<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1992" title="istock_000002153362xsmall" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/istock_000002153362xsmall.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="201" />
About 4,600 years ago, in northern Germany, a small village buried 13 of its residents.
<h6>Violent Death</h6>
The deceased ranged in age from less than a year to nearly 60 years old and were buried in pairs or small groups. And virtually all of them had suffered violent, probably painful deaths.
Because the majority of the deceased were women or children, the archaeologists who discovered their remains have argued that these victims were likely the unfortunate casualties of a violent raid by a neighboring village – a common occurrence during this period.
Research on the skeletal remains of the deceased, as well as the grave goods with which they were buried, have revealed much about the lifestyle and culture of these early Europeans.
<h6>Using Genetics to Find Relationships</h6>
But many questions — especially about the relationships between the buried individuals themselves — were left unanswered.   So, a team of scientists from Germany and the United Kingdom decided to use the DNA preserved in these skeletal remains to discover what relationships — if any — existed between these 13 individuals.   The results of this study are reported in this week’s <a id="c_vf" title="Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" href="https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/17/0807592105.abstract" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>.
Specifically, the scientists were interested in whether the individuals buried closest to each other were also close relatives.   The 13 victims were found in four separate graves.
Each contained at least one adult, along with anywhere from one to three children.   As a result, some scientists have speculated that each grave might represent a separate family killed in the attack.     D
NA analysis, they argue, would allow them to fill the gaps surrounding the identities of the deceased.
Scientists extracted DNA from the teeth of all 13 individuals.   They focused on the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed down from mother to child, the Y-chromosome, which is passed down from father to son, and small segments of the remaining chromosomes, which are passed down from both parents to their children.
<h6>A Family That Died Together</h6>
Even though ancient DNA is notoriously difficult to work with, the authors were able to extract usable DNA from nine of the 13 individuals.
The results from one of the four burials, Grave 99, were especially intriguing.   The grave contained the remains of an adult male, an adult female, and two male children.   DNA analysis revealed that the adult female had the same mtDNA type as the two male children (K1b).   Analysis also revealed that the adult male had the same Y-chromosome DNA type as the two male children (R1a).
Due to the ways that mtDNA and Y-chromosome DNA are passed from one generation to the next, these results suggest that the two adults in Grave 99 were husband and wife, and that the two male children were their offspring.   Indeed, the authors had originally hypothesized some sort of connection between these four individuals, because while the two adults adhere to normal burial patterns for the time period (lying toe-to-toe facing south), the two children face north, toward their parents.
The notion of these four individuals being buried together, as a family, raises many questions on the origins of the nuclear family in ancient times.   Even the authors admit that “our image of past family life and structure is still dominated by 19th century ideals, and reconstruction of prehistoric families even now adhere to these orthodox schemes.”
Indeed, there has been little evidence to precisely date the origins of the nuclear family, and this example hardly closes the book on how and when such a social unit developed.   However, it does show that using ancient DNA can be quite useful in determining ancient biological relationships.   Indeed, the results from Grave 99 reveal how important the nuclear family must have been to these villagers; that they chose to bury these four victims not as individuals but as a social unit, huddled together in a single grave.

23andMe Blog

23andMe Blog Team

Exploring Ancient DNA Insights

This guest post is by Brenna Henn, a Stanford University&#8217;s Department of Anthropology doctoral student and a 23andMe consultant. Brenna studies human evolution using genetic information. Her interests include the origin of modern humans, migration patterns among African groups, and genetic models of demography.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1983" title="polynesiancanoe" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/polynesiancanoe.jpg" alt="" width="350" height="260" srcset="https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/polynesiancanoe.jpg 350w, https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/polynesiancanoe-300x223.jpg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 350px) 100vw, 350px" />
One of the reasons genetics is such a powerful tool for telling us about the past is that mutations that accumulate over the generations can be used as a clock, allowing scientists to calculate when different events occurred in the prehistoric past.
By counting the number of mutations differentiating one person from another, we can determine when in the past they shared a common ancestor. Each mutation is like a genetic tick of the clock, equivalent to a certain period of time. But figuring out how frequently mutations occur, and thus how long each tick of the genetic clock takes, is a major enterprise.
In a new paper appearing this month in <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msn244" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Molecular Biology and Evolution</a>, scientists from 23andMe propose that the genetic clock may have started running faster after the Ice Age ended about 15,000 years ago. If so, they may have resolved a discrepancy that has perplexed researchers for a number of years.

DNA mutation rates are estimated in two different ways. Geneticists can either count the number of mutations that occur in one generation (the changes between parents and their children), or they can count the number of differences between human and chimpanzee DNA and calculate a mutation rate based on the number of years since the two species diverged &#8212; about 6 million years.
It turns out that mitochondrial DNA mutation rates measured by these two methods described differ almost 10-fold. This difference is seen not only in humans, but also in species such as birds and fish. The discrepancy hints at the possibility that what we are measuring might be more complicated than we previously thought.
Working with Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, 23andMe scientists set out to find a new way of estimating the human DNA mutation rate by comparing the genetic diversity of lineages derived from the first human inhabitants of various continents and islands with archaeological finds that give precise information about when those colonists arrived (such as Polynesia).
We focused our studies on mitochondrial DNA data because there are a large number of mitochondrial sequences available in databases and the mutation rate of this DNA is known to be higher than in the autosomal DNA found in the 23 pairs of chromosomes,
What we found was surprising. Younger lineages (i.e. groups of people that have more recent common ancestors) had higher rates of mutation than older lineages, meaning that the molecular clock is not constant for human mtDNA: it slows down as lineages get older.
But why?
In our study the estimated mutation rates dropped off quickly around the end of the Ice Age &#8212; 15,000-20,000 years ago &#8212; suggesting that population history may play an important role in explaining the reduction in genetic diversity, and thus the changing pace of the DNA clock.
Prior to 20,000 years ago, humans lived in small hunter-gatherer groups that likely experienced boom and bust cycles: periodic climatic shifts or food shortages probably caused frequent and sudden population collapses. When populations decrease in size, or “bottleneck,” some genetic lineages are lost, which decreases the genetic diversity of the population. Since mutation rates are calculated using genetic diversity, the mutation rate estimates from these older lineages are slower.
After the climate warmed about 15,000 years ago and humans subsequently invented agriculture, populations grew dramatically. This resulted in more stable genetic diversity and faster mutation rate estimates.
More research needs to be done before we can determine whether population history or other factors, such as natural selection changing mutation rates, are primarily responsible for the human molecular clock slowdown. For example, we could simulate genetic diversity changes when a population size decreases and see if this matches the empirical mutation rate estimates.
Using our new data, which trace the slowdown in mutation rate back in time, scientists can identify the number that is most appropriate to use for studies of particular population events.
To date, the timing of most population events in human evolutionary genetics was estimated has used a rate close to the slower one we see for older lineages, before the end of the Ice Age. So our understanding of the genetic history of early human evolution shouldn’t change very much. But the timing of the splits between mitochondrial lineages associated with relatively recent events, such as agricultural expansions, may need revision. Using our newly calibrated mitochondrial mutation rates, researchers will be better able to correlate genetic, archaeological and linguistic data, leading to a more accurate understanding of human prehistory.

Solution to Mutation Rate Discrepancy

<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1974" title="oldafricamap1508" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/oldafricamap1508.png" alt="" width="350" height="258" srcset="https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/oldafricamap1508.png 350w, https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/oldafricamap1508-300x221.png 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 350px) 100vw, 350px" />
Because their ancestors often were slaves during the 18th and 19th centuries, and therefore usually lacked birth or death certificates, it is very difficult for African American genealogists to trace their ancestors further than a few generations.
Even when they can trace their ancestry to the slavery era, it is virtually impossible to find exactly where their ancestors originated because slave ships did not keep passenger lists of the people they captured from Africa.
As a consequence, many have been turning to genetics as a tool to help trace their African ancestry. But how reliably can genetics trace a person&#8217;s ancestry back to a specific African location or ethnic group?
Using genetics this way is quite complex; even the most advanced analysis can&#8217;t provide all the answers.

Relying on genetic data for genealogical purposes can be problematic, especially if your expectations are too great.
For example, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the Director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard, had his Y-chromosome genotyped by two different companies. The first told him that his ancestors likely traced back to Nubia or Egypt, while the second test more accurately placed his paternal ancestry in Europe.
As an African American, Gates believes that the first company may have simply &#8216;told him what he wanted to hear&#8217;: that all of his ancestry traced back to Africa. But, as is often the case, one&#8217;s genetic ancestry can be more complex than meets the eye.
One problem is that genetic analyses predominantly trace deep ancestry. Because genetic information does not change significantly within one or two generations, genetics generally shows where a person’s ancestors lived thousands of years ago. This is hardly useful to genealogists who are looking for information about ancestors who lived only a few hundred years ago.
That isn&#8217;t to say we can’t learn anything useful about the deep ancestry of many African Americans — in fact, studies of genetic ancestry have yielded much information about prehistoric population movements across the continent. For example, there are clear genetic ‘footprints’ in modern Africans – and African Americans – indicating massive expansions of Bantu-speaking peoples from West Africa into the eastern and southern part of the continent over 4,000 years ago. This has helped archaeologists understand the extent to which not only the Bantu culture and language, but the people themselves, spread throughout the continent.
Most African Americans have the signature of this Bantu migration in their genes because they are descended from populations that were affected by it. But many, including Gates, have the genetic signature of another widespread group: Europeans. Indeed, European ancestry is not uncommon among African Americans, whose ancestors can include white slave owners who fathered children with their slaves.
The use of genetic data can be useful in confirming anecdotal evidence of a non-African ancestor in an African American&#8217;s family tree.
Many African American genealogists want greater detail and resolution from their genetic information, even a link to a specific nation or tribe. But in many cases this is simply not possible. The population history of Africa — especially sub-Saharan Africa — is older and more genetically complex than that of any other region of the world. Homo sapiens evolved in East Africa more than 150,000 years ago, and has been living throughout Africa continuously since that time.
There have been countless migrations, dispersals, and expansions of African peoples to all parts of the continent — in addition to the Bantu expansions. As a result, the genetic diversity of present-day Africans is incredibly complex.
In many cases, scientists are unable to associate a specific genetic classification with a specific tribe or ethnic group. There are of course a few exceptions — isolated hunter-gather groups like the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert and the Pygmies of the Central African Rainforest have lower levels of genetic diversity as a result of their relative isolation. But in West Africa, where the majority of slaves were captured, there is significant genetic diversity both within countries and within tribal or ethnic affiliations.
The high level of diversity means that scientists have a difficult time pinpointing where a particular person&#8217;s genetic roots trace beyond a more general geographical region (i.e. West Africa). For example, the paternal haplogroup E3a, found in more than half of African American men, is just as common in Africa itself &#8211; and spread throughout the continent. So, for an African American male who&#8217;s paternal ancestry falls within the E3a haplogroup, it could be virtually impossible to narrow down the place of origin of his African ancestors.
Still, when traditional tools are unavailable or incomplete genetics can reveal useful genealogical information, whether a person&#8217;s roots trace back to Africa, Europe, or someplace else entirely.

African American Roots: What Genetics Can Reveal

<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1965" title="hivvirus" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/hivvirus.jpg" alt="" width="350" height="260" srcset="https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/hivvirus.jpg 350w, https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/hivvirus-300x223.jpg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 350px) 100vw, 350px" />
In a way, organ transplantation is the one branch of medicine that has already been personalized, because doctors must carefully match the immune systems of donor and recipient to prevent rejection.
Now transplant physicians in Germany have taken that procedure a step further by engineering not just a successful bone marrow transplant, but one that appears to have cured their patient&#8217;s HIV infection as well. The doctor who conceived the operation has suggested that in principle, the accomplishment could inspire a gene therapy for HIV. But it will take much more research, and a lot of luck, for that to happen.
This week Dr. Gero Huetter and his colleagues at the Charite Hospital in Berlin announced that they were treating a 42-year-old patient who required a bone marrow transplant for leukemia, but had also been HIV-positive for a decade.
The doctors knew of a gene, CCR5, that confers resistance to the most common form of HIV. People who have a particular mutation, known as Delta32, on both copies of CCR5 can be exposed repeatedly to HIV-1 without becoming infected.
The doctors reasoned that if they could find a donor who was not only immune compatible with their patient, but also had two copies of the Delta32 mutation in the CCR5 gene, perhaps they could simultaneously eradicate his leukemia and his HIV infection.
Remarkably, such a donor existed. And 600 days after his bone marrow transplant, the patient is both leukemia- and HIV-free.
Is this a cure for AIDS? Not a chance. Doctors do not consider the procedure a potential treatment for HIV, because bone marrow transplants are expensive and risky – about one patient in four does not survive the procedure. But the case does provide inspiration and hope for researchers who are working on ways to harness the resistance conferred by CCR5Delta32 to treat the infection.

Bone Marrow Transplant May Have Eradicated Patient’s HIV

<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1955" title="r1b1ctree" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/r1b1ctree.jpg" alt="" width="350" height="217" srcset="https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/r1b1ctree.jpg 350w, https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/r1b1ctree-300x186.jpg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 350px) 100vw, 350px" />
The American Society for Human Genetics (ASHG) has released a statement outlining a set of recommendations for genetic ancestry testing.
At a press briefing on Thursday, members of the ASHG Ancestry Testing Task Force Committee discussed two main themes: the need for clear communication about the limitations of genetic ancestry testing, and the need for researchers and companies doing this type of testing to engage with the social sciences to put results in context.

Michael Bamshad of the University of Washington School of Medicine discussed at length the need for people to understand that ancestry assignments based on genetics are inherently uncertain and can be affected by several factors, including the reference populations used in the analysis, the type and number of genetic markers analyzed, and the statistical methods employed.
ASHG president Aravinda Chakravarti further emphasized that questions about the “accuracy” of genetic ancestry testing are aimed at the interpretation of the genetic data, not at the actual DNA analysis.
Task force co-chair Charmaine Royal of the Duke University Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy addressed the committee’s concerns about the psychological impacts of genetic ancestry testing, especially as related to issues of identity.
23andMe Senior Director of Research Dr. Joanna Mountain had a chance to talk with some of the members of the ASHG Ancestry Testing Task force about their statement.
“Members of the panel emphasized to me that their primary goal was to raise a set of concerns around identification of ancestry through genetics,” said Mountain.
“Because several of us at 23andMe were previously aware of these concerns, we developed our ancestry features with those concerns in mind. For instance, we consider a large number of markers for all the chromosomes of the human genome, including the mitochondrial genome. We also avoid being overly precise in reporting an individual&#8217;s ancestry. And we are currently creating educational <a href="https://www.23andme.com/gen101/prehistory/prologue/">tools</a> to help our customers understand how genetic information can be informative about ancestry.”
The speakers stressed several times that their statement was not aimed just at consumer companies offering genetic ancestry testing, but also at academic researchers in the field.
Unfortunately, Mountain said, the ASHG guidelines leave out some of the potential benefits of ancestry genetic testing.
“For instance, ASHG President-Elect Ed McCabe encouraged the audience to ask their family elders about family history over Thanksgiving, as an alternative to learning about ancestry through genetics. But individuals who have signed up for 23andMe&#8217;s service may find themselves far more motivated to discuss family history than they would before seeing their genetic data.”
For a more thorough analysis from a genetic genealogist&#8217;s point of view, click <a href="http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2008/11/13/the-ashg-ancestry-testing-statement-and-recommendations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.
McCabe said the statement released this week is a preliminary document. The committee expects to issue a more detailed report in Spring 2009.

ASHG Statement on Ancestry Testing

<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1945" title="702" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/702.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="370" srcset="https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/702.jpg 300w, https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/702-243x300.jpg 243w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
When I was 12 years old I did my first <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punnett_square" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Punnett square</a> and decided that genetics was absolutely, most definitely the coolest thing ever.
When I was 13 years old they started the <a href="http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Human Genome Project</a>. The task of sequencing all three billion base pairs in a person’s genome was the most enormous project I could imagine. And I didn’t even understand you had to cover the whole thing more than once to do it right.
I was just finishing my first year of graduate school when HGP leaders and President Clinton <a href="http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/clinton1.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> the working draft of the human genome.
Now I’m 31 and I’ve actually seen my own genetic data through <a href="https://www.23andme.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">23andMe</a>.
The totally mind blowing-ness of how quickly things have changed hit me today as I listened to two talks at the <a href="http://ashg.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ASHG </a>meeting in Philadelphia.

First, there was Jun Wang from the Beijing Genomics Institute. He and his colleagues recently published the <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/abs/nature07484.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">first full genome sequence of an Asian individual</a>. The numbers and statistics that he presented were all very impressive, but what struck me most were his descriptions of the logic behind two of his other endeavors, the Tree of Life project that is sequencing various crops and the Giant Panda Project: “Taste good, sequence it” and “Look cute, sequence it.”
Obviously there are good scientific reasons for both of these projects. But can you believe we live in a time where you literally could just sequence something’s genome because it was tasty or cuddly?!
The second talk that really drove home for me what a special genetic era we have entered into was by David Altschuler on behalf of the 1000 Genomes Project. This multi-national public/private endeavor is going to do exactly what its name suggests — targeted sequencing of 1000 peoples&#8217; genomes to create the most complete catalogue of human variation ever.
The implications of the project are huge. But for me, a biologist who vaguely remembers that there was a time when people did science without much computer power or the internet, the craziest thing was when Altschuler put the sheer amount of data the project is producing into perspective: each week in September and October of this year the 1000 Genomes Project created the equivalent of all the data in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GenBank</a>. Each week! In 2009 the 1000 Genomes project expects to create 1 petabyte (1,000,000,000,000,000 bytes) of data. For comparison Altschuler said that the <a href="http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Large Hadron Collider</a>, which is expected to create 15 petabyes per year, has had to set up a system of 140 data centers in 33 countries.
Maybe you already know all this and aren’t that impressed anymore. Maybe you’re more concerned with what these and other researchers are actually going to do with all of this sequence data. But for just a second, I want you to think about how cool this all this. What other branch of science has ever moved so fast? One of the guys who discovered the structure of DNA is still around and has had his whole genome sequenced. And someday soon, you may have yours sequenced as well.
Photo: <a href="http://genomics.energy.gov" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs</a>

My Mind Has Been Blown By Genome Sequencing

<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1933" title="genetics101guy" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/genetics101guy.png" alt="" width="212" height="350" srcset="https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/genetics101guy.png 212w, https://blogcms.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/genetics101guy-182x300.png 182w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 212px) 100vw, 212px" />
The pace of human genetic research shows no signs of slowing. SNP chip technology is allowing researchers to make connections between DNA and disease in ways that were never before possible. Fast, cheap whole genome sequencing, and the avalanche of data it will bring, is just around the corner. And for the first time ever, everyday people can now access their own genetic data and find out what this all means for them.
There has been concern that consumers are not ready for, and may not even want to know about, their genetic data. Several presentations on Wednesday in Philadelphia at the <a href="http://www.ashg.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">American Society for Human Genetics</a> meeting, however, indicated that not only are people interested in finding out more about their genetics, they are not nearly as frightened by or naÃ¯ve about genetics as many have thought.
Throughout the talks, the theme of “information seekers” emerged. It seems many people want to know about themselves and are excited about the new genetic technologies becoming available.

Colleen McBride of The National Human Genome Research Institute started off a morning session entitled “Shaping the Future of Personalized Genetic Information — Today” by describing the <a href="https://www.genome.gov/25521052" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Multiplex Initiative</a>, a large, multi-year project that is offering genetic testing to a diverse set of patients from the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. The aim of the project is to assess whether there are people who are really interested in this type of testing, who these people are and how they understand and respond to this information. The recruitment phase of the project, which offers testing for SNPs related to 15 different diseases and conditions, has just been completed. Approximately 14% of the patients given the opportunity to participate in the project accepted.
McBride said that phone interviews with participants have revealed that they understand the type of information they are receiving indicates only moderate increases in risk. People also seem to be far less deterministic in their thinking about genetics than many have worried. For seven selected conditions people rated behavior as far more important than genetics in determining risk. This was especially so with regard to lung cancer.
McBride was followed by Bob Green from Boston University, who talked about the impact and utility of personalized genomic information in the context of the REVEAL study, which is exploring the social and ethical implications of APOE testing for Alzheimer’s disease.
According to Green, about 25% of the population has one copy of a version of the APOE gene called E4 that puts them at around three times the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as someone who has no copies of this variant. The 2% of the population with two copies of this variant have risk that is increased by around 15 times.
Several expert panels have recommended that people not be given information on their APOE E4 status. But Green said his group chose to pursue their research to really find out if this information would be “beneficial or toxic,” as it may one day be useful to know about APOE for research or treatment decisions. He added that there is also the need to know how to respond to people who have a family history of Alzheimer’s in their family and want to know what their own DNA has in store for them.
“It’s patronizing to say we can give the info but we’re not going to,” Green said.
Green’s group found that people who met with a counselor and received their APOE E4 genetic data in addition to a risk assessment based on other factors had the same amount of anxiety or depression as those who received only the risk assessment. In another protocol where people who met with a counselor were compared to subjects who received their results in a mailed brochure, his study also found very little difference in anxiety level. People who found out they were APOE E4 positive and were given only the brochure exhibited slightly increased anxiety six weeks after receiving their results, but not at a level that would be considered clinically significant, Green said.
According to Green, no matter what the genetic results, subjects were glad they had done the test and would recommend it to others. The most dissatisfied subjects in the study were those who were randomized to the group that did not receive genetic information.
The final speaker at the session was Kathy Hudson of <a href="http://www.dnapolicy.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Genetics and Public Policy Center</a> at Johns Hopkins. Her group is investigating how people react to the idea of a <a href="http://www.dnapolicy.org/news.release.php?action=detail&amp;pressrelease_id=113" target="_blank" rel="noopener">large study</a> to investigate the interactions of genes, environment and lifestyle. The theoretical study would recruit 500,000 people who would be followed for a decade. Biological samples would be collected and genetic information would be stored in a centralized database that would then be available to researchers.
Hudson focused her presentation on the question of whether people want to receive their own information back from the study, a practice that is at odds with traditional methods of research. While there were some people who felt they would rather just not know, a commitment from researchers to return results to individual volunteers was a major factor for many people in saying they would participate in such project, even if there was not immediate usefulness of the information.
David Kaufman, the leader of the study Hudson described, spoke in a session later in the day. He presented results showing 84 percent of those surveyed said they would support the proposed large cohort study and 60 percent indicated they would definitely or probably participate in such a study if asked.
Hudson said these results indicate researchers need to rethink their ideas about severing the link between subjects and their data, and reevaluate if their methods really are protecting subjects.

People Want Their Genetic Data

<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1923" title="istock_000000188373xsmall" src="https://blog-api.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/istock_000000188373xsmall.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" />
Like many Americans, Vincent Vizachero knew only bits and pieces about his family history.   He knew, for instance, that his paternal grandfather emigrated to America from Italy in 1914. But because his grandfather died long before he was born, Vincent did not hear a lot of family stories growing up.   So he had to dig them up himself.   In his research, Vincent discovered that many people with his surname seemed to have come from the same small region in Italy.   He wanted to find out if all people with the Vizachero surname are somehow closely related.
The more he dug, however, the more roadblocks appeared in his way.   Three generations of civil and parish records in his grandfather’s hometown from the late 19th century were destroyed during World War II.     There was a gap between 1860 and 1910 where no information existed.
Problems like these often arise with genealogical research. But instead of giving up, Vincent decided to turn to another method – genetics.
As it turns out, Vincent is not alone.   Many genealogy buffs use genetics to enhance their research on family history.   In 2005, a group of genealogists formed the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG), kicking off a grassroots effort to incorporate genetic data into the fold of genealogy.   By this time, companies like <a id="oi03" title="Family Tree DNA" href="http://www.familytreedna.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Family Tree DNA</a> had been offering genetic testing for about five years, giving genealogists who had pored over historical records for years a completely new kind of information.

Many used DNA from the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son the same way surnames are passed down from one generation to the next.   Communities began to form, taking genetic data and trying to relate it to their own family histories rather than the broader scale addressed by academic researchers.   ISOGG began developing a ‘family tree’ based on genetic data from thousands of Y-chromosomes from hundreds of families around the world.   Some genealogists, like Adriano Squecco, have worked tirelessly to organize these data together into a <a id="x055" title="sharable format" href="http://daver.info/ysub/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sharable format</a> for anyone to view.
As data from thousands of individuals began rolling in, communities realized that many of the results coming back were quite similar — most people were being classified within very common branches of the Y-chromosome tree.   The people with the most interesting or unique DNA were usually not getting themselves tested.
Instead of waiting for academic researchers to find and genotype these individuals, a few enterprising genealogists, including Vincent Vizachero, decided to take matters into their own hands.   They started a fundraising effort, where people can donate money to buy the 23andMe Personal Genome Service for individuals with potentially interesting or unique genetic ancestry.   At first they tested more people of western European ancestry, to add detail in that already well-known part of the Y-chromosome tree. Now they are focusing their efforts on testing people of African descent, in an attempt to flesh out the genetic ancestry of the notoriously under-studied continent.   The major organizers of the effort have set up a website to keep track of their fundraising, along with periodic updates on their progress.
But why have Vincent and the other organizers chosen <a id="bxu8" title="23andMe’s Personal Genome ServiceTM" href="https://23andme.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">23andMe’s Personal Genome ServiceTM</a> , when there are so many different companies that test genetic ancestry?   “The decision was really about cost-effectiveness,” says Vincent.   “23andMe is including over 1,800 usable Y-SNPs for less than $400.   So the 23andMe service allows us to cover a lot of ground much more quickly than any other method of testing would allow.”
In addition, 23andMe allows customers to download their raw data.   While the casual customer may not use this feature, genetic genealogists relish the fact that their raw data is available for them to examine and manipulate.
What&#8217;s more, 23andMe provides other hereditary information that can be of interest to genealogists.   Some are using 23andMe to examine hereditary health and traits issues within their family trees.   And with the Family Inheritance feature, customers can see how various traits have been passed from generation to generation.
For genealogists, a thriving community is vital.   Such communities have been the cornerstone of traditional genealogical research for many years, and the addition of genetic data has only compounded their importance. Genealogists have even been able to contribute to science by helping identify new branches to the genetic family tree.   As their fundraising project continues to gain steam, Vincent and the other project organizers are pleased with the amount of information they have been able to extract, and how important the genealogy community is in fostering its development.   We at 23andMe recognize the importance of working with the genetic genealogy community and ISOGG to provide our customers, and we are thrilled that we can help this community flourish!

Building Roots from the Ground Up:  Genealogy 2.0

When 23andMe launched last November, we set out to make genetics accessible to everyone — not just the experts. &nbsp; So we created a series of education videos called <a id="vzgt" title="“Genetics 101.”" href="https://www.23andme.com/gen101/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Genetics 101.</a>
These videos educated viewers on the basics of genetics: &nbsp; What is a gene, what is a SNP, how genes are inherited from generation to generation, and a host of other useful topics.
But understanding your genetic code is only part of what the <a id="f.ep" title="23andMe Personal Genome ServiceTM" href="https://23andme.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">23andMe Personal Genome ServiceTM</a> offers its customers. &nbsp;

<h6>Learning</h6>
We also want our customers to understand their genetics in the context of human evolution: &nbsp; How did our species evolve, how did we come to populate the globe, and how can we account for the diversity of peoples living today on our planet?
Those questions are the basis for a new series of videos, dubbed Human Prehistory 101. Using the same creative team as with Genetics 101 (led by chief illustrator <a href="http://arianakilloran.typepad.com/ariana_killoran/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ariana Killoran</a>), we developed a series of videos that tell the human story, from the birth of our species to present day. &nbsp; The first installment, the Prologue, was released last week on 23andMe’s website.
<h6>The Human Story</h6>
The <a href="https://www.23andme.com/gen101/prehistory/prologue/" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Prologue</a> sets the stage for the human story, beginning with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee. &nbsp; We then see how the earliest humans lived in Africa nearly 200,000 years ago, and follow some of our fossil ancestors such as Homo erectus – who ventured into Asia long before we did. &nbsp; We also learn that our evolutionary cousins, the Neanderthals, were not so very different from early humans; they cared for their sick and even buried their dead.
This installment will soon be followed by others, each tackling a key chapter in the evolution of our species. &nbsp; Future videos will explain how and when humans ventured out of Africa for the first time, how they survived the Last Ice Age, and how they came to populate so many parts of the world. So be sure to stay tuned for more Human Prehistory 101!

Latest Posts — Page 203