MacGregor
DNA Project - update 2014
Welcome
to the annual update of the MacGregor DNA project. This year, at the time of writing, we had welcomed
78 new members to the project and several members upgraded their Y chromosome tests
from 37 to 67 markers, as well as ordering other tests which are available
through FamilyTreeDNA.
2014
will be a momentous year for Scotland - a year in which those living there will
be asked to vote 'yes' or 'no' to independence. The vote has been proposed by
the Scottish National Party (the SNP) who currently have the majority in the
Scottish Parliament. It will remain to be seen if this is the year of the SNP but I
mention this because another SNP will make the news this year. 2014 is being
described by genetic genealogists as 'the year of the SNP' and also as the year
of the 'SNP tsunami'. Of course the SNP being referred to here is
'Single-nucleotide polymorphism'. Most people who have engaged in DNA testing
are familiar with the sequence of numbers (12, 25, 37, 67 or 111) which result
from STR or 'short tandem repeat' analysis but the significance of the upcoming
SNP 'surge' is rather different.
Without
wishing to make the scientists among you groan I will give a very basic idea
here of what the difference is from the perspective of a DNA testing
participant. I have also given some information on SNPs in earlier blogs.
As I
said earlier, STR testing of the Y chromosome produces a series of number
scores which can be compared with others in the surname group. Thus, by the conventional
wisdom, those who share 33 out of 37 or 61 out of 67 markers are in common
descent from the same individual, usually the person with whom the surname
originated (or one of them, since surnames can have multiple origins). The
number sequence also defines the 'haplogroup' - which for the main MacGregor
line is R1b. The frustration for individuals with this test has been that while
it clearly indicates common origin, it does not, except in some rare cases,
really allow individuals to see if they are more closely related in historic
time since DNA mutation is random. An assumption has sprung up that those who
have less mutations difference with another member of the group must be related
in more recent time. This is unfortunately not the case. A mutation separating
individuals could have happened 200 years ago but it could equally well have
happened 600 years ago. What is needed is a more accurate time clock for
mutations causing a split in a family group. That is where SNPs come in.
The
technology is now sophisticated enough to be able to isolate these SNPs, and as
a result more detailed family trees based on genetic mutation can be
constructed, and the level of detail possible in these genetic trees will only
increase. The MacGregor Project has been fortunate to work with Dr Jim Wilson
of ScotlandsDNA and he is in the process of analysing results from a number of
MacGregors including the Chief's line [MacGregors of Glencarnaig].
The new SNPs and the Glencarnaig line
Chart
1 (chart is copyright ScotlandsDNA and Dr Jim Wilson)MacGregor tree SNPs (as at December 2013)
At
this point we do not have dates for the SNP mutations but the results for the
Chief's line indicate a split of that line from other MacGregors tested - and
we expect other MacGregor families will have similar splits which will mean
that those more closely related to each other will be able to identify roughly
at what point in time that split occurred. In the chart above, which has been
supplied by Dr Wilson, you will see that the Glencarnaig line has two
distinctive SNPs which characterise that family (the SNPs known as S696 and
S698). As more information becomes available we should be in a position to
actually broadly date these SNPs - currently only available for testing with
ScotlandsDNA who discovered them using their newly developed Chromo2
microchip. At this point, any MacGregors
who think they might be from this line can find out by doing the Chromo2 DNA
test at www.scotlandsdna.com. You can
choose to get the results presented in a brochure or you can just obtain the
raw DNA data.
On
the chart you will see many other numbers, sometimes prefixed by CTS, sometimes
S etc: all these are SNPs, many newly discovered. There will be much more interpretation
possible once the SNPs for various other MacGregors tested is made available
and so I am expecting to be writing a new update sometime during this year as
the results begin to filter out.
The MacFarlands ('hidden MacGregors')
Chart 2
During
the last year I was asked to draw a chart for the MacFarlands - now labelled
'hidden MacGregors' because their DNA doesn't match the MacFarlanes but rather
the MacGregors, which means at some point an ancestor adopted the MacFarland
name and never resumed MacGregor when it became legal to do so. Given the
MacGregors' history it would seem likely that this split occurred when
MacGregors were required to adopt different surnames following proscription
which was imposed from 1603. The family have a quaint tradition that their name
was adopted in America and was a reference to the fact that they came from a
Far Land. More prosaically, it was probably how some scribe wrote it down that
caused the final 'e' to change to 'd'.
The results which are displayed in the project, with one exception, seem
to indicate descent from one individual. What is harder to estimate is exactly
when that individual lived. There is a possibility that we are looking here at
a split which occurred just at the point of adoption of surnames - for the sake
of argument we'll call that 1300 - or, as I suggested above, we could be
looking at a spilt that happened around 1600. I would hope that SNPs will sort
this out in due course. What we can see is that there is a common point of
origin and from the mutations which happen within the family groups there is
pretty clear evidence that there are perhaps five or six different family
groups that have emerged from that common ancestor. More significantly, some
family groups have split again to produce those family groups associated with
kits 279525, 162109 and 192356 on the one hand, and 149452, 258767 and 237186
on the other. These groups should look at their paper trails to see if they can
identify an ancestor in the more recent past. It is possible also that 206815
and 189492 form a distinct family group.
The MacGregor Project 111 marker results
Chart 3
In
this section I will be looking at all the 111 marker results for the R1b group.
However I have included a version which shows 'Viking' Grier and Greer because
I want to show something which is rather interesting. The length of time of
genetic separation between the 'Viking' group, that is, haplogroup I, when
compared with the rather large R1b group, shows separation in time of thousands
of years. Yet see kit 33483 Grier and 1568 Greer - two individuals closely
related to each other and rather distant from 239031 Gregor. Now let's examine the lower portion of the
chart in more detail.
MacGregor
Chart 4 specific group 111 marker results
which includes MacGregor main line
+chart+4.png)
This
group of participants are very clearly a defined subgroup of R1b - observe the
time distance (going up into the top of the picture) between this group and the
other R1bs. This is where what I call the 'bloodline' MacGregors are, but as
you can see this group also includes various surnames such as Moore, Bourland,
Miller, McPherson, Boyd (a MacGregor alias it seems), Stuart (probably not the
Stuart main line), Bissett and Lark. Some of these individuals have tested for
the SNPs L1335 and L1065. It seems very likely that in this part of the chart individuals
will have the SNP L1335 and possibly also the SNP L1065 - these SNPs have been
tentatively dated to the middle of what we used to call the Dark Ages, perhaps 500-1000AD. As usual, one would expect
those individuals who share a branching line to be more closely related (such
as is clearly the case for the Millers 250470 and 234239). Often we see single
lines converging at a certain point and this suggests a common ancestor within
historic time. It might be worth participant 131269 doing the Chromo2 test to
see if he shares the unique SNPs of the Glencarnaig line.
Chart 5 - All 111 marker results except
Greer outliers [70% confidence with modal]
I
turn now to the rest of the 111 results. These are clearly very diverse but
within the results are some potentially interesting subgroups. Perhaps the most
important thing to say at first though is that most people are not related,
other than having a common origin, and the time distances for those that look
somewhat related probably takes those people - who tend to have different
surnames - to connections which may be 2000 or more years old.
That
said, 197837 McAdams and 165907 McAdam are clearly related, and it is not so
far back in time to the split with Hamill 270957 and, much earlier, Gammie
230380. It would be hard to put dates on these - geographical connection might
be possible here. The same applies to 273521 Chandler, 23361 Gregory, 138123
Black and 226146 March, and indeed every other group of results which have a
link later than the central point. There is one exception: 171234 McGee and
269879 McGee are clearly related to each other - that much is not surprising,
but the close connection of 278878 Bowers to these two indicates that 278878 is
actually a McGee - it would be interesting to know if there are any provable
genealogical links among these three.
Making connections
In
this final section I want to talk about how to make connections genetically
from the results table at the FtDNA website. When you go to the webpage
www.familytreedna.com/public/macgregor you will see that the various test
results have been grouped together. Generally speaking I will create a new
subgroup when two or more individuals share a common surname. Some individuals
have yet to be grouped and they are found in the 'ungrouped' section. When you
look at your results in the chart you will see that the company, FtDNA, group
people with like DNA together within the name groups that I have created. When
you find your own results you will see other individuals' results round yours.
For the most part, these individuals will be your closest relatives and, unless
you see a common ancestor indicated somewhere else in the subgroup (look in the
most distant ancestor column) those are the people you should compare yourself
with. If you want me to run a number of individual results together and produce
a diagram which shows connectedness (as I did for the McFarlands), I am happy
to do that. Two things however: first, I need you to identify the individuals
with whom you wish to be compared and, second, I need to be able to compare
like for like. 12 and 25 marker comparisons are not really very informative so
I am basically referring to 37, 67 or 111 marker comparisons. Comparing a 67-marker
result with a 37 will not produce useful results.
Please
contact me at richardmcgregor1ATyahoo.co.uk, substituting the @ sign for AT.
As
usual I have various acknowledgements:
The
charts are generated using Dean McGee’s program using 30 years per generation,
50% probability and Doug McDonald’s mutation rate average. The website for
Dean’s program is:
The networks are generated using the program Splitstree which is available at
www.splits tree.org. I use the Closest Tree filter. The citation for this
program is as follows:
D.
H. Huson and D. Bryant, Application of Phylogenetic Networks in Evolutionary Studies,
Mol. Biol. Evol., 23(2):254-267, 2006.
Richard McGregor
January 2014
STOP PRESS:
No sooner had I written this than an interested contact provided me with an updated version of Chart 1. The detail of this chart speaks for itself.
STOP PRESS:
No sooner had I written this than an interested contact provided me with an updated version of Chart 1. The detail of this chart speaks for itself.
Posts
