The Genetic Genealogist

Researchers have recently discovered that Napoleon Bonaparte’s Y-DNA belongs to haplogroup E1b1b1c1* (M34+).

Dominique Vivant Denon was the director-general of French museums under Napoleon.  Denon made a reliquary (a container for relics) that included the beard of Henry IV, a tooth from Voltair, and a lock of Bonaparte’s hair. ¹  The “Vivant-Denon reliquary” is currently deposited in the Bertrand Museum of Châteauroux, and contains in the “right lateral compartment” a lock of Napoleon’s hair (two of which were used for mtDNA analysis. ²  Also in the reliquary is three beard hairs belonging to Napoleon.

Interestingly, when the beard hairs were examined using scanning electron microscopy, it was discovered that they were covered by remnants of shaving soap and some microscopic iron debris from the razor used to cut the beard.

DNA was extracted from the base of two of the three hairs, and was then analyzed.  First, the DNA underwent an amologenin test to confirm that it was Y-DNA.  Next, the DNA was tested for the DYS19, XCAIIa, and YCAIIb Y-STRs, and for ten Y-SNPs in the following order: M125, M174, M35, M33, M123, M81 and M78, followed by M34, M84 and M290.

The Results

The testing showed the following Y-STR results: DYS19 = 13, XCAIIa = 19, and YCAIIb = 22 (which show a probability in Whit Athey’s predictor program of 76.5% E1b1b). ³  Further, the Y-SNP results suggested the haplogroup E1b1b1c1*.

Great-Great-Great Uncle Napoleon

The results were further compared to the Y-DNA profile of Prince Charles Napoleon Bonaparte, born in 1950, who is the 4th generation descendant of Napoleon’s younger brother Jérôme Bonaparte (1784-1860) (a family tree can be found in the article).  Not surprisingly, Charles’s DNA matched that of the DNA extracted from the beard, suggesting both that the beard hairs did belong to Napoleon and that the scientist’s results are likely accurate.

The article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License and is available through the journal’s website (here).

For more information:

• Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: “Napoleon Bonaparte belonged to haplogroup E1b1b1c1* (E-M34*)” (includes a link to a previous article about Bonaparte’s mtDNA in haplogroup H)

Footnotes:

Robert Estes of DNAeXplain announces the discovery of a previously-undiscovered Native American haplogroup.  Up to the current point, research had found only two Y-DNA haplogroups in the Native peoples of North and South America – C3b and Q1a3a (aka Q1a3a1).  However,  new research described in the accompanying paper (here (pdf)) uncovers a third haplogroup found in Native peoples.

From the paper:

“For the past decade, since the advent of genetic genealogy, it has been accepted that subgroups of haplogroup C and Q were indicative of Native American ancestry. Specifically, subgroups C3b and Q1a3a, alone, are found among the Native peoples of North and South America. Other subgroups of haplogroup C and Q are found elsewhere in the world, not in North or South American, and conversely, C3b and Q1a3a are not found in other locations in the world. This makes it very easy to determine if your direct paternal ancestor was, or was not, Native American. Or so it seemed.”

Estes is a scientist and business owner in the information technology arena.  She is the Administrator of the Lost Colony DNA Project, and more than 20 surname projects.  Her contact information can be found in the paper.

ScienceNews reports that researchers led by Eske Willerslev at the University of Copenhagen are attempting to sequence the genome of legendary Native American “Sitting Bull” (see “Genome of a Chief”).

Earlier this year (2010), Eske Willersleve announced the successful sequencing of approximately 80% of the genome of “Inuk,” a man from Greenland who left behind a few small fragments of bone and four hairs frozen in permafrost when he died about 4,000 years ago (see “Long-Locked Genome of Ancient Man Sequenced”).  Using these ancient DNA sequencing techniques, Willersleve’s group is analyzing DNA from other samples.

One of these samples is a lock of hair from Sitting Bull.

Sitting Bull (c. 1831 – Dec. 15, 1890) was a Hunkpapa Lokota Sioux born in South Dakota.  Sitting Bull played an important role in the June 25, 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn, and later toured as a performer in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show.

It is not clear from the ScienceNow article, but the lock of hair being used for the analysis could be the same lock of hair that was repatriated to Ernie LaPointe, the great-grandson of Sitting Bull, in December 2007 (see “Assessment of a Lock of Hair and Leggings Attributed to Sitting Bull, a Hunkpapa Sioux, in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution”).  Ernie LaPointe is believed to be the closest lineal descendant of Sitting Bull, and one of his few remaining descendants (see “Smithsonian traces Sitting Bull’s descendants”).  The lock of hair was acquired from Sitting Bull’s body upon his death in 1890 by U.S. Army surgeon Dr. Horace M. Deeble, and when Deeble died in 1896 it was loaned to the National Museum of Natural History.

It’s unknown when the researchers plan to release their results.  The ScienceNews article mentions that one of the researchers, Cristina Valdiosera, revealed the plan to sequence Sitting Bull’s genome at an August 2010 scientific meeting:

“Valdiosera said that the researchers have the approval of Sitting Bull’s descendents to perform DNA tests on a sample of his hair, and that the team is trying to extract a full genome. If so, his would become the first ancient, non-frozen, Native American genome sequenced.”

Interestingly, it appears that working with Sitting Bull’s genome may be a life-long dream for Willersleve (see “Fossilized feces found in Oregon suggest earliest human presence in North America”):

“[Willersleve] said his own interest in the subject [of ancient American DNA] was sparked by a boyhood fascination with Sitting Bull and other American Indians.”

Sequencing Famous Genomes

As new techniques for sequencing ancient or low-quality DNA samples are developed, researchers will begin to analyze any famous or ancient genome they can get their hands on, which is already beginning to happen.  As a genealogist, I know very well the affiliation humans have for keeping mementos of the past.  There are probably hundreds of famous and ancient DNA samples waiting their turn for sequencing.

Off the top of my head, here are 5 people – either known or likely to have DNA kicking around – that I would nominate for analysis:

• Albert Einstein;
• Abraham Lincoln;
• Ötzi (I believe this one is already in the works);
• Juanita the Peruvian Ice Maiden (a 600-year-old mummy); and
• My great-grandmother Helen (hey, I can’t deny my genealogy side!).

Whose genome would you nominate for sequencing?

Ethical Issues

The ScienceNews article notes “the researchers have the approval of Sitting Bull’s descendents to perform DNA tests on a sample of his hair.”  Certainly they needed permission to obtain DNA from the hair clipping, but did they need permission to sequence that DNA? (setting aside for the moment the many ethical concerns regarding Native American remains).

For example, if I find a hair clipping in a book I purchased at an estate sale, do I have a duty to find the owner’s descendants and ask for permission before sending it away for sequencing?  What if the hair clipping is clearly labeled with the owner’s name and other identifying information?  Further, can I leave instructions for my descendants that they do not sequence or give permission to sequence my DNA?

I’m not a believer in genetic exceptionalism, so I look outside the realm of DNA for insight.  If that book I’d purchased at the estate sale was an old diary or journal, it most likely would not cross my mind to contact the author’s descendants before reading it.  And, interestingly, that diary or journal is much more likely to reveal personal information about the author than anything I could possibly discover in their genome.

What are your thoughts?  What permission might be required when sequencing ancient or famous DNA?

On May 6, 2010, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany presented the world with a draft of the genome sequence of the Neanderthal (press release here (pdf) and full article here (free), NYT article here).  As part of the announcement, the team presented their conclusion that 1% to 4% of the genome of non-Africans is derived from Neanderthals:

“An initial comparison of the two sequences has brought some exciting discoveries to light. Contrary to the assumption of many researchers, it would appear that some Neandertals and early modern humans interbred. According to the researchers’ calculations, between one and four percent of the DNA of many humans living today originate from the Neandertal. ‘Those of us who live outside Africa carry a little Neandertal DNA in us,’ says Svante Pääbo.  Previous tests carried out on the DNA of Neandertal mitochondria, which represents just a tiny part of the whole genome, had not found any evidence of such interbreeding or ‘admixture.’”

Once this study came out, I knew it was only a matter of time before companies began offering tests that examined the percent of Neanderthal contribution to a test-taker’s genome.

The Neanderthal Index

In May 2010, DNA Consultants began offering a test called the Neanderthal Index.  Priced at USD $90.00, the test purports to “estimate how much Neanderthal is in your ancestry.”  From the test description:

“Created in response to the phenomenal interest generated by the revelation in scientific journals on May 8, 2010 that most humans are part Neanderthal (Green et al), our autosomal DNA Neanderthal Index can be added to your DNA Fingerprint Test or DNA Fingerprint Plus. It reports any strong matches you have with populations identified as Archaic, those preserving the earliest earmarks of interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans (Homo sapiens sapiens). The stronger the match the higher the likelihood that your ancestors gave you Neanderthal genes.”

The site also provides an FAQ page, and a sample test result (pdf).  The test returns results on a scale of 0.1 to 5.0, but it is unclear if this is meant to be a percentage.

It is vital to understand that this test does NOT test SNPs.  Instead, it uses CODIS markers to estimate whether a test-taker’s results are likely to be found in “archaic populations,” which themselves are hypothesized to be more likely to possess Neanderthal DNA (i.e., “relatively little genetic inflow.”).  The list of archaic populations is found in the FAQ, and includes many Middle Eastern and worldwide indigenous populations.  From the test description:

“Note that this test does not directly examine your genetic material. Only a large-scale genomic sequencing procedure like the Human Genome Project or Draft Neanderthal Genome can do that. The Neanderthal Index is based on probabilistic predictions of the occurrence of your unique DNA Fingerprint in Archaic Populations retaining Neanderthal genomics and traits.”

While the website does a good job of explaining that it does not identify any specific “Neanderthal SNPs” but rather makes a incredibly rough probabilistic estimate based on the Science paper, it is important to fully understand the many limitations of this test.

DIY Genomics

Meanwhile, over at 23andMe, several test-takers refuse to wait for commercial companies to offer Neanderthal-specific testing.  In addition to asking in the 23andMe forums when the Ancestry Painting will include the percentage of Neanderthal DNA, others have proposed several so-called “Neanderthal SNPs” based on research published in other recent papers.  These SNPs include rs1864325 (forum discussion here) and rs930557 (forum discussion here).   This collaborative effort by 23andMe’s test-takers is just one of the many reasons that personal genomics and affordable sequencing are so exciting.

Although the science behind these Neanderthal SNPs is only in its infancy and should only be taken with an enormous grain of salt at this stage, there will be more of these types of studies in the future to provide companies and pioneers with new data to explore.  And we, the personal genome pioneers, will get to learn and explore as these developments unfold.

Conclusions

While there aren’t yet any commercially-available tests that examine your genome for evidence of Neanderthal contribution, there will undoubtedly be such tests in the next few years, especially as further drafts of the Neanderthal genome are released.

Randy Seaver at Genea-Musings (“I’m Puzzled by DNA Claims on ‘Faces of America’”) writes about the fourth and last episode of “Faces of America,” a PBS documentary series investigating the ancestry of several famous people in America. This fourth episode included several different types of genetic genealogy to examine the ancestral origins and relatedness of the show’s members.

1. Whole Genome Sequencing by Knome

The first type of genetic genealogy was whole-genome sequencing by Knome of Henry Louis Gates and his father. This analysis examined Henry’s (“Skip’s”) genome for medical conditions and physical traits, and also compared his DNA to his father’s, thereby allowing them to deduce the entire DNA contribution from his deceased mother. This segment was actually quite moving, as Dr. Gates was able to establish this intimate connection to the mother that he and his father obviously missed very much.

2. SNP Analysis by 23andMe

The second type of analysis was large-scale SNP analysis of everyone’s genome by 23andMe. The show primarily focused on the Ancestry Painting, which uses information from throughout the entire genome to determine a very rough estimate of your ancestry. Ancestry Painting breaks down the genome into three categories: Asian/Native American, European, and African. Stephen Colbert, for example, was 100% European, while Eva Longoria was 70% European, 27% Asian/indigenous, and 3% African. I don’t recall any mention or use of 23andMe’s medical or physical trait analysis in the show.

3. mtDNA and Y-DNA Haplogroups

The third type of genetic genealogy was haplogroup testing. In this segment, Dr. Gates spoke with Dr. Bryan Sykes of Oxford Ancestors, which was interesting because it was the first time I’ve ever seen him speak. There didn’t appear to be any surprises here.

4. Mysterious Genomic Comparisons

The fourth type of genetic genealogy testing in the episode is what has caused so much confusion among genealogists. Dr. Gates introduced David Altschuler and Mark Daily as “research geneticists at the Broad Institute.” According to Dr. Gates, Altschuler and Daily have “pioneered a new kind of genetic analysis that can determine if any two people share a common ancestor within the last several centuries.” Although Dr. Gates repeatedly said within the last “250 years”, the scientists repeatedly said “hundreds of years.” A slight difference perhaps, but I tended to disregard the “250 years” as more of a simplification by Gates for purposes of the show rather than any actual limit discussed by the scientists. Regardless, this doesn’t make their analysis any more clear.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate any discussion, literature, or publication by Altschuler or Daily (or anyone else) discussing this “new kind” of genetic analysis. If you’re familiar with one, please point it out in the comments so that we can understand their analysis.

Interestingly, the members of the series apparently did not match each other in 23andMe’s Family Finder, since the 23andMe system would have picked up on that, and further analysis would not have been necessary. And since it appeared that they did NOT undergo further testing, I imagine they used their 23andMe data for the analysis by Altschuler and Daily.

As an example of this comparison, according to Altschuler and Daily, Yo-Yo Ma (who was 100% Asian in his 23andMe Ancestry Painting) is related to Eva Longoria (who was 70% European, 27% Asian/indigenous, and 3% African) within the last few centuries. It obviously wasn’t through Native American DNA since any connection there was many, many thousands of years ago. Does Longoria have more recent Asian DNA perhaps? It seems unlikely (but is certainly not impossible). The fact that this was simply glossed over was an oversight.

I’m having a hard time understanding the results from Altschuler and Daily.  Can anyone else shed any light on their analysis?

Conclusion

Despite the confusion created by the fourth type of genetic analysis, I really enjoyed this episode of Faces of America. As always, it was interesting and entertaining to watch them receive their results and explore their ancestry.

What are your thoughts?

I recently received an interesting question from a reader (see this comment) about 23andMe’s Relative Finder, and thought it would be worth sharing the question and my answer with all my readers.

The Question:

I’m a man who recently took a 23andMe test, and I have a question about Relative Finder.  Another man who I match on 36 of 37 Y-DNA markers via Family Tree DNA also took a 23andMe test.  We believe that we are third cousins, but this individual does not show up as related in Relative Finder, nor does he show any similarities in the Family Inheritance section.  Does this mean that we are not related at all?

The Answer

If two individuals do not share any DNA in the Family Inheritance section of 23andMe or do not appear as relatives in Relative Finder, this absolutely does not mean that they are not or cannot be relatives.  It does suggest, however, that the two individuals might not share any DNA.  Although your Y-DNA test suggests that you share a recent common male ancestor, it appears that apart from your Y chromosomes you do not share any other DNA.

DNA is randomly passed down from generation to generation.  A parent does not pass on their entire genetic makeup to a child; as a result, bits and pieces of DNA are lost in each generation.

Cousins will only share DNA if they happen to have randomly inherited that DNA from their shared ancestors.  With each generation that separates the cousins, the probability that they share DNA decreases, because with every generation it is more likely that they will not inherit DNA from their ever-more-remote shared ancestors.

Third cousins, for example, share only 2 of their 16 ancestors at 4 generations.  In this example, it appears that those two ancestors did not contribute an identical segment to both you and your third cousin.  Interestingly, it is possible that both you and your cousin have segments of DNA from these ancestors, but they wouldn’t show up as a match in Family Inheritance or Relative Finder unless they were the same segment of DNA.

Also keep in mind that a 23andMe test is only comparing those sections of the DNA that are examined by the test; a whole-genome test, currently not available to consumers (at least at an affordable price), is the only test that can compare an individual’s entire DNA makeup to another’s.

Two Family Trees

In reality, everyone has two family trees.  The first is a Genealogical Tree, which is every ancestor in history that had a child who had a child who had a child that ultimately led to you.  Every decision made by every person in that tree contributed to who and what you are today.

However, not every person in that tree contributed a segment of your DNA sequence (because of random inheritance, as discussed above).  As a result, we have a second family tree - a Genetic Tree – which is a tree that contains only those ancestors who contributed to our DNA.  No one has yet been able to construct their Genetic Tree, but soon it will be a reality thanks to advances in genetic sequencing and comparison such Relative Finder.  These tools are using relatedness between people living today to deduce the inheritance of DNA from people who have been dead for centuries.

I have many questions about Genetic Trees that I’m looking forward to answering with new tools in the future, including the following:

• At 10 generations, I have approximately 1024 ancestors (although I know there is some overlap).  How many of these ancestors are part of my Genetic Tree?  Is it a very small number?  A surprisingly large number?
• What percentage, on average, of an individual’s genealogical tree at X generations is part of their genetic tree?

What questions about Genetic Trees can you come up with?

ISOGG, the International Society of Genetic Genealogy, has a “Success Stories” page where it posts short summaries of just a few the many successes that genetic genealogy has helped people achieve.  Today I noticed that there are several new summaries regarding “Autosomal DNA Successes,” both of which were the result of 23andMe’s new Relative Finder (currently still in beta testing).

Relative Finder

As I recently wrote, Relative Finder is a feature at 23andMe that allows users to compare their autosomal DNA to the autosomal DNA of others to potentially find cousins.  This has long been done with Y-DNA and mtDNA, but this is one of the first times this has been done with autosomal DNA.

Success Story #1

The first success story is from someone who used Relative Finder to identify a huge number of potential cousins.  After connecting one of his or her potential 4th cousins, the individuals discovered that they have similar surnames from a certain location in common (in addition to DNA on chromosomes 3 and 10).  This individual also wisely noted that s/he now has “a good idea of the path that two of my DNA segments took through my pedigree to get to me.”  This is something I wrote about recently in “The Future of Genetic Genealogy – Tracing DNA To Individual Ancestors.”

Success Story #2 – A First?

The second success story is about two Relative Finder users who worked together to identify a line that they had in common, potentially identifying segments of DNA passed to them from a couple who were born in the 1730’s.  This is a very interesting result, and I wonder if it is the first time that genealogists have identified a segment of DNA that they inherited from distant autosomal ancestors (i.e. not their Y-DNA or mtDNA lines) outside of the medical realm.

Conclusion

I know I’ve mentioned this a great deal lately, but I again emphasize that geneticists and genealogists will be seeing much more of this type of success story in the future.

[PLEASE NOTE:  The Onion is a satirical site meant for ENTERTAINMENT and social commentary purposes only.  The following study is NOT real!]

The Onion, an infamous mock news site has a (surprisingly intelligent) article today entitled “7 Million People Direct Descendants Of Single Smooth-Talking Ancestor” about a “study” that has found that millions of people around the world have a genetic marker that links them to “a single smooth-talking common ancestor.”

Randy Seaver of Genea-Musings brings the article to my attention (thank you Randy!):

The headline screams “7 Million People Direct Descendants of Smooth-Talking Ancestor” — see the article here in the Science and Technology section of The Onion. It sounds right up the genetic genealogy alley, doesn’t it? Megan, Blaine, Emily – why haven’t you written about this guy? Are 7 million descendants not enough?

Gwilym of Many Conquests

According to the article, after analyzing 4,000 samples from around the world, the Baltimore, Md. researchers announce that “the lineage appears to have originated with a highly virile ninth-century Welsh nobleman known as Gwilym of Many Conquests”:

“This is one of the largest diasporas known to have descended from a single progenitor,” said head researcher Lawrence Ghilcrest, adding that DNA evidence now corroborates stories about the Welshman that historians once dismissed as myth. “To have propagated his genetic material so effectively, and across so much territory, we can only infer Gwilym was quite the charmer.”

The article is clearly a reflection of several recent studies suggesting a link between prevalent traits or genetic markers and an ancient “prolific” ancestor.  The most famous example is a study that found that 8% of men in a large region of Asia have an identical recent Y-chromosomal lineage and suggested that these men could all be descendants of Genghis Khan because he could have been a very “successful” progenitor (see the 2003 study here and a related news story: “Genghis Khan DNA test attracts hordes of takers“).  Although the study did not declare this was in fact the case, many anti-genetic genealogy sources have used the study’s suggestion (and companies’ use of the suggestion) to criticize genetic ancestry testing.

Are You a Descendant of Gwilym?

The article notes that you, too, can be tested for the smooth-talking gene:

News of these findings have prompted many to undergo testing to determine if they too might be descended from this celebrated medieval Lothario. Reginald Sperino, a 36-year-old Henderson, NV waterbed salesman who tested positive for the sequence, said he is proud to come from such a noble line of sweet-talkers.  “I always thought there was something special about me,” Sperino said. “I mean, what can I—hey, there, beautiful—what can I say? It’s nice to finally have an explanation for my je ne sais quoi.”

Note: to avoid any confusion, for those unfamiliar with the Onion please recognize that this is for ENTERTAINMENT purposes only.  It is not a real study!

Posted via web from Blaine Bettinger’s Lifestream

An article in the United Arab Emirate newspaper The National (wikipedia) does a terrific job of highlighting recent research from Family Tree DNA.  The story – “DNA could illuminate Islam’s lineage” – discusses research that has attempted to elucidate the Y-DNA signature of Mohammed.  Although Mohammed did not have a son, he had a daughter who married her paternal second cousin, thus passing to Mohammed’s grandchildren the same Y-DNA.  From the article:

“For almost 1,600 years, the title Sharif, Sayyed, or Habib has been bestowed on Muslims who have been able to trace their roots back to the Prophet Mohammed through intricate family trees, oral histories and genealogical records. But now an American DNA lab says it may have identified the DNA signature of descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, and perhaps the prospect of a direct, more accurate means of confirming or identifying such a connection.”

The caveat, as the story briefly mentions by the phrase “if their oral tradition is accurate”, is that no one has an authenticated DNA sample directly from Mohammed.  If there were, this type of research would not be needed.  Instead, the conclusion that it might be Mohammed’s Y-DNA is based on testing individuals who are likely to be descended from Mohammed and looking for a common Y-DNA signature.  Until a DNA sample from Mohammed is obtained (likely an impossibility), the conclusion will not be 100% proven, which means that any information about this conclusion should also contain info about this caveat.  Of course, as all genealogists know, almost none of our conclusions about ancestry/descendancy are 100% proven, especially when they are based at least in part on oral and paper records.

Sharifs DNA Project at FTDNA

There is a public Sharifs DNA Project at Family Tree DNA, which contains the following information:

“Sharif’s are people who claim to be descendant from the Prophet Muhammad, Peace on him, through the two sons of his daughter Fatima Ezzahra, which are Hassan and Hussein. The descendants of Hassan and Hussein sons of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb spread all over the world and particularly in the muslim world from Indonesia to Moroco. There are actually hundreds of thousand of people who are claiming to be be Sharifs. Some of them have a lot of genealogy documents heritated from fathers to sons and which contain many data about the genealogy trees.”

Perhaps the deduced Y-DNA signature is there?

Twitter

I first announced this story early this morning via twitter.  If you are a twitter user and would like to follow me, just click below:

Image by Aaron Logan

Roughly 6 million years ago, the Hominini subtribe of the Hominidae family tree (the so-called “great apes”) diverged into two known branches, with one branch (genus Pan ) resulting in modern-day Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and the other branch (genus Homo) resulting in modern-day humans.

Since there has only been 6 million years of divergent evolution, Chimpanzees/Bonobos and Humans share a great deal of DNA sequence in common (although estimates vary widely and typically depend on what, exactly, is being considered in the comparison).

The Close Cousins DNA Project

On May 31, 2008, the Close Cousins DNA Project was launched by Bill Davenport as a result of a discussion on the Genealogy-DNA mailing list regarding the relatedness of human and chimpanzee Y-DNA.  From the launching post:

Three days ago, John Marsh sprung on us the idea of testing a chimpanzee on FTDNA’s standard 67 Y-DNA STR markers. To quote John: “Chimpanzee and Bonobo are sufficiently different to each other, and to humans, to make differences between their Y-DNA markers potentially interesting, and give insights into how mutations of Y STRs have wandered along over very long time periods. The common ancestor of humans and Chimps is about 100 times longer than the common ancestor of all human male lines”  Today, I am announcing the formation of the Chimpanzee Y-DNA Project. In FTDNA’s database it will be a Y-Haplogroup project and the official name is Close_Cousins. The original goal is for fun and curiosity since we don’t really know what we’ll get. But hopefully we make some interesting discoveries that may prove useful and encourage further research.

Goals of the Close Cousins Project

One of the goals of the Project is to obtain a DNA sample from a chimpanzee and a bonobo (preferably a cheek swab) and have it analyzed at 67 STR markers by Family Tree DNA.  Although the project has graciously received funds from a number of donors (see here for a list of these scientifically curious and kind donors) that will enable the purchase of a regular 67-marker test from FTDNA, there will almost certainly be extra analysis required due to 6 million years of sequence divergence.  However, Bennett Greenspan of FTDNA has kindly offered to cover the costs associated with extra processing.

Why compare the human Y-STR markers with the chimpanzee markers?  Aside from merely satisfying intellectual curiosity, this project could reveal interesting information about the mutation rates of some markers, among other information.

A Request for Help

Last December, I became a co-administrator of the Close Cousins Project with Bill Davenport.  As such, I am requesting your help in advancing this project.  Our biggest current hurdle is identifying a source of chimpanzee and bonobo Y-DNA.  Do you have any insightful ideas to share about how to obtain the necessary DNA?  Do you have an acquaintance who might have [legal] access to chimpanzees and/or bonobos?  Know someone who owns a chimpanzee and/or bonobo? We would appreciate any helpful suggestions or connections in our pursuit of this project.

A Postscript

Lastly, as a law student I am cognizant of the fact that collection of DNA from a non-human primate – even using a painless mouth swab – might trigger some state and/or federal regulations.  I am working to ensure that the project satisfies these regulations when collecting DNA from primates.