Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: An X experiment

  1. #1
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    258
    Sex
    Location
    England
    Ethnicity
    Northern English
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA
    Brother I-M26, I2a1a
    mtDNA
    H4a1a1a

    An X experiment

    There are some suggestions on this web site that the X chromosome can be particularly significant in finding recent (<300 years ago) ancestors. I have not found it so despite following the method suggested, my X matches had no autosomal DNA match and no uploaded GEDcom to help. But it may be more illuminating in other people trees.
    Like the theory I share 196cM with my mother, and on the purely maternal line the X chromosome splits into approximately two on each generation. So after 7 more generations this will be down to just over 1.5cM (using a divide by 128). The line which divides least on the X is the male female male female, which needs 16 generations to divide to 1.5cM. And in 8 generations on the male female, male female it is down to 12cM. So is not possible to use X matches to predict the number of generations ago.
    Like the autosome the X does not divide evenly and this can be illustrated nicely using ancient DNA. I chose BR2 (GEDmatch F999933) since we already know that she has autosomal matches with living people. The result of a one to many search is 32 matches. The table did not post well but it is easy to duplicate if you wished. Decreasing the threshold from 5 to 3cM does not give any more matches, it must be internally limited on the site.
    The largest match is 10.5cM the smallest is 5cM. All but one of the matches are female. More than half have autosomal matches which the algorithm predicts to be 7 generations. But she is not! At 3200years old she is 128 generations ago. If you assume an exact 50% DNA split this 10.5cM could be from 5 to 8 generations ago.
    So I have concluded that although X matches show where a match is in your tree, they are not otherwise useful.
    Last edited by Judith; 12-10-2016 at 10:59 AM. Reason: Table not legible so deleted
    Out of 64 pre 1800 births 44% Cheshire, 1% Worcestershire, 1% Scottish (or Irish), 25% south Derbyshire, 13% Burton on Trent area (where 4 counties within 10 miles), 7% Shropshire, 1% Staffs, 8% Lancs

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Judith For This Useful Post:

     A Norfolk L-M20 (12-10-2016), palamede (12-24-2016), Saetro (12-10-2016)

  3. #2
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    383
    Sex
    Location
    Brisbane
    Nationality
    Australian
    Y-DNA
    T-P322
    mtDNA
    H6a1

    Australia Cornwall England Scotland Germany Poland
    Very useful experiment.

    If you assume an exact 50% DNA split
    The corollary to infer is quite correct. X DNA rearrangements and splits are relatively random and lumpy, leading after a few generations to an ever-widening range of possible amounts of DNA shared from a Common Ancestor.
    Just like autosomal, but even worse because of the male-female handover difference.

    So I have concluded that although X matches show where a match is in your tree, they are not otherwise useful.
    There are two kinds of "where".
    There is the rock-solid, can't possibly have come from that person because you did not inherit ANY X-DNA from them.

    There is also some possibility of suggestion among the line that do carry X-DNA.
    It may not be reliably useful, but I do know of some cases, where the suggestions have helped direct research.
    It is best used where there is also an autosomal connection.
    That will have a number of cM that suggest a connection at a certain distance.
    X-DNA will also have a number of cM that will differ depending on the pathway involved.
    The pathway where the number of generations matches the aDNA suggested distance is worthy of priority investigation.
    GEDmatch Tier 1 has a tool that will make the X-DNA pathway prediction for you as to which lines are likely and how far back, but there are other tools too.
    Unfortunately my own likely links are back far enough that the number of likely generations is too spread out for both autosomal and X to be much of a guide. So I end up only using X-DNA to exclude lines.

    The extra bit is rarely useful, but it is for some.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Saetro For This Useful Post:

     Judith (12-10-2016), palamede (12-24-2016)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    646
    Sex
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Ethnicity
    German-British-Catalan
    Nationality
    (U.S.) American
    Y-DNA
    R-L1029
    mtDNA
    H1bg

    Germany Palatinate United Kingdom Catalonia France Ireland Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Judith View Post
    There are some suggestions on this web site that the X chromosome can be particularly significant in finding recent (<300 years ago) ancestors. I have not found it so despite following the method suggested, my X matches had no autosomal DNA match and no uploaded GEDcom to help. But it may be more illuminating in other people trees.
    Like the theory I share 196cM with my mother, and on the purely maternal line the X chromosome splits into approximately two on each generation. So after 7 more generations this will be down to just over 1.5cM (using a divide by 128). The line which divides least on the X is the male female male female, which needs 16 generations to divide to 1.5cM. And in 8 generations on the male female, male female it is down to 12cM. So is not possible to use X matches to predict the number of generations ago.
    Like the autosome the X does not divide evenly and this can be illustrated nicely using ancient DNA. I chose BR2 (GEDmatch F999933) since we already know that she has autosomal matches with living people. The result of a one to many search is 32 matches. The table did not post well but it is easy to duplicate if you wished. Decreasing the threshold from 5 to 3cM does not give any more matches, it must be internally limited on the site.
    The largest match is 10.5cM the smallest is 5cM. All but one of the matches are female. More than half have autosomal matches which the algorithm predicts to be 7 generations. But she is not! At 3200years old she is 128 generations ago. If you assume an exact 50% DNA split this 10.5cM could be from 5 to 8 generations ago.
    So I have concluded that although X matches show where a match is in your tree, they are not otherwise useful.
    Just because you haven't found the X chromosome to be particularly useful, doesn't mean it will be true for everyone. A great deal depends on the size of the match, of course, but also on the genders of the parties, and on the genders of whoever happens to be in the path between you and your match.

    In addition, you really can't assume that "on the purely maternal line the X chromosome splits into approximately two on each generation". This is just not true. Sometimes, the X chromosome doesn't split at all -- even when it can -- and even when it does split, it's more likely than not going to split somewhere other than the middle. That is, it will seldom actually be an even split. (By the same token, it might have more than just one crossover, and so be split into more than just two segments.)

    I have five tested siblings at 23andMe. Although our mother wasn't tested, our father was. As expected, all three sisters match on the entirety of their paternal X chromosome. My brothers and I only match on portions of our maternal (and only) X chromosome, and we also match each sister on portions of their maternal X chromosomes.

    Curiously, though, one brother-- Bernie -- matches one sister -- Kim -- along the entire length of her maternal X chromosome. In other words, they had to have both received a maternal X with identical crossover points, or one with no crossover points (unrecombined). Based on their X matches at 23andMe and at FTDNA, it seems more likely that it was the latter. In fact, it looks as if their maternal X chromosome corresponds to the X chromosome our mother received from her father.

    I match both of them on most of this X -- all except for an approximately 19 cM section surrounding the centromere. I happen to have a few matches in this region, and all of them are related to me through my maternal grandmother.

    Now, the X chromosome that my grandfather passed on to my mother is identical to the one my great grandmother transmitted to her son. Bernie, Kim, and I all have several matches on this portion of our X chromosome, and we know that all such matches had to have come through this one great grandmother -- one person out of eight. Or actually one out of six, since we could eliminate the possibility that the connection would be through our father's ancestors. Kim alone, of course, would not have been able to do this -- since an X match for her might be through either parent; just not an X match she shares with her brothers.

    But I'm finding the X chromosome even more useful than just connecting cousins to my maternal grandfather's grandmother or to my maternal grandmother.

    I have discovered two previously-unknown "2nd cousins". One is at 23andMe, while the other is at Ancestry. I share 207 cM in 11 segments with RB, the cousin at 23andMe; and 265 cM in 15 segments with the one at RK, the cousin at Ancestry. All of my siblings also have a lot of matching with RB, but I'm the only one of us who has tested with Ancestry.

    Now, one of these two cousins has a definite connection to my family. His surname matches the surname of the man one of my maternal grandfather's sisters married. If he happened to be the grandson of my grandfather's sister and her husband, everything would have fallen into place -- but it turns out that this is not the case.

    RB's grandfather instead was the brother of the man my grandfather's sister married. So, it would appear, RB is not the great grandson of my great grandparents; and I am not the great grandson of his. We should only be related by marriage ... but obviously, we're not only related, but relatively closely.

    Of course, I've considered the possibility that RB's father actually was the son of my grandfather's sister and her husband, but for some reason was raised by the husband's brother and his wife as their own child. But this doesn't seem to be the case ... and there's another wrinkle.

    The 2nd cousin at Ancestry -- RK -- turns out to a 1st cousin to RB. The explanation in the preceding paragraph could explain my relationship to RB, but it can't explain my relationship to RK. It also can't explain something else.

    On my grandfather's side, my relatives seem generally not to fit with the people who were supposed to have been my grandfather's parents. In fact, I haven't yet found a single relative who appears to be related to me through either of his parents.

    However, if I go in the other direction -- connecting my grandfather as a sibling to RB's grandfather (who is also RK's grandfather), things do fit. Suddenly, my "wealth" of Sizemores, Ashers, Bowlings, etc., begins to make sense.

    RB and RK's grandfather was the son of George Edward Babcock and his wife Hannah Louise Muncy. I am related to a number of people I'd be expected to be related to if George Babcock is my great grandfather; and to a number of people I'd be expected to be related to if Hannah Louise Muncy is my great grandmother -- and in the way I'd be expected to be related to them.

    In fact, I made a shadow tree over at Ancestry in which I made my grandfather the son of George and Hannah. As a result of this tree -- coupled with my DNA matches at Ancestry -- I now have dozens of "Shared Ancestor Hints" that involve people who are in some way related to George or Hannah, and I'm in six DNA Circles. In four of these circles, my "circle membership confidence" is said to be "good". In the other two (which are both small circles), it's "emerging".

    So how does the X chromosome factor into this? Well, I said that neither I nor any of my siblings shares a match on the X chromosome with RB. I don't actually know about RK, because Ancestry only tells you how much matching you have, in how many segments. It doesn't provide a chromosome browser. But, an X match wouldn't be expected anyway -- since both RB and RK have a father to son transmission in their relevant lines. On my side, if my maternal grandfather is George and Hannah's son, the transmission is: Hannah to my grandfather, my grandfather to my mother, and my mother to me.

    Hannah's mother was Mary Ann "Polly" Sizemore, and her father was William Sherman Muncy. I have DNA relatives who are connected with each of them.

    In addition, RB and I have 355 "relatives in common" at 23andMe. And although RB and I don't have any matches on the X chromosome, I do have some X chromosome matches with some of these. In particular, there is a likely male 3rd cousin -- DH -- with whom I share two rather large segments on the X chromosome. These segments are also shared by Bernie and Kim. One of them is 24.49 cM in length; the other is 33.54 cM.

    The size of these segments suggests that not a lot of recombinations occurred on either side. But as it happens, DH's mother was a Sizemore. Although his mother's X path would have included both of her parents, I was particularly interested in exploring a possible Sizemore connection.

    DH's maternal grandfather was named Felix Sizemore. He would not, of course, have inherited his X chromosome from anyone but his mother, but it seems that his parents were cousins. Felix's mother was also a Sizemore. Her parents were Willis Sizemore and Orrah Roberts. And Willis' parents were Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore and Rachael Jones -- who are both ancestors of Hannah Muncy!

    Henry and Rachael had a son who was called John "Jailor" Sizemore. John was the father of Hannah's mother, Mary Ann "Polly" Sizemore. And, if Hannah was my grandfather's mother, Polly would have been his maternal grandmother.

    Of course, none of this is proof. Still, it shows a possible X path for both DH and me. The only thing is this path does not make DH and me 3rd cousins, but 4th cousins once removed. However, this is not our closest relationship -- just a relationship that would include the X path. We are 3rd cousins once removed by way of another path from Henry and Rachel.

    But however you account for it, it's certain that there not only has to be a path between DH and me, there has to specifically be an X path. And, if these possible X paths are correct, there's only a single female to female transmission of the X chromosome on the path. Otherwise, it's always mother to son, and father to daughter. Because of the father to daughter transmissions, the opportunity of recombination is reduced for the paths between DH's and my common X-ancestor and the two of us.

    The bottom line is, if you're male a match on the X immediately eliminates your father as a source. Unfortunately for females, of course, it does not. If it's possible to determine which grandparent is the source of the match -- which in my case, it usually is -- then you can narrow the possibilities still further.

    Of course, I'm not at the point of being able to prove anything, and I might never be. Still, I think that many of my X matches have been invaluable in helping me to figure out directions in which to look, and that is by no means a trivial use.

    EDIT: I might also add, lest it seem I'm being too argumentative here, I definitely understand that X matches will be more useful for some than for others. It certainly helps when there are multiple siblings in the mix, because it makes it easier to begin to see where various segments might have come from.

    It doesn't help, of course, that 23andMe's "The New Experience" no longer distinguishes between full and half matching. Formerly, I could easily tell where my inheritance with any sibling was from just one parent, or both. In addition, I could compare my daughter to both my father and to my siblings. Anywhere she matched one of her aunts or uncles but not my father was obviously from my mother.

    Now, things are a bit more difficult -- although it's still possible to tell use my daughter as a filter.

    One last point I'd like to make is ... patience. I went several years before a Y DNA test I'd taken at Ancestry bore significant fruit. I didn't even find the match myself, but someone else alerted me to it: I had a 46/46 match with an elderly man with the same surname as me. This man was the 3rd great grandson of a man I'd thought was likely my 3rd great grandfather's ancestor, but I'd never been able to make a solid connection.

    However, all indications are that this ancestor was the man who brought our surname to America (in its original German form, of course). He appears to have been my 3rd great grandfather's grandfather, which would make me and my match 4th cousins twice removed.
    Last edited by geebee; 02-15-2017 at 04:08 AM.
    The short explanation of my ancestry is German-British-Catalan, but it actually includes smaller amounts of French, Irish, Swiss, Choctaw and probably Cherokee. My avatar picture is of my father, his father, and his father's father. The baby in the picture is my eldest brother.

    GB

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to geebee For This Useful Post:

     dp (02-15-2017), Saetro (02-16-2017)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,118
    Sex
    Location
    USA-NC
    Ethnicity
    Caucasian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    R1b-Z2961>ZZ30>ZP106
    mtDNA
    K1a4a1c1

    United States of America United States Tree Flag Bermuda United Kingdom France Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by geebee View Post
    Just because you haven't found the X chromosome to be particularly useful, doesn't mean it will be true for everyone. A great deal depends on the size of the match, of course, but also on the genders of the parties, and on the genders of whoever happens to be in the path between you and your match.

    In addition, you really can't assume that "on the purely maternal line the X chromosome splits into approximately two on each generation". This is just not true. Sometimes, the X chromosome doesn't split at all -- even when it can -- and even when it does split, it's more likely than not going to split somewhere other than the middle. That is, it will seldom actually be an even split. (By the same token, it might have more than just one crossover, and so be split into more than just two segments.)

    I have five tested siblings at 23andMe. Although our mother wasn't tested, our father was. As expected, all three sisters match on the entirety of their paternal X chromosome. My brothers and I only match on portions of our maternal (and only) X chromosome, and we also match each sister on portions of their maternal X chromosomes.

    Curiously, though, one brother-- Bernie -- matches one sister -- Kim -- along the entire length of her maternal X chromosome. In other words, they had to have both received a maternal X with identical crossover points, or one with no crossover points (unrecombined). Based on their X matches at 23andMe and at FTDNA, it seems more likely that it was the latter. In fact, it looks as if their maternal X chromosome corresponds to the X chromosome our mother received from her father.

    I match both of them on most of this X -- all except for an approximately 19 cM section surrounding the centromere. I happen to have a few matches in this region, and all of them are related to me through my maternal grandmother.

    Now, the X chromosome that my grandfather passed on to my mother is identical to the one my great grandmother transmitted to her son. Bernie, Kim, and I all have several matches on this portion of our X chromosome, and we know that all such matches had to have come through this one great grandmother -- one person out of eight. Or actually one out of six, since we could eliminate the possibility that the connection would be through our father's ancestors. Kim alone, of course, would not have been able to do this -- since an X match for her might be through either parent; just not an X match she shares with her brothers.

    But I'm finding the X chromosome even more useful than just connecting cousins to my maternal grandfather's grandmother or to my maternal grandmother.

    I have discovered two previously-unknown "2nd cousins". One is at 23andMe, while the other is at Ancestry. I share 207 cM in 11 segments with RB, the cousin at 23andMe; and 265 cM in 15 segments with the one at RK, the cousin at Ancestry. All of my siblings also have a lot of matching with RB, but I'm the only one of us who has tested with Ancestry.

    Now, one of these two cousins has a definite connection to my family. His surname matches the surname of the man one of my maternal grandfather's sisters married. If he happened to be the grandson of my grandfather's sister and her husband, everything would have fallen into place -- but it turns out that this is not the case.

    RB's grandfather instead was the brother of the man my grandfather's sister married. So, it would appear, RB is not the great grandson of my great grandparents; and I am not the great grandson of his. We should only be related by marriage ... but obviously, we're not only related, but relatively closely.

    Of course, I've considered the possibility that RB's father actually was the son of my grandfather's sister and her husband, but for some reason was raised by the husband's brother and his wife as their own child. But this doesn't seem to be the case ... and there's another wrinkle.

    The 2nd cousin at Ancestry -- RK -- turns out to a 1st cousin to RB. The explanation in the preceding paragraph could explain my relationship to RB, but it can't explain my relationship to RK. It also can't explain something else.

    On my grandfather's side, my relatives seem generally not to fit with the people who were supposed to have been my grandfather's parents. In fact, I haven't yet found a single relative who appears to be related to me through either of his parents.

    However, if I go in the other direction -- connecting my grandfather as a sibling to RB's grandfather (who is also RK's grandfather), things do fit. Suddenly, my "wealth" of Sizemores, Ashers, Bowlings, etc., begins to make sense.

    RB and RK's grandfather was the son of George Edward Babcock and his wife Hannah Louise Muncy. I am related to a number of people I'd be expected to be related to if George Babcock is my great grandfather; and to a number of people I'd be expected to be related to if Hannah Louise Muncy is my great grandmother -- and in the way I'd be expected to be related to them.

    In fact, I made a shadow tree over at Ancestry in which I made my grandfather the son of George and Hannah. As a result of this tree -- coupled with my DNA matches at Ancestry -- I now have dozens of "Shared Ancestor Hints" that involve people who are in some way related to George or Hannah, and I'm in six DNA Circles. In four of these circles, my "circle membership confidence" is said to be "good". In the other two (which are both small circles), it's "emerging".

    So how does the X chromosome factor into this? Well, I said that neither I nor any of my siblings shares a match on the X chromosome with RB. I don't actually know about RK, because Ancestry only tells you how much matching you have, in how many segments. It doesn't provide a chromosome browser. But, an X match wouldn't be expected anyway -- since both RB and RK have a father to son transmission in their relevant lines. On my side, if my maternal grandfather is George and Hannah's son, the transmission is: Hannah to my grandfather, my grandfather to my mother, and my mother to me.

    Hannah's mother was Mary Ann "Polly" Sizemore, and her father was William Sherman Muncy. I have DNA relatives who are connected with each of them.

    In addition, RB and I have 355 "relatives in common" at 23andMe. And although RB and I don't have any matches on the X chromosome, I do have some X chromosome matches with some of these. In particular, there is a likely male 3rd cousin -- DH -- with whom I share two rather large segments on the X chromosome. These segments are also shared by Bernie and Kim. One of them is 24.49 cM in length; the other is 33.54 cM.

    The size of these segments suggests that not a lot of recombinations occurred on either side. But as it happens, DH's mother was a Sizemore. Although his mother's X path would have included both of her parents, I was particularly interested in exploring a possible Sizemore connection.

    DH's maternal grandfather was named Felix Sizemore. He would not, of course, have inherited his X chromosome from anyone but his mother, but it seems that his parents were cousins. Felix's mother was also a Sizemore. Her parents were Willis Sizemore and Orrah Roberts. And Willis' parents were Henry "Hunting Shirt" Sizemore and Rachael Jones -- who are both ancestors of Hannah Muncy!

    Henry and Rachael had a son who was called John "Jailor" Sizemore. John was the father of Hannah's mother, Mary Ann "Polly" Sizemore. And, if Hannah was my grandfather's mother, Polly would have been his maternal grandmother.

    Of course, none of this is proof. Still, it shows a possible X path for both DH and me. The only thing is this path does not make DH and me 3rd cousins, but 4th cousins once removed. However, this is not our closest relationship -- just a relationship that would include the X path. We are 3rd cousins once removed by way of another path from Henry and Rachel.

    But however you account for it, it's certain that there not only has to be a path between DH and me, there has to specifically be an X path. And, if these possible X paths are correct, there's only a single female to female transmission of the X chromosome on the path. Otherwise, it's always mother to son, and father to daughter. Because of the father to daughter transmissions, the opportunity of recombination is reduced for the paths between DH's and my common X-ancestor and the two of us.

    The bottom line is, if you're male a match on the X immediately eliminates your father as a source. Unfortunately for females, of course, it does not. If it's possible to determine which grandparent is the source of the match -- which in my case, it usually is -- then you can narrow the possibilities still further.

    Of course, I'm not at the point of being able to prove anything, and I might never be. Still, I think that many of my X matches have been invaluable in helping me to figure out directions in which to look, and that is by no means a trivial use.

    EDIT: I might also add, lest it seem I'm being too argumentative here, I definitely understand that X matches will be more useful for some than for others. It certainly helps when there are multiple siblings in the mix, because it makes it easier to begin to see where various segments might have come from.

    It doesn't help, of course, that 23andMe's "The New Experience" no longer distinguishes between full and half matching. Formerly, I could easily tell where my inheritance with any sibling was from just one parent, or both. In addition, I could compare my daughter to both my father and to my siblings. Anywhere she matched one of her aunts or uncles but not my father was obviously from my mother.

    Now, things are a bit more difficult -- although it's still possible to tell use my daughter as a filter.

    One last point I'd like to make is ... patience. I went several years before a Y DNA test I'd taken at Ancestry bore significant fruit. I didn't even find the match myself, but someone else alerted me to it: I had a 46/46 match with an elderly man with the same surname as me. This man was the 3rd great grandson of a man I'd thought was likely my 3rd great grandfather's ancestor, but I'd never been able to make a solid connection.

    However, all indications are that this ancestor was the man who brought our surname to America (in its original German form, of course). He appears to have been my 3rd great grandfather's grandfather, which would make me and my match 4th cousins twice removed.
    Lucky... :-)
    -dp
    Grace and good eure and long prosperitee. [Lydg. Mum. Goldsmiths]

    ysearch/mitosearch id: atr94 GENBANK/ENA mtDNA id: KF703542 member ISOGG

  8. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    646
    Sex
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Ethnicity
    German-British-Catalan
    Nationality
    (U.S.) American
    Y-DNA
    R-L1029
    mtDNA
    H1bg

    Germany Palatinate United Kingdom Catalonia France Ireland Switzerland
    Although I didn't start this thread, I thought I'd mention a further development in the saga of my maternal X chromosome.

    Thanks to 23andMe, I have now seen matches that -- taken together -- cover my X chromosome from one end to the other. In fact, I've been able to make an Excel file from these matches. I made columns for the first, middle, and last name of each match, the start and end points of the match, the length of the segment, and number of SNPs. I even included a column in which I placed an image of each match -- using Windows' snipping tool to capture the image. (I might also note, for clarity, that I did not include my brothers and sisters or my daughter in this file.)

    Of course I can sort on any of the columns, but I normally just order by the "start" column. I've been able to confirm that from my X chromosome from position 1-41,061,864 and from position 71,279,956-97,081,211 appears to have come from my maternal grandfather, while between position 41,061,864-71,279,956 came from my maternal grandmother.

    I have at least 39 matches to the first region I share with my grandfather, and 58 matches to the second region I share with him. I only have 3 matches to the region I share with my grandmother. Of course, this is based just on those matches who either have agreed to share with me, or who are participating in Open Sharing.

    The largest single match anyone shares with me is 33.54 cM. The individual with whom I share this match has two other matches with me on the X chromosome, for a total of 60.95 cM. He also shares two segments with me on chromosome 7, and one on chromosome 13. Our total sharing for all six segments is 107 cM.

    I'd like to be able to do the same sort of analysis of every chromosome, but that probably isn't really feasible. The X is useful because its potential path is so reduced compared to any of the autosomes. If you go back just three generations on an autosome -- to great grandparents -- there are eight possible contributors of any given segment (assuming you don't know which side it's on).

    On the X chromosome, if you're male, this number is immediately reduced to just three. Of course, I know that all of my X chromosome I can trace to my grandfather, I can also trace to his mother. For the roughly 20 cM that I can trace to my grandmother, its relatively small size means that there is a better than even chance that it came from just one of my grandmother's parents.

    As it happens, at FTDNA there is someone with whom I share 17.49 cM of the region of the X that I inherited from my grandmother. Both of her parents are actually related to me. However, her father seems to be primarily related to me through his father, who would not be in the X chromosome path of my match.

    However, my match's mother was the paternal granddaughter of the sister of my maternal grandmother's mother. In other words, I can pretty much also pinpoint which great grandparent was the source of the 20 cM of the X chromosome that I inherited from my grandmother.

    So even though my grandmother would have inherited an X chromosome from each of her parents, I know that at least 17.49 cM out of the 20 cM that she passed on to me did not come from her father. Since that only leaves 2.51 cM that could have come from him, it seems somewhat more likely that all 20 cM came from her mother.

    Beyond that, of course, I can't further determine whether the source was our common 2nd great grandfather, or our common 2nd great grandmother. It's also possible that some of the segment could have come from one of them, and some from the other.

    So I really wouldn't dismiss the X chromosome as entirely useless for genealogical purposes. Especially if, like me, you just happen to get very lucky.

    EDIT: I'd forgotten, but I have a second match at FTDNA on the part of the X chromosome that I inherited from my grandmother. This one is for 18.82 cM of the just under 20 cM. This person is actually a half 2nd cousin to me: his grandmother and my grandmother were half sisters.

    Two of my siblings match him for even more cM than I do. However, there's also a lesson here about not assuming too much about the lack of an X match. Three of my siblings don't have any match with him on the X chromosome.

    Obviously, they're still maternally related to him. It's just that two of my siblings inherited a maternal X chromosome with DNA only from our grandfather; and one has a maternal X chromosome that includes some DNA from our grandmother, but not in the same location as our 2nd cousin.
    Last edited by geebee; 05-11-2017 at 02:47 AM.
    The short explanation of my ancestry is German-British-Catalan, but it actually includes smaller amounts of French, Irish, Swiss, Choctaw and probably Cherokee. My avatar picture is of my father, his father, and his father's father. The baby in the picture is my eldest brother.

    GB

Similar Threads

  1. AncestryDNA Tree Experiment
    By geebee in forum AncestryDNA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2016, 07:15 AM
  2. Professors experiment with handheld DNA sequencer
    By rock hunter in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 08:04 PM
  3. AIM experiment part III: AncestrySNPMiner
    By anglesqueville in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 08:03 PM
  4. AIMs'experiment: part II
    By anglesqueville in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 03-28-2016, 09:39 AM
  5. Experiment idea
    By Erik in forum AncestryDNA
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-20-2015, 02:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •