Participation in the Strong DNA Study has now reached 28. If there had been some exact matches, that number of participants may well have been adequate to test some of the theories that have been around regarding a common ancestor for the various Strong lines that can be identified today. Lacking exact matches (there are two 24/25 matches, one for the line of Elder John Strong of Massachusetts and another for the line of John Strong, Sr. of Virginia), one must engage in probability studies based on mutation rates. That being the case, we are very fortunate to have David B. Strong as the Administrator of the study. Dave has shown a willingness and ability to grapple with the complexities of MRCA ("Most Recent Common Ancestor") analysis when there are no exact matches. But, such analysis requires more data than we currently have. The purpose of this message is to recruit more participants for the study. While I think Dave believes the study will ultimately support the theory that some of the lines have a common ancestor, I have reservations; instead, I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that the lasting importance of this study may be to establish DNA profiles for the various Strong lines that have been the subject of research, so that Strongs who cannot connect through the research might connect through their DNA. My interest is the line of John Strong, Sr. of Virginia, so I wish to make a special appeal for more participants from that line. Thus far, we have only three known descendants enrolled, represented by Kits 5834 (John Sr.>William>James), 6663 (John Sr.>William>Thomas) and 8314 (John Sr.>John Jr.). Kits 5834 and 8314 are a 24/25 match, with the one mismatch being at marker 339, which is known to have a "rapid" mutation rate. Since Kit 5834 is the odd man out for this marker, that suggests Kit 8314 represents the haplotype or DNA profile for the line of John Strong, Sr. of Virginia. However, there are some anomalies. It is surprising to find that Kits 5834 and 6663, both of which show a line of descent through John Sr.'s son William, are only a 21/25 match, which is not considered to be genealogically significant. Mutation analysis may suggest these kits are possibly closer to a 23/25 match, which seems to be the minimum accepted as genealogically significant. Note that Kits 6663 and 8314 are a 22/25 match, which mutation analysis may also increase to a 23/25 match. In summary, my reading of the results to date is that Kits 5834 and 8314 share a common ancestor and that Kit 6663 probably shares the same ancestor if one makes allowances for "rapidly" mutating markers. More participants would be helpful in at least two ways. They might confirm that Kit 8314 represents the true haplotype and has not itself been subject to mutations. (Dave speculates there may have been a mutation at marker 447, which would result in a 24/25 match for 8314, a 23/25 match for 5834 and a 23/25 match for 6663; with allowances for rapidly mutating markers, all three might be viewed as 24/25 matches with the true haplotype.) If Kit 8314 turns out to represent the true haplotype, additional participants might help bridge the gap between Kits 5834 and 6663 and provide a better framework for mutation analysis. If my line is at all representative, the number of direct male descendants of John Sr. of Virginia may be dwindling. If you are a direct male descendant, please consider joining the study in order to help establish the haplotype for our line for all posterity. The home page for the study is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnastudy.htm. Please review the webpages and consider joining the study. Robert Strong "My Line of Southern Strongs" http://azstrong.tripod.com/harry_alice