches in their countries of ancestries. So if you want to have and view your match list you can only do so if you choose to go public which makes it a 2 way street for everyone and therefor the majority of people that do go public should hopefully be serious about genealogy and most likely to respond.. I think that there is the option that when you go public that you can choose to make your dna segments automatically be revealed and appear in the match list of all those who also choose the option to automatically make their dna segments to be revealed so need to send out a sharing invitation to those people but those people that don't choose the option to make their dna segments to be automatically revealed will still have the option of being able to contact people and send them a sharing invitation? to ask them to share genomes. My very top match who is anonymous who shares 80cm on 3 segments with me has never responded to my 2 messages that i have sent in the last 2 years and this match also appears as anonymous in my countries of ancestries list so i am hopeful that this person must be interested in genealogy if they have completed the where are you from survey to then appear in countries of ancestries. I am so hoping that when they log in again after the change that they choose to go public and receive their match list as only with a match list can it be helpful to someone who is interested in genealogy otherwise they will lose their match list which won't be of any help to them at all if they choose to remain anonymous. Overall i believe that the change is going in the right direction. Those that choose to remain anonymous are most likely have taken the 23andme for the health report and not interested in genealogy so no loss if these people no longer appear in a match list but i guess would be a loss if they were showing as a very close match before the change and you are banging your head against the wall wishing that the person would reply back to your message that you have sent to them. Jamie > > On 23 October 2015 at 11:00 Shannon Christmas via > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > What The New 23andMe means for genetic genealogy: > > http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/131724191762/the-23andme-metamorphosis > > Very Respectfully, > Shannon > -- > Mr. Shannon S. Christmas > Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist > The Christmas Collective > <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> > Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions > New York, NY | Washington, DC > P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 > F: 1.888.788.5984 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Not sure, but they do have a statistics page with contact information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/statistics Let us know what you discover! --Robert Peter J. Roberts via wrote: > I've been browsing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/ and looking for the current number of full mtDNA sequences for humans. Please let me know where that number can be found. > Thanks and sincerely, Peter > > Peter J. Roberts >

Hello All, My mails to DNA-newbie seem to be taking 3 or 4 days to get through (or at least, they aren't getting back to me). I'm re-posting this on genealogy-dna, since it hasn't (yet) made it through to newbie. Anyway, it might be kinder to the intended newbie audience if this discussion could drift over to some more appropriate forum. Paul Rakow ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: [DNA-NEWBIE] Anatomy of an IBD segment From: "Paul Rakow" <paul.rakow@cantab.net> Date: Sun, October 25, 2015 16:04 To: DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a classic problem in statistics that can help us out here. In the 19th century, the Prussian army had gathered statistics on how many soldiers in each unit were killed by being kicked by a horse or mule. In most years most units lost no-one, there were units where one soldier died that way, and even a few units that lost two or three men through horse-kicks in a given year. Something called the Poisson distribution did a very good job of predicting the data. We can use the same method to estimate how common it will be for you to have triangulating groups (people who match you, and match each other, at an overlapping location on your chromosome). If we look at people who match us on a single-segment of about 12 cM, on a 44 chromosome genome of about 7200 cM, then the mule-kick model says we would see our first example of a triangle of mutual matches when we have looked at around 30 or 40 matches. The number of overlapping groups grows rapidly as the number of people tested grows - if the number of matches you have doubles, the number that fall into groups increases by a factor of about 4. (In this way, the calculation is very close to the "shared birthday" problem that several people have discussed). If you look at 100 matches, something like 85 of them will be isolated matches, the other 15 will be in groups (mostly triangles, but it is at about this point that you can start seeing groups of 4). With 200 matches, the model says about 145 isolated matches, the other 55 in groups. A model like this has shortcomings, one could improve it by putting in a range of sizes for the single-segment matches. The model does have the big advantage that you can get away from the "almost zero" times "almost infinity" debate. For me, the message of the calculation is that triangles of matches should start showing up quite commonly once you get past 100 matches - long before your genome is filled up with matching segments. Paul Rakow

Here here! I agree. :) On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jamie Arnold via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I think i read on a blog somewhere that when the change occurs, those who > remain > as anonymous now will still remain as anonymous but when those anonymous > log in > after the change they will be met with an option along the lines of > something if > they wish to continue to remain anonymous or go public with a name, > initials, > alias etc. If they choose to remain anonymous i think they no longer > appear and > show in your match list and i also think that those that choose to remain > anonymous will lose their match list all together and the only way that > they > will be able to see their match list is if they were to go public. > > I also think that once the change has occurred you will not be able to > send a > message to anyone who is showing as anonymous but the messages that you > have > already sent to those who are anonymous before the change will still > remain for > them to reply back to you. > > I personally think its a good idea that anonymous people after the change > who > choose to remain anonymous when faced with the option to do so will no > longer be > able to view or have a match list until they choose the option to go > public as > that way it is somewhat one sided at the moment with anonymous people > being able > to have and view a match list which includes those who are public matches > in the > profile and are able to view segment details of public matches in their > countries of ancestries. So if you want to have and view your match list > you can > only do so if you choose to go public which makes it a 2 way street for > everyone > and therefor the majority of people that do go public should hopefully be > serious about genealogy and most likely to respond.. > > I think that there is the option that when you go public that you can > choose to > make your dna segments automatically be revealed and appear in the match > list of > all those who also choose the option to automatically make their dna > segments to > be revealed so need to send out a sharing invitation to those people but > those > people that don't choose the option to make their dna segments to be > automatically revealed will still have the option of being able to contact > people and send them a sharing invitation? to ask them to share genomes. > > My very top match who is anonymous who shares 80cm on 3 segments with me > has > never responded to my 2 messages that i have sent in the last 2 years and > this > match also appears as anonymous in my countries of ancestries list so i am > hopeful that this person must be interested in genealogy if they have > completed > the where are you from survey to then appear in countries of ancestries. I > am so > hoping that when they log in again after the change that they choose to go > public and receive their match list as only with a match list can it be > helpful > to someone who is interested in genealogy otherwise they will lose their > match > list which won't be of any help to them at all if they choose to remain > anonymous. > > Overall i believe that the change is going in the right direction. Those > that > choose to remain anonymous are most likely have taken the 23andme for the > health > report and not interested in genealogy so no loss if these people no longer > appear in a match list but i guess would be a loss if they were showing as > a > very close match before the change and you are banging your head against > the > wall wishing that the person would reply back to your message that you > have sent > to them. > > Jamie > > > > > On 23 October 2015 at 11:00 Shannon Christmas via > > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > > What The New 23andMe means for genetic genealogy: > > > > > http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/131724191762/the-23andme-metamorphosis > > > > Very Respectfully, > > Shannon > > -- > > Mr. Shannon S. Christmas > > Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist > > The Christmas Collective > > <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> > > Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions > > New York, NY | Washington, DC > > P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 > > F: 1.888.788.5984 > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ FranklinGenetics@gmail.com http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & helps. *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY one with all the tools you need for genealogy and DNA!--* http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY BOOK! http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy

Thanks, Paul, This would explain what we are actually seeing. As the Matches continue to pour in, we cannot say there is no more room at a segment for more IBD segments to triangulate, just because the math says the probability is very low. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 27, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Paul Rakow via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Hello All, > My mails to DNA-newbie seem to be taking 3 or 4 days > to get through (or at least, they aren't getting back to me). > > I'm re-posting this on genealogy-dna, since it hasn't (yet) made > it through to newbie. Anyway, it might be kinder to the intended > newbie audience if this discussion could drift over to some more > appropriate forum. > > Paul Rakow > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Re: [DNA-NEWBIE] Anatomy of an IBD segment > From: "Paul Rakow" <paul.rakow@cantab.net> > Date: Sun, October 25, 2015 16:04 > To: DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > There is a classic problem in statistics that can help us out here. > In the 19th century, the Prussian army had gathered statistics on how > many soldiers in each unit were killed by being kicked by a horse or mule. > In most years most units lost no-one, there were units where one soldier > died that way, and even a few units that lost two or three > men through horse-kicks in a given year. Something called the Poisson > distribution did a very good job of predicting the data. > > We can use the same method to estimate how common it will be for > you to have triangulating groups (people who match you, and match each > other, at an overlapping location on your chromosome). > > If we look at people who match us on a single-segment of about > 12 cM, on a 44 chromosome genome of about 7200 cM, then the mule-kick > model says we would see our first example of a triangle of mutual > matches when we have looked at around 30 or 40 matches. > > The number of overlapping groups grows rapidly as the number of > people tested grows - if the number of matches you have doubles, > the number that fall into groups increases by a factor of about 4. > (In this way, the calculation is very close to the "shared birthday" > problem that several people have discussed). > > If you look at 100 matches, something like 85 of them will > be isolated matches, the other 15 will be in groups (mostly triangles, > but it is at about this point that you can start seeing groups of 4). > > With 200 matches, the model says about 145 isolated matches, > the other 55 in groups. > > A model like this has shortcomings, one could improve it by > putting in a range of sizes for the single-segment matches. The > model does have the big advantage that you can get away from the > "almost zero" times "almost infinity" debate. > > For me, the message of the calculation is that triangles > of matches should start showing up quite commonly once you get > past 100 matches - long before your genome is filled up with > matching segments. > > Paul Rakow > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My whole-genome sequence showed me to be heterozygous for the G to A SNP rs140578907 in the calicin gene at location 36170317 of chromosome 9, which causes an arginine to glutamine change at position 273 of the calicin protein. This SNP is very rare, the A allele having a frequency of less than 0.1%. The calicin protein is said to be an integral protein of the head of a sperm cell so I thought that perhaps the rarity of this mutation might indicate that a sperm with this mutation might not be able to fertilize an egg. If so, this mutation could only be inherited through the all-female line, like mitochondrial DNA, except that, unlike mitochondrial DNA, this mutation would only have a 50% chance of being inherited for each transmission. To determine whether I inherited this SNP from my father or mother, I had my 2 sons tested for it. Luckily, the 23andMe Relative Finder test had already shown that one of my sons and I, but not the other son, match my paternal first cousin for the region of the calicin gene. So one of my sons inherited my paternal DNA in this region and the other son inherited my maternal DNA. I just received the results of my sons' tests and, lo and behold, the son who inherited my paternal DNA is positive for this SNP and the other son is negative. This means that the SNP is on the DNA that I inherited from my father, and a sperm with the A allele managed to fertilize an egg in 2 transmission events, producing me and one of my sons. I conclude from this that this SNP has little if any effect on sperm potency. The reason for the rarity of the SNP is an open question, but perhaps it is just a relatively recent SNP. It is mostly confined to people of European extraction, which would tend to support this.

Hi Sam. The Augustine boys may well have been from Creston or nearby. There is a findagrave memorial for one Clarence Augustine buried in Creston, but he died reportedly (no gravestone) in 1909. In 1940, however, there was one Augustine family in Spaulding, which as you know is just five miles away. The family then consisted of 44-year-old Ben Augustine, his 39-year-old wife Grace, his 5-year-old daughter Janet, and his 10-year-old son Frank. The 1950 census, when it comes out, may tell the rest of the story. For now ... According to his gravestone, Frank in fact was born in 1929, was married to the wife buried with him in 1951, and died in 2005. Unfortunately, there is no memorial for Ben, but two possible scenarios are suggested: (1) Ben and Grace were the parents of John and Jack, and your family adopted the boys after the deaths of Ben and Grace; or, less likely, (2) Frank, who would have been 18 in 1947, was married twice, had John and Jack, was widowed, and gave up the boys after their mother died or when Frank remarried. In the same cemetery with Frank is a Grace A. Augustine, but her year of death (again no gravestone) is listed as 1908. I wonder if it should be 1948 because there's an extract of a 1927 marriage in Creston of Benjamin Alvin Augustine and Grace Anna Hanson. Surnames of their respective mothers were transcribed as Luers and Hoakison. Loretta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sam Sloan via Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:43 AM To: DNAAdoption@yahoogroups.com; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com; DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DNA] Orphan Train I have two second cousins who were adopted by our farming family in Southwest Iowa. I do not know how my family got them but my family is from Creston, Iowa which is on the railroad line so it seems possible that they came on the orphan train. They are Jim O. Augustine born 1 January 1947 died 2003 and Jack G. Augustine born 2 January 1948 died 2005. I just put them on my ancestry family tree. These dates of birth, 1 January and 2 January, are fake. They did not know when or where they were born. Sam Sloan