PDA

View Full Version : U5a2c3a and Just Got My First Ever mtDNA Match at FTDNA



rms2
07-27-2016, 07:11 PM
At long last I got my very first ever mtDNA match at Family Tree DNA. I have had plenty of y-dna matches, but never until today have I gotten a mtDNA match. It's just an HVR1 match, because that's as far as my mtDNA testing with FTDNA has gone. I do have much fuller results from BritainsDNA's Chromo2 test, which is how I know I am U5a2c3a. At FTDNA I am listed merely as U5.

My most distant female line ancestor that I know about is my great grandmother, Nora Lancaster, who was born in March of 1878 in Lauderdale County, Alabama. She was married to my great grandfather, Sidney Richman Morris. Unfortunately, Nora is as far back as I can currently get on that Lancaster line. That's her photo below, with her kids (the teenaged girl on the right side of the photo is Katie Morris, a niece). My grandmother, Lela Morris, is seated on Nora's lap. My grandmother's brother, Doyle Morris, is on the far left of the photo. I don't know the name of the little blond girl standing between Doyle and my grandmother, but she is evidently their sibling. I'm guessing she probably died before reaching adulthood, which is why I don't know anything about her.

Anyway, I emailed my new mtDNA match to see if he knows anything.

10664

Amerijoe
07-27-2016, 07:45 PM
rms2, congratulations on your match. Now move along, it's my turn.;)

rms2
07-28-2016, 12:57 AM
I ordered my mtDNA test from FTDNA almost ten years ago (31 Dec 2006). It's about time I got a match.

:jaw:

David Mc
07-28-2016, 02:05 AM
Congratulations! I know the feeling... of waiting anyway. Someday maybe FTDNA will find me a match. I hope your communications are enlightening!

rms2
07-28-2016, 02:58 PM
I heard back from my mtDNA match. Turns out his most distant mtDNA ancestor was in the same neck of the woods as mine, Alabama, at around the same time, but we just can't figure out who their common mtDNA ancestor is. At least we know they (and we) share one; it's just a matter of finding her.

r_r_abril
01-09-2017, 10:25 PM
I already know that I belong to the U5a2c mtDNA haplogroup.

Which level of precision can you get with the Geno 2.0 Next Generation kit?

rms2
02-03-2017, 09:21 PM
I already know that I belong to the U5a2c mtDNA haplogroup.

At which level of precision you can get with the Geno 2.0 Next Generation kit?

Sorry I don't know the answer to that question. I'm also sorry I did not see your question until just now, nearly a month after you posted it. I don't usually check the mtDNA subforum.

GailT
02-03-2017, 09:29 PM
I already know that I belong to the U5a2c mtDNA haplogroup.

At which level of precision you can get with the Geno 2.0 Next Generation kit?

The Geno 2.0 test is not very useful for mtDNA. It does not include the full mtGenome. It does include many of the most common SNPs but they do provide a list of individual SNP results, so it is not possible to try to identify a more specific subclade. Anyone interested in mtDNA should test the full mtDNA sequence.

rms2
02-03-2017, 09:30 PM
I noticed a Mesolithic U5a2c3* from the Blätterhöhle Cave in Germany (Bollongino 2013) at Jean M's Ancient Eurasian DNA site, so I decided to compare its results to mine. There are some differences, but we're not too far off, considering the time span involved (Blätterhöhle dates to 8652 ± 58 BC). I made a little table of the comparison, for what it's worth.

13787

This is based on my Chromo2 mtDNA results. Sorry to be ignorant, but is it as complete as FTDNA's FGS test?

rms2
02-03-2017, 10:52 PM
. . .

This is based on my Chromo2 mtDNA results. Sorry to be ignorant, but is it as complete as FTDNA's FGS test?

Okay, I see that Chromo2 only tests major branch defining SNPs, while FTDNA's FGS is the whole enchilada.

So, I guess I still need the FGS test. Maybe I am actually closer to Blätterhöhle than I realize.

GailT
02-04-2017, 05:01 AM
I noticed a Mesolithic U5a2c3* from the Blätterhöhle Cave in Germany (Bollongino 2013) at Jean M's Ancient Eurasian DNA site, so I decided to compare its results to mine. There are some differences, but we're not too far off, considering the time span involved (Blätterhöhle dates to 8652 ± 58 BC). I made a little table of the comparison, for what it's worth. This is based on my Chromo2 mtDNA results. Sorry to be ignorant, but is it as complete as FTDNA's FGS test?

The Chromo2 mtDNA results are not as complete (results are not reported for several markers in your table), but effectively your Chromo2 results are just as useful as the FTDNA full sequence because Chromo2 identified 2 extra mutations that are shared with several people who did test the full sequence, and this places you in a proposed new sublclade of U5a2c3a. So in your case I would not recommend testing the full sequence - it is unlikely to provide any more specific results (it would only confirm the status of the SNPs that were not reported by Chromo2.).

The problem with National Geographic Geno 2.0 is that FTDNA does not report the list of mtDNA SNPs, they only report a subclade name, so it is not possible to do the more detailed analysis with Geno 2.0. Another option to get the full mtDNA sequence (without testing at FTDNA) is to test the FullY with FGC. They also provide mtDNA results that are close to 99% complete in the samples I've seen.

Edit: I sent you an update to my 2013 email and added the Blätterhöhle U5a2c3 sample. You have 5 additional mutations, which is about what one would expect given the age of the Blätterhöhle sample. I really don't see any value in testing the full sequence unless you want to see the FTDNA FMS matches.

MacUalraig
02-04-2017, 08:00 AM
The Chromo2 mtDNA results are not as complete (results are not reported for several markers in your table), but effectively your Chromo2 results are just as useful as the FTDNA full sequence because Chromo2 identified 2 extra mutations that are shared with several people who did test the full sequence, and this places you in a proposed new sublclade of U5a2c3a. So in your case I would not recommend testing the full sequence - it is unlikely to provide any more specific results (it would only confirm the status of the SNPs that were not reported by Chromo2.).

The problem with National Geographic Geno 2.0 is that FTDNA does not report the list of mtDNA SNPs, they only report a subclade name, so it is not possible to do the more detailed analysis with Geno 2.0. Another option to get the full mtDNA sequence (without testing at FTDNA) is to test the FullY with FGC. They also provide mtDNA results that are close to 99% complete in the samples I've seen.



I got my hg via FGC - don't forget Thomas Krahn is also offering WGS inc mtDNA now.

rms2
02-04-2017, 12:33 PM
The Chromo2 mtDNA results are not as complete (results are not reported for several markers in your table), but effectively your Chromo2 results are just as useful as the FTDNA full sequence because Chromo2 identified 2 extra mutations that are shared with several people who did test the full sequence, and this places you in a proposed new sublclade of U5a2c3a. So in your case I would not recommend testing the full sequence - it is unlikely to provide any more specific results (it would only confirm the status of the SNPs that were not reported by Chromo2.).

The problem with National Geographic Geno 2.0 is that FTDNA does not report the list of mtDNA SNPs, they only report a subclade name, so it is not possible to do the more detailed analysis with Geno 2.0. Another option to get the full mtDNA sequence (without testing at FTDNA) is to test the FullY with FGC. They also provide mtDNA results that are close to 99% complete in the samples I've seen.

Edit: I sent you an update to my 2013 email and added the Blätterhöhle U5a2c3 sample. You have 5 additional mutations, which is about what one would expect given the age of the Blätterhöhle sample. I really don't see any value in testing the full sequence unless you want to see the FTDNA FMS matches.

Thanks! I may do the FGS anyway . . . eventually. The price has come down quite a bit from the old days. I still have a few family members to do Family Finder or Ancestry DNA on, so the FGS is on the back burner (as it has been for years).

I would like to see my FTDNA mtDNA matches though.

rms2
03-05-2017, 02:18 AM
Hey! I just got my second match on HVR1 at FTDNA, another U5a2c3a with FGS results. As I have mentioned before, I only have HVR1 with FTDNA, but I have more extensive results from BritainsDNA's Chromo 2. I emailed my new match and sent her my BDNA results. I hope she answers my email.

Mdka is Mary James, b. 1836, but the place of birth is not listed.

rms2
03-05-2017, 02:13 PM
Hey! I just got my second match on HVR1 at FTDNA, another U5a2c3a with FGS results. As I have mentioned before, I only have HVR1 with FTDNA, but I have more extensive results from BritainsDNA's Chromo 2. I emailed my new match and sent her my BDNA results. I hope she answers my email.

Mdka is Mary James, b. 1836, but the place of birth is not listed.

It turns out this new match is the sister of the first match I started this thread about. Their mdka shows up in the 1860 census in Lauderdale County, Alabama, which is where my mtDNA mdka was from. Hmmm . . .

rms2
06-17-2017, 05:44 PM
I feel myself starting to go into withdrawal because I have not ordered a dna test for myself in awhile. I may have to use my Father's Day status to get the mtDNA FGS from Family Tree DNA. We'll see. I can't go cold turkey though.

rms2
11-23-2017, 05:01 PM
I finally broke down and ordered the mtDNA Full Sequence from FTDNA. It was the only major test from FTDNA that I had not yet ordered, and I was able to get the upgrade from my old HVR1 for the holiday sale price of $119. I figured a better deal isn't likely to come along anytime soon, so I struck while the iron was hot.

Remember when the Full Sequence was new and sold for over $500?

Here's a pic of my most distant mtDNA ancestor, Nora Lancaster, born 1878 in Lauderdale County, Alabama.

19945

rms2
11-24-2017, 02:32 AM
I finally broke down and ordered the mtDNA Full Sequence from FTDNA. It was the only major test from FTDNA that I had not yet ordered, and I was able to get the upgrade from my old HVR1 for the holiday sale price of $119. I figured a better deal isn't likely to come along anytime soon, so I struck while the iron was hot.

Remember when the Full Sequence was new and sold for over $500?

Here's a pic of my most distant mtDNA ancestor, Nora Lancaster, born 1878 in Lauderdale County, Alabama.

19945

Boy, if you want a post to go a long time without a reaction, just post it in the mtDNA subforum.

Shikaka!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5ZK6Ne_WCw

GailT
11-24-2017, 05:43 AM
Boy, if you want a post to go a long time without a reaction, just post it in the mtDNA subforum.


Yes, mtDNA is the poor step-daughter of the genetic genealogy community. :)

rms2
12-20-2017, 01:19 AM
Discovered my mtDNA Full Sequence results early this morning. The two HVR1 matches I had (brother and sister to each other) are now exact Full Sequence matches. Their mtDNA mdka, Mary James, who was born in 1836, lived in 1860 in the same Alabama county (Lauderdale) as the one in which my mtDNA mdka, Nora Lancaster, was born in 1878. Perhaps my Nora's mother was Mary James' sister? Could be a cousin or something, I guess.

Now that I have something to contribute, I joined the U5 Project.

rms2
12-20-2017, 02:32 AM
I just found out about the U5a FMS Project and joined that, as well. It seems a little cozier than the giant U5 Project.

rms2
12-24-2017, 03:53 PM
I submitted my Full Sequence mtDNA results to GenBank a couple of days ago. Not sure what I'll get out of it, if anything, but it seemed like the right thing to do to contribute to the advancement of mtDNA studies.

rms2
06-12-2018, 11:49 PM
One of my two exact matches (a brother and sister) has found information pushing his mtDNA line back in time, and it's probably my mtDNA line, too, but the problem is that I don't know who the parents of my most distant mtDNA ancestor were, so I can't link up.

rms2
08-13-2018, 12:09 PM
One of my two exact matches (a brother and sister) has found information pushing his mtDNA line back in time, and it's probably my mtDNA line, too, but the problem is that I don't know who the parents of my most distant mtDNA ancestor were, so I can't link up.

I started an experimental family tree at Ancestry for the sole purpose of investigating my mtDNA line. I populated it with information from my exact mtDNA matches, since they have traced their mtDNA ancestor back to Abigail Cole, who was born about 1774 in Bertie County, North Carolina.

I was thinking maybe that would help me discover some ancillary females on the mtDNA line who might lead me to my own ancestor, but I don't have a lot of hope or confidence in the idea. There's not a lot of information available, it seems.

My own most distant mtDNA ancestor apparently dropped off the face of the earth after the 1910 census.

I found someone I am pretty sure was her brother, but his info hasn't led to their parents yet like I hoped it would.

msmarjoribanks
08-13-2018, 04:21 PM
mtDNA can be so frustrating, because it's tough to get information on woman as you go back, unless you luck out with marriage records. Here's a digression about my own efforts, although it's a different mtDNA line. Wish there was a more general mtDNA discussion section, as like you said this part of the forum tends to be dead.

My dad's mtDNA line is really well documented -- I finally joined the East Anglia project, because like a lot of location-based projects they have an mtDNA wing.

My own line (K2b2) has few matches -- only one 0 distance full match, and one 1 distance match (she has a mutation I do not). The odd thing is that my 1 GD match is also a family finder match, but even with that information I can't figure out the link. She's only a 29 cM match (and only a 28 cM match with my mother), so I might be making too much of that.

The 0 GD match's line goes back to a woman born in 1810 Pennsylvania (German surname, married in OH). The 1 GD match goes back to a woman born in 1844 in Warren Co, Ohio, and is stalled after that. My own line goes back at least to a woman married name Margaret Haws who was married in Warren Co, Ohio in 1810, and supposedly born in Kentucky around 1787, from later censuses. I think Margaret's surname is Hester (the marriage record that I think is hers is hard to read so it's possible it is not hers, but the rest fits). The Haws and Hester families lived near each other both in Clinton OH (created from part of Warren in 1810) and later in Indiana. Clinton Co history (one of those county history books written years later) says that Martin, David, Abraham and Peter Hester came to Clinton in the early 1800s, and those names fit what I see in later censuses. Martin Hester is supposed to be the father and an immigrant from Hanover, Germany b. in 1752, but that's one of those unsupported Ancestry things, so I am skeptical.

An autosomal match of mine traces back to a woman (Nancy Haws) who seems likely to be Margaret's daughter. Sadly, it is not his matrilineal line, and in later years Margaret was widowed and lived with her daughter Mary from whom I am descended, but due to dates I never get to see the family before Nancy's and Mary's marriages. The location of Nancy's marriage works, however. Anyway, that match has a letter written in 1891 by Nancy's elderly husband to their daughter giving his recollection of family history, and he says his family is on both sides "from the old Stock Germans from Hanover Germany" (I don't think this is meant to apply to Nancy's family, but it's not clear), and also says (although it's hard to read) that Grandma Haws (Nancy's mother) was a Hester before marriage, born in Cane Brake, Kentucky, and that Grandpa Haws's family was from Virginia.

This is somewhat tenuous, but all possibly consistent with each other if, for example, the family were Germans who came in the mid to late 1700s, one daughter married in Pennsylvania and her daughter or granddaughter was born there (PA would be a common place for Germans to arrive), and then the family went to Virginia and west through Kentucky in the late 1700s and OH in the early 1800s (Clinton and Warren are quite close to Kentucky).

But it's mostly speculation.

I need to learn about early Kentucky research and see if there's anything there. What I've been doing instead is trying to develop my Haws line, as I have lots of Haws-affiliated matches, although I can't tell if they are all the same Haws family.

msmarjoribanks
08-13-2018, 04:23 PM
Oh, one possible avenue would be to follow up with HVR1 only matches, as there are more of those -- they haven't tested further -- at least a couple of whom seem to be stuck in Kentucky in a consistent time period.

rms2
08-13-2018, 04:38 PM
Oh, one possible avenue would be to follow up with HVR1 only matches, as there are more of those -- they haven't tested further -- at least a couple of whom seem to be stuck in Kentucky in a consistent time period.

I just took a look at that. My only HVR1 (and HVR1 and 2) matches are the same brother and sister who match me exactly on the full mtDNA sequence.

It's frustrating, because the mtDNA ancestor they have listed with FTDNA, Mary James (married name Bryant), lived in Lauderdale County, Alabama, which was one of the places my mother's family inhabited at one time, and my most distant known mtDNA ancestor was born in Alabama, as was the man I believe to be her brother.

rms2
08-13-2018, 05:04 PM
mtDNA is so frustrating, and the paper trail in this case isn't very forthcoming. Guess I have to wait and hope for something revealing via Family Finder or Ancestry.

rms2
03-31-2019, 01:25 AM
You know, mtDNA has to be about the slowest moving thing in the fricking universe, like the first sap from maple trees in Vermont.

Good grief!

rms2
05-26-2019, 07:48 PM
I don't regret having my mtDNA full genome test done, but I've got to say that mtDNA testing is the least productive type of dna testing I have done.

It's about as exciting as watching paint dry. Progress and mtDNA matches are just world's apart.

Baltimore1937
05-27-2019, 01:43 AM
Yeah, well, when you're talking Kentucky it's likely you're talking Virginia. That's where my Kentucky ancestors came from. U5b2b2 in my direct maternal line.

rms2
09-01-2019, 01:41 PM
I don't regret having my mtDNA full genome test done, but I've got to say that mtDNA testing is the least productive type of dna testing I have done.

It's about as exciting as watching paint dry. Progress and mtDNA matches are just world's apart.

Nothing has changed my mind since I posted that.

Sigh . . .

I have some autosomal matches at Ancestry with my maternal great grandmother's maiden surname (Lancaster). She's my most distant known mtDNA ancestor. Unfortunately, those folks don't answer my messages.

rms2
07-02-2020, 05:22 PM
I'm glad I got the full sequence from FTDNA, and I wouldn't change it, but, geez, mtDNA testing and waiting for matches is like watching paint dry or grass grow. In fact, after a day or two of rain, I actually have to mow my grass.

Y-dna testing, on the other hand, has netted me all kinds of progress and excitement (really - no kidding).