Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:11:23 -0330 (NST)
From: David Pike 
To: pike-dna-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Pike project news



Hi everybody.

In the email bulletin that I sent out in March, I mentioned a genetic 
genealogy conference that would be taking place near Washington DC in 
August.  This is my first bulletin since the conference took place so I'll 
report that the conference was a great success, with over 400 people 
attending it.  Most of the presentations were recorded and for a mosest 
fee can now be viewed online (see www.i4gg.org for details).  The 
conference organisers are making plans for another genetic genealogy 
conference, likely in the western USA in another year or so.

While speaking of conferences, in October I was in Houston for Family Tree 
DNA's annual conference for DNA project administrators.  As usual, it was 
a valuable opportunity to chat with other project administrators (several 
of whom I have come to know as friends), to share experiences and to learn 
new things.  It was also a great chance to see what Family Tree DNA is 
working on.  For instance, they have redesigned the way that family trees 
are handled in their system.  No longer is it necessary to upload a GEDCOM 
file that was generated by some family tree software; it is now possible 
to enter details for yourself, your parents, etc., directly through the 
FTDNA system.  Entering pedigree details is something that I encourage 
everybody to do by going to the "myFamilyTree" link from your personal 
webpage at FTDNA.

Something else that was announced during the conference in Houston is that 
FTDNA has changed how it handles uploads of autosomal DNA results from 
other companies.  In particular, they have eliminated the fee that they 
used to charge at the time of the upload.  Now people can upload their raw 
data and get a free glimpse of their top matches within FTDNA's Family 
Finder database.  Getting past the free glimpse involves either paying a 
small fee or referring four other people to also to an upload.  This 
applies to raw data provided by ancestry.com's DNA service (which is only 
available in the USA) as well as to data provided by 23andMe from about 
November 2010 to November 2013 (this is when 23andMe was using their V3 
chip; their older V2 and newer V4 chips are not quite compatible with 
FTDNA).  More details on this upload option are available at 
https://www.familytreedna.com/AutosomalTransfer

Another new development that is in the works appears to be a community 
forum environment in which project members can engage in collaborative 
discussion, etc.  Beta testing will soon be taking place with a few 
projects.  I'm not sure when this new feature will be released for all, 
but I wanted to give everybody some advance notice.



Now, to mention some Y-DNA results that haven't yet been highlighted, in 
July the 37 markers for Richard (kit 348831) were reported.  His DNA 
results place him within our project's Group 17, which has Pikes from 
several places so far, including Bristol, east Devon, south Dorset, London 
and the Burin Peninsula of Newfoundland.  Richard carries two distinctive 
marker values that are also carried by Dan (kit 219938) whose Pike 
ancestry hails from south Dorset and east Devon, ultimately tracing back 
to the parish of Yarcombe in Devon where his ancestor Otto Pike (son of 
William) was born about 1820.  The genetic affinity between Richard and 
Dan is reflected in their Pike origins too, for Richard's line also traces 
back to the parish of Yarcombe, where Richard's ancestor Robert Pike (son 
of James) was born about 1814.



Ralph (kit 357705) also tested 37 markers and was found to be a perfect 
match with James (kit 274050) in our Group 6.  As it turns out, Ralph and 
James are sixth cousins once removed, both of them descending from a John 
Pike who is believed to have been a son of James Pike who was an early 
settler of Charlestown and Reading in Massachusetts.



Turning now to Group 2, Albert (kit 357821) tested all 111 markers that 
are available for testing, making him the second member of Group 2 to do 
so.  The other member in Group 2 that has tested 111 markers is me (David, 
kit 23996).  It turns out that Albert and I matched on 109 out of 111 
markers, so it is very clear that we share common Pike ancestry.  We 
aren't yet able to establish our connection on paper though.  Albert 
descends from a Thomas Pike who was born about 1814 and eventually settled 
on the west coast of Newfoundland.  My line goes back to a Henry Pike who 
was born about 1809 at/near Carbonear, Newfoundland and whose father and 
grandfather were both named Thomas.  The sheer abundance of Pikes living 
at/near Carbonear at the time, coupled with the scarcity of records prior 
to the early 1800s, makes it very difficult to reliably determine just who 
the parents of Albert's Thomas were most likely to have been.



This next section is a bit technical, so consider yourself forewarned.  A 
year ago I mentioned the "Big Y" test that FTDNA announced at its 2013 
conference.  Since then two members of our project have taken this test: 
me and Stephen (kit 343554).  The Big Y test analyses on the order of ten 
million SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) on the male Y chromosome. 
It is SNPs that are used to validate people's Y-DNA haplogroups (such as 
R1a, R1b, etc.) as well as their subgroups.  Part of the idea with the Big 
Y test is to test sufficiently many SNPs that it might become possible to 
not only pinpoint a man's subgroup within the larger haplogroups, but also 
to discover SNPs that can be used to separate different branches of a 
family even within the past few hundred years.  However, to do this 
effectively would require having Big Y results from several individuals 
from different branches of a family tree.  I'm in Group 2, whereas Stephen 
is in our Group 20, so comparing our results is not especially relevant.

As for what I have so far learned from my own Big Y test results, let me 
start by noting that of the ten million or so SNPs that were tested, 36275 
of them had been previously identified and named within the scientific 
literature.  Of these 36275, I tested positive for 533 of them and 
negative for the rest.  The positive ones define branching points in the 
human Y-DNA tree that trace out my line from Y-DNA Adam down to me.  In 
addition to these 533 "known" SNPs for which I am positive, a further 81 
"novel" SNPs (i.e., having not yet been named) were found to be positive 
in my DNA.  These too should correpond to branching points, although their 
location in relation to the known branching points is not yet certain. 
One of the purposes of the Big Y test is to discovery new branching 
points, position them within the Y-DNA tree, and also name them and their 
corresonding haplogroups.

In terms of haplogroups, I've known since I did my first DNA test that I 
fit into the large R1b haplogroup.  Further SNP testing subsequently 
revealed that I'm in the subgroup of R1b defined by the SNP named L21, and 
then in the subgroup of L21 that is defined by the SNP named DF13, and 
then in the subgroup of DF13 defined by the SNP named Z253, and then again 
into a subgroup of Z253 that is defined by the SNP L554.  So far the L554 
subgroup seems to be fairly specific, with men from only five surnames 
having been found to fit into it (namely the surnames Brown, Perry, Pike 
[specifically, the Pikes of our project's Group 2], Wilcox and Williams). 
The Z253 subgroup is much larger and has had several members do the Big Y 
test.  When reporting my Big Y test results, FTDNA indicates that of my 81 
"novel" SNPs, I share about 50 of them other members from various 
subgroups of Z253 (that is from subgroups other than my L554).  Hence 
there are about 30 SNPs that are so far unique to me and which presumably 
arose as mutations along my paternal line at some time after when my line 
diverged from that of the other Z253 men who have done the Big Y test. 
With Z253 being estimated to have itself arisen about 3000 years ago, this 
suggests that "novel" SNPs are arising at the rate of about one per 
century, or about once every two or three generations.  This suggests that 
there is very real potential for using the Big Y test in conjunction with 
the standard 37/67/111 Y markers to re-create the structure and branching 
points of a family tree in the absence of historical records to do so. 
The extent to which this potential is or isn't realised won't be known for 
some time though, not until more widespread Big Y testing is done.

One drawback about the Big Y test that was mentioned at the Houston 
conference is that it is such an intense test that it is imperative that 
the test be performed on a relatively freshly taken DNA sample.  Samples 
that FTDNA has in storage from two or more years ago have often been found 
to not provide satisfactory results.  Indeed, my own Big Y test results 
were delayed by several months since the intial attempt at analysing my 
DNA from a vial in storage failed, and then FTDNA mailed me some swabs and 
vials so that I could provide them with a new DNA sample.



One last item that I want to mention in this message is that earlier today 
Family Tree DNA began its 2014 holiday sale.  Reduced prices for most new 
orders and upgrades are now in effect, with the price reduction lasting 
until the end of December.  Moreover, current customers can access a 
supplementary coupon code when they login to their personal webpages 
within the FTDNA website.  Several genetic genealogy bloggers have 
provided more details about this, so instead of making this email message 
even more lengthy I'll just refer people to this blog post by Roberta 
Estes: 
http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/25/family-tree-dna-holiday-sale-including-mystery-rewards-starts-now/


Thanks,

- David.