GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-08 > 0997190840


From: "Michael Marcil" <>
Subject: [DNA] mtDNA results
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:27:20 -0400
References: <11b.272b4f4.28a0b848@aol.com> <012201c11f1f$d5744a60$996b43d4@zog>


Hi all,

I just got my mtDNA results from FTDNA, and I want to find out more.

The result was 16126C 16163G 16186T 16189C 16294T and I was told I'm in
haplogroup T.

Is there a website I can visit to learn more about what this means?

Thanks.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Andrews" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Reading too much into it all


> Hi Ann & All
>
> > I agree, with the proviso that your specific haploTYPE will be much
rarer
> and
> > thus more informative than your general haploGROUP.
>
> Mm..I think that should really be; 'one's specific haplotype MAY be much
> rarer than the
> general haplogroup'. After all quite a lot of group H (itself a very
common
> group (in Europeans)) are specifically CRS so that's hardly rare either.
>
> The watchword in all this is 'MAY', and in many cases 'MIGHT'.
>
> I get the impression that some people (there was one a week or so back who
> was hoping to prove that she was of Cherokee descent) are being lead to
> expect great things of mtDNA testing; and if a little moderation isn't
> brought into it all now then it runs the risk of getting a bad name with
the
> family history fraternity, which would be a shame.
>
> Obviously it depends on the individual case but the general message should
> be 'mtDNA testing MIGHT help you in your family history if you have a
> problem' (but don't hold your breath* !)
>
>
>
> What I think is far more interesting is that it MIGHT JUST reveal
something
> in an ancestry that the subject really DIDN'T expect.
>
>
> cheers just now
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Reading too much into it all
>
>
> > In a message dated 08/06/01 7:22:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > > Having watched some of the postings in the last week or two I am
coming
> to
> > > the conclusion that a lot of people are trying to read far to much
into
> > > their mtDNA haplotypes, and are expecting to get much too much
> information
> > > out of it.
> >
> > Andrew, I basically agree with your note of caution, but I also think
> mtDNA
> > may have more potential than you indicated.
> >
> > >
> > > If you just (for example) go back to your G.G.G.G-grand parents (ie 6
> > > generations, or about 2 centuries back) you have 64 of them, and you
are
> > > descended from all of them though NUCLEAR DNA (ie DNA in the
> chromosomes,
> > > which is not the same as mtDNA). Every one of them had a maternal
line,
> but
> > > from your own DNA you can only find the ancestral haplotype of one of
> them,
> > > your pure maternal line G.G.G.G-g-mother; and that is from
mitochondrial
> DNA
> > > which doesn't contribute to the person's genetic characteristics
because
> > > mitochondria aren't in the cell nucleus (which is where the
chromosomes
> > > are).
> >
> > A couple of points here. One, you are not limited to "your own DNA" --
you
> > can also look for living cousins who are descended in a straight female
> line
> > from any woman on your ancestral tree. Most people don't research in
this
> > direction, but I've been doing it for a while and I find it most
> enjoyable,
> > although frustrating at times when a line dies out without any more
female
> > descendants to carry on the mtDNA. In my message about the two Ursulas,
I
> had
> > recruited a 4th cousin to test the American Indian legend, with our
common
> > ancestor being born in the late 1700's.
> >
> > Second, just to clarify your point about genetic characteristics, the
> mtDNA
> > tests are indeed for a region which does not code for any traits, but
> other
> > regions do have genes which are involved in metabolism. Mutations in the
> > coding regions can cause serious genetic diseases.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If you take (as an example) someone in the UK with a European ancestry
> (and
> > > with no cousin-cousin marriages in the the last couple of hundred
years)
> > > then of their sixty-four 4.G-g-parents, on average:
> > >
> > > between 2 and 5 will have Group U ('Ursula') maternal lines;
> > > between 2 and 5 will have Group V ('Velda') maternal lines;
> > > between 2 and 5 will have Group X ('Xenia') maternal lines;
> > > between 2 and 5 will have Group K ('Katrine') maternal lines;
> > > between 4 and 7 will have Group T ('Tara') maternal lines;
> > > between 9 and 13 will have Group J ('Jasmine') maternal lines, and
> > > between 28 and 32 will have Group H ('Helena') maternal lines.
> > >
> > > (with the previso that the overall sum must be 64 !).
> > >
> > > so in all probability the modern 'someone' is descended from them ALL.
> >
> > I agree, with the proviso that your specific haploTYPE will be much
rarer
> and
> > thus more informative than your general haploGROUP.
> >
> > I have emphasized over and over again that a DNA test in isolation,
> whether Y
> > or mtDNA or anything in between, will be just a matter of curiosity. DNA
> > tests can, however, support or rule out (drat!) hypotheses you have
> developed
> > from traditional research techniques. This approach requires much in the
> way
> > of cooperative effort, but that's one of the enjoyable side effects.
> >
> > Ann Turner
> > List Administrator
> >
> >
> > ______________________________
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com!
> http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2
>

This thread: